Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Official Transcript of Proceedings
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Meeting of the AP1000 Subcommittee
Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
Rockville, Maryland
Date:
Wednesday, July 23, 2009
Work Order No.:
NRC-2982
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 234-4433
Pages 1-343
1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
+ + + + +
AP1000 SUBCOMMITTEE
+ + + + +
THURSDAY
JULY 23, 2009
+++++
The Subcommittee convened, at 8:30 a.m.,
in
room
T2-B3,
Headquarters,
at
11545
Nuclear
Regulator
Rockville
Pike,
Commission
Rockville,
Maryland, Harold B. Ray, Chair, presiding.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
2
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
HAROLD B. RAY, Chair
SANJOY BANERJEE
SAID ABDEL-KHALIK
CHARLES H. BROWN, JR.
CONSULTANTS TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE PRESENT:
THOMAS S. KRESS
NRC STAFF PRESENT:
MICHAEL LEE, Designated Federal Official
STEPHANIE COFFIN
EILEEN McKENNA
FRANK AKSTULEWISZ
RAVI JOSHI
JOE SEBROSKY
SERITA SANDERS
ERIC OESTERLE
PERRY BUCKBERG
DAVID TERAO
NEIL RAY
GENE HSII
DEVENDER REDDY
KEN MOTT
GREG MAKAR
SUJATA GOETZ
JIM TATUM
STEVE SCHAFFER
ED ROACH
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
3
ALSO PRESENT:
JACK BAILEY
ED CUMMINS
ANDREA STERDIS
ROB SISK
EDDIE GRANT
JOHN DEBLASIO
DALE WISEMAN
KEITH SCHWAB
BILL PANTIS
TOM SPINK
TOM RAY
TIM MENEELEY
AMY AUGHTMAN
WILLIAM SMITH
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
4
C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S
Opening Remarks and Objectives
Harold B. Ray, ACRS
7
Opening Statement
Frank Akstulewisz
12
Opening Comments
Jack Bailey
Vice President
Nuclear Generation Development
14
14
Ed Cummins
Vice President of Regulatory Affairs
and Standardization
Westinghouse
17
Eileen McKenna
Branch Chief, Office of New Reactors
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
18
Stephanie Coffin
NRC Staff
21
Andrea Sterdis
Manager of Licensing for Nuclear Generation
Development and Construction
38, 47
Eddie Grant
Lead Licensing Engineer
NuStart
39
Rob Sisk
AP1000 Licensing Manager
48
DCD/FSAR - Chapter 1
Rob Sisk
AP1000 Licensing Manager
62
Eddie Grant
Lead Licensing Engineer
NuStart
70
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
5
C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)
CDA for Chapter 1
Serita Sanders
109
Bellefonte COLA
Joe Sebroksy
114
DCD/FSAR - Chapter 5
John Deblasio
Licensing Lead for Chapter 5
131
Eddie Grant
NuStart
170
SER - Chapter 5 - Staff
Perry Buckberg
Senior Project Manager
AP1000 Projects Branch
Dave Terao
Chief, Component Integrity Branch
Division of Engineering
182
184, 205
Gene Hsii
197
Ravi Joshi
204
DCD/FSAR - Chapter 10
Rob Sisk
AP1000 Licensing Manager
226
Tom Spink
Licensing Project Manager
Bellefonte 3 and 4
TVA
254
Perry Buckberg
Senior Project Manager
AP1000 Projects Branch
260
Devender Reddy
261
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
6
C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)
Greg Makar
270
Sujata Goetz
Project Manager
Bellefonte COL, Chapter 10
273
Greg Makar
274
Devender Reddy
277
DCD/FSAR - Chapter 11
Tom Ray
AP1000 Licensing Engineer for Chapter 11
294
Amy Aughtman
Licensing Engineer
Southern Nuclear Operating Company
300
Serita Sanders
Project Manager
Chapter 11, Design Certification Amendment
307
Steve Schaffer
308, 319
Ravi Joshi
319
DCD/FSAR - Chapter 12
Tom Ray
AP1000 Licensing Engineer for Chapter 11
323
Amy Aughtman
Licensing Engineer
Southern Nuclear Operating Company
326
Serita Sanders
Project Manager
Chapter 11, Design Certification Amendment
333
Ed Roach
334
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
7
1
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
8:29 a.m.
2
CHAIR RAY:
3
4
(presiding)
We will come to
order, please.
This is the first day of the meeting of
5
6
the
AP1000
Reactor
7
subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Reactor
8
Safeguards, or ACRS.
am
Subcommittee,
Harold
Ray,
a
Chairman
standing
9
I
of
this
10
Subcommittee.
11
Abdel-Khalik, Sanjoy Banerjee, Charles Brown, Jr.,
12
and Tom Kress.
Other members in attendance are Said
13
Tom is an emeritus member of the ACRS and
14
a former Committee Chairman, and is seated here at
15
the table with us today.
16
available to us.
17
Mike
18
Lee,
of
We appreciate his being
the
ACRS
staff,
is
the
Designated Federal Official for the meeting.
19
The purpose of this Subcommittee meeting
20
over the next two years will be to commence the
21
reviews and discussions concerning Revision 17 to the
22
Design
23
standard plant design of the AP1000 Pressurized Water
24
Reactor.
Control
Document,
or
DCD,
describing
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
8
1
In
January
2009,
the
Westinghouse
2
Electric Company submitted Revision 17 of the DCD to
3
the
4
staff in the Office of New Reactor Licensing have
5
been engaged in review of those revisions and have
6
completed this review with meetings with Westinghouse
7
representatives
8
Center Group.
U.S.
Regulatory
and
Commission.
members
of
Since
the
then,
AP1000
the
Design
9
Upon completion of this review, the staff
10
will issue a final Safety Evaluation Report related
11
to the certification of the Revised Standard Design.
12
As part of the design certification process, the NRC
13
staff are required to obtain the views of the ACRS.
14
Today and in subsequent meetings, the Subcommittee
15
will hear from the staff on the results of their DCD
16
review.
17
In parallel with the DCD certification
18
review, the staff are also in process of reviewing
19
the Combined Operating License Application, or COLA,
20
for two AP1000-type reactors at the former Bellefonte
21
reactor site in Jackson County, Alabama.
In
22
October
2007,
the
Tennessee
Valley
23
Authority and the Multi-Utility Consortium Nustart
24
Energy
submitted
a
COLA
for
two
AP1000
reactors
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
9
1
designated Units 3 and 4 at the Bellefonte site.
2
has selected the Bellefonte site as the reference
3
application, or R-COLA, for the operation of other
4
Westinghouse AP1000 reactors by other utilities.
Since
5
then,
the
NRC
staff
have
TVA
been
6
engaged in the review of TVA's final Safety Analysis
7
Report, submitted as part of the R-COLA, and have
8
prepared Draft Safety Evaluation Reports with open
9
items on selected chapters of the Combined License
10
Application.
11
As part of the review process, the staff
12
are also required to obtain the views of the ACRS
13
before an Operating License can be approved.
14
and in subsequent meetings, the Subcommittee will
15
also hear from the staff on the results of their
16
R-COLA reviews.
Today
17
And I'll digress for a moment and say
18
that there has been some experience, I think, with
19
another subcommittee as well in which the information
20
that is applicable from the DCD to the R-COLA will be
21
presented here in a way that we may want to comment
22
on as we go forward to make most efficient use of our
23
time, so that we're focusing on the things that are
24
different in the R-COLA and should, therefore, have
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
10
1
our attention emphasized.
We will address that as we
2
get into it rather than trying to fix any rules here
3
now.
I understand the copies of the detailed
4
5
meeting agenda have been made available.
6
regard,
7
honored to be among members of the Committee who have
8
been entitled to carry the title "doctor"; however, I
9
am not.
10
I
will
again
digress
and
say
In that
that
I
am
So the agenda is incorrect in that regard.
I'm merely Mr. Ray or Member Ray.
11
(Laughter.)
12
In looking at the agenda, you will see
13
that for each chapter a standard briefing template
14
will be followed that consists of essentially four
15
elements.
One,
16
a
discussion
of
the
Revision
17
17
changes to the DCD and the significance of those
18
changes over the NRC-certified Revision 15.
A discussion of the site-specific FSAR
19
20
corresponding to the DCD chapter just described.
A
21
discussion
of
the
proposed
Safety
22
Evaluation Report derived following the review of the
23
R-COLA, which is pertinent to the comment I made
24
earlier.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
11
And
1
2
a
discussion
of
applicable
open
items.
Individuals representing the NRC staff,
3
4
Westinghouse,
TVA,
and
NuStart
will
lead
these
5
discussions as appropriate, and that is described in
6
the agenda.
In summary, the Subcommittee intends to
7
8
gather
information,
9
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions
10
as appropriate from this meeting for deliberation by
11
the full Committee of the ACRS at a later date.
I
12
will
analyze
note
relevant
that
there
issues
has
been
and
an
13
indication by the staff that interim letters may be
14
desired.
15
further and with the full Committee.
We will, of course, have to discuss that
They
16
also
determined
that
additional
17
meetings on one or more of the items discussed over
18
the next two days merits additional study by the
19
Committee, by this Subcommittee.
20
The rules for participation in today's
21
meeting have been announced as part of the notice of
22
the
23
Register.
24
comments or requests for time to make oral statements
meeting
previously
published
in
The
Federal
I believe we have received no written
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
12
1
from interested members of the public regarding the
2
subject of today's meeting.
3
I understand we have the speakerphone in
4
operation, and we have some subject matter experts
5
who may be called upon over that line.
6
those individuals participating in the Subcommittee
7
meeting over the telephone bridge lines place their
8
speakerphones on mute.
We ask that
As stated in our earlier Federal Register
9
10
notice,
a
transcript
of
this
meeting
is
being
11
prepared and will be made publicly available in the
12
near future on the ACRS website.
Therefore, we request that anyone wishing
13
14
to
address
the
15
microphones located throughout this meeting room.
16
request that you first identify yourself and your
17
affiliation and you speak with sufficient clarity and
18
volume, so that your comments may be readily heard
19
and recorded.
We
20
Subcommittee
also
request
use
that,
one
if
you
of
are
the
We
in
21
possession of cell phones or some type of electronic
22
paging device, you adjust it to silent mode or turn
23
it off, so as not to interrupt the meeting.
Now, having said all this, we can now
24
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
13
1
proceed with the meeting.
2
that
3
NRO's Division of New Reactor Licensing, will make an
4
opening statement.
Frank
Akstulewisz,
MR.
5
6
But, first, I understand
a
Deputy
AKSTULEWISZ:
Director
Thank
of
you,
the
Mr.
Chairman.
I appreciate the Committee meeting with
7
8
us over the next couple of days.
I was going to
9
restate some of the points that you have made, but
10
you have made them so eloquently I'm not going to
11
restate them, in the interest of time.
But I do want to mention two things.
12
One
13
is not only is this a significant milestone in the
14
progress
15
transition point for the R-COLA specifically, that we
16
will be moving from Bellefonte to Vogtle for the
17
completion
18
progress.
of
this
of
those
Second,
19
review,
it
does
activities
I
want
to
as
echo
establish
the
these
reviews
your
concerns
20
about effective use of time.
21
ways that the Committee can help the staff, help the
22
Committee in getting through the tremendous amount of
23
information,
24
suggestions about how to more effectively use the
we
are
I think if there are
certainly
open
to
those
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
14
1
Committee's
2
responsibilities to meet with each other.
and
still
be
successful
CHAIR RAY:
Frank, before you do, excuse
6
me.
7
transition from Bellefonte to Vogtle?
8
appear to us?
Could you comment a little further on this
MS. COFFIN:
9
slide in my presentation.
11
waiting, I can talk to that.
So if you don't mind
12
CHAIR RAY:
13
MR. AKSTULEWISZ:
CHAIR RAY:
16
MS. COFFIN:
All right.
I will let Stephanie
Okay, fine.
Go ahead.
Ed or Jack, would you like
to make opening comments?
MR. BAILEY:
18
Sure.
I will be very brief
here.
One, we are appreciative of the Committee
20
21
Sure.
take it.
15
19
How will it
I actually have a particular
10
17
our
Stephanie or Eileen.
5
14
at
So, with that, I will turn it over to
3
4
time
and the staff for allowing --
22
MS.
23
yourself, Jack.
COFFIN:
MR. BAILEY:
24
You
need
to
introduce
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm Jack
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
15
1
Bailey.
I'm the Vice President of Nuclear Generation
2
Development for TVA.
I'm
3
listed
as
a
presenter,
but
my
4
presentation is this part, and it is going to be
5
fairly
6
where I need to contribute a response.
short
unless
particular
questions
come
up
7
We are appreciative of the Committee and
8
the staff for finding a way to break up the review of
9
our lengthy application into parts, this being the
10
first part of three that we expect throughout this
11
year.
12
sufficiently review the detail we need to and yet do
13
it in a timely fashion as the information is ready.
14
So we appreciate and thank you for that.
We think it is a very effective way for us to
The second thing is I think this, to our
15
16
understanding, is unique.
17
meeting we had a short while back, we talked about
18
the fact that this was multiple utilities, NuStart
19
organization
20
applicant, all working together to standardize most
21
of the content of a COL application.
coordinating
In
22
In the introductory of a
addition
to
that
activity,
that,
in
this
and
an
meeting
23
today we also have the vendor and the DCD information
24
being provided in parallel.
I'm sure we will hear
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
16
1
more about that going through, but, to our knowledge,
2
the previous types of discussions the ACRS has had to
3
hear have not had the opportunity to combine all of
4
it in such a way and, as you said, lay the foundation
5
for future applications that are going to come in and
6
use that same information in the same way.
So
7
that
sometimes
causes
confusion
8
because it is unique, but it has actually worked
9
extremely
well,
and
the
utilities
that
have
been
10
working on this process have worked for a long time
11
to ensure that we standardize this content as much as
12
possible.
13
The only other thing I will mention is
14
that -- well, let me just go ahead and introduce, is
15
the best thing to do, so we can move on to the
16
topics.
17
In addition to myself today doing the
18
presentations, we are going to have Andrea Sterdis up
19
at the front desk.
20
TVA.
21
Manager for TVA, and the one that is the day-to-day
22
point of contact.
23
will introduce himself in more detail later, with
24
NuStart.
That is the Licensing Manager for
We will have Tom Spink, also Licensing Project
We will have Eddie Grant, and he
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
17
Amy
1
Aughtman,
with
Southern
Nuclear
2
Company, is back to my right, will also be listed,
3
and Peter Hastings, who has done the yeoman's work on
4
coordinating the CDWG efforts for the five years that
5
have been working together to try to make sure this
6
content
7
speaker.
8
some of the items I have mentioned.
has
been
standardized,
will
also
be
a
I'm sure he will go into more detail on
Finally, TVA is the license applicant,
9
10
despite
the
fact
we
have
11
utilities.
12
the management of TVA to ensure that you recognize
13
that we see this as a serious application for us, and
14
not just an effort to standardize an application for
15
the industry.
Thank you.
17
MR. CUMMINS:
we
have
President
My name is Ed Cummins, and
18
I'm
19
Standardization for Westinghouse.
of
Regulatory
I will also be brief.
20
and
So, clearly, I'm here today to represent
16
Vice
NuStart
Affairs
and
I think maybe it
21
is useful to set an economic background of what is
22
going on with AP1000.
We
23
24
have
sold
in
China,
after
the
certification at the end of 2005 for AP1000 reactors,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
18
1
two at the Sanmen site and two at the Haiying site.
2
The
3
concrete in March of this year, and now you can see
4
that they have some of the large structural modules
5
set in place.
6
Sanmen.
Sanmen
site
initial
first
safety-related
So things are proceeding quite well at
And
7
had
at
Haiying,
the
first
nuclear
8
structural concrete is scheduled for August, so next
9
month.
So things are moving along in China.
In the United States, there have been
10
11
seven
site
applications
for
COL,
each
12
AP1000s, siting AP1000 as the technology, from six
13
customers.
14
significant interest in the U.S. in proceeding with
15
AP1000.
So Progress has two sites.
for
two
So there is a
16
And there are three customers who have
17
signed contracts with Westinghouse and Shaw to build
18
AP1000s.
19
site preparation work has actually started.
20
the Vogtle site and the Virgil Summer site.
21
third contract is Progress/Levy Florida.
Then two of those sites, construction and
That is
The
I would also like to introduce our key
22
23
staff.
Rob Sisk is at the front table.
He is
24
responsible for the NRC interface and licensing in
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
19
1
the United States.
2
here.
I'm sure he will do a great job
3
That concludes my remarks.
4
MS. McKENNA:
5
Okay, thank you.
I'll pick
up now.
I'm Eileen McKenna.
6
I'm a Branch Chief
7
in the NRC's Office of New Reactors, responsible for
8
AP1000 projects.
9
review of the Design Certification Amendment.
I just have some brief overview remarks.
10
11
In particular, I'm focusing on the
You
will
recall
that
we
had
a
more
detailed
12
discussion with the full Committee in May on this
13
overall project and how we are fitting the Design
14
Certification and the COL reviews together.
15
just
16
presentation
17
morning's discussion.
pulled
a
few
to
kind
slides
of
set
from
the
that
stage
So I
earlier
for
this
18
The first slide is really just a little
19
history of the certification as originally put forth,
20
referred to as Rev 15, which is the version that was
21
actually certified by Appendix D to Part 52.
22
mentioned, it was issued late in 2005, and the staff
23
Safety Evaluation was NUREG-1793 that documented the
24
review of that application.
As was
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
20
We
1
are
now
Amendment
reviewing
application.
the
We
Design
2
Certification
actually
3
received Revision 16 in May 2007, and it was premised
4
on the provisions in 10 CFR 52.63, finality of Design
5
Certifications that provides the means by which a
6
party may seek to amend a Design Certification.
7
Subsequently, we received Revision 17 of
8
the Design Certification Amendment application that
9
updated
the
10
results
of
11
occurred in that intervening time.
application
interactions
to
reflect
with
the
12
Next slide, please.
13
The
staff's
review
changes
staff
of
that
the
and
have
Design
14
Certification Amendment is following the typical six-
15
phase review schedule that you have probably heard of
16
for other applications, where Phase 2 is the issuance
17
of the SER with open items.
18
right now, which is the meeting with the Committee on
19
the SER with open items, and then Phase 4, 5, and 6
20
is an Advanced Final SER, the additional interaction
21
with the Committee on that product, and then issuance
22
of the final.
Since this is an amendment, the staff is
23
24
Phase 3 is what we're in
focusing
its
review
on
the
changes
that
are
set
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
21
1
forth.
It is not a complete Design Certification
2
review de novo.
3
and we are using our Standard Review Plan to guide
4
the staff's review in terms of the areas to be looked
5
at and the acceptance criteria that would apply.
So we are focusing on the changes,
6
As was I think mentioned earlier, one of
7
the things we are doing is issuing, as we saw, we
8
issued individual chapters rather than an entire SER
9
with
open
items.
This
was
to
facilitate
the
10
structuring of some of these interactions with the
11
Committee and not have 19 chapters for both a Design
12
Cert and a R-COL, trying to be reviewed all at the
13
same
14
chapters, but by the time of the Advanced SER, they
15
will all come back together and be one SER to move
16
forward as a final.
time.
So
we
did
issue
them
as
individual
Unless there's questions, that is all I
17
18
had to say on this.
We will, of course, introduce
19
the staff members when we come up for individual
20
chapter presentations because we have quite a number
21
who will be presenting.
22
CHAIR RAY:
Eileen, would you speak to
23
the chapters -- the heading up here refers both to
24
the DCD and to Bellefonte.
Could you talk about
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
22
1
these individual chapters that have been broken out
2
from
3
Bellefonte and a chapter related to the DCD?
the
SER
in
terms
of
MS. McKENNA:
4
a
chapter
Okay.
related
to
What we did was we
5
worked very closely together to time our issuance and
6
stage of readiness of these chapters to bring forward
7
to the Committee chapters where we have an SER with
8
open items for both the Design Cert and the COL.
9
you notice closely on the timing, we would issue the
10
COL chapter after we had reached a conclusion on the
11
Design Cert chapters.
12
together; where there was information that was being
13
relied upon in the Design Cert, that the COL then
14
would match up with that.
15
chapters is really based on those that were at the
16
state of readiness to bring forward to the Committee,
17
but the important point is that we have the same
18
chapters proposed.
We made sure that they fit
So the selection of the
I'm not sure if that totally answered
19
20
If
your question, but if not, let me try again.
MS. COFFIN:
21
Our goal was to provide you
22
with an integrated picture of how the licensing of an
23
applicant,
24
information from the SER and the individual COL, how
the
big
picture,
the
DCD
and
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
23
1
they come together to form a complete picture of
2
meeting our regulations in all aspects.
My name is Stephanie Coffin and I'm on
3
4
her team.
My focus, though, our Branch focus is on
5
the COL reviews.
6
Similar to Westinghouse, with Bellefonte,
7
we're doing a six-phase review schedule, and we are
8
in Phase 3 right now.
I'm meeting with the ACRS.
9
This review and the SERs that you have in
10
front of you are based on Revision 1 of their FSAR,
11
which, in turn, incorporates by reference DCD Rev 17.
12
I use the term in general because you will see
13
occasionally
in
the
Safety
Evaluation
Reports
we
14
actually reviewed material that was submitted beyond
15
Revision 1, and when we did so, we noted it in the
16
SER.
17
So the structure of the SER is with open
18
items there are sort of three major characteristics
19
that
20
sections that incorporate by reference the Design
21
Control Document.
22
the SER for the COLs is that that incorporate by
23
reference
24
applicant.
you
will
is
see
in
each
chapter.
There
are
The staff finding that we make in
appropriate
and
applicable
to
that
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
24
We don't repeat the matters in the DCD in
1
2
the SER for the COL.
We point, instead, to the NUREG
3
that documents the regulatory basis and the technical
4
evaluation for the DCD findings.
5
The second major characteristic that you
6
will see in the SER is description of standard COL
7
content.
8
the COL application as appropriate.
Those evaluations will be applicable to all
9
Then there will be a third part of each
10
SER, whether a site-specific that is applicable only
11
to TVA and Bellefonte.
12
very clear with the annotations about which is what
13
part.
CHAIR RAY:
14
In the SERs, we tried to be
And it is the last point, of
15
course, which is of greatest interest to us in terms
16
of
17
meetings.
the
discussion
MS. COFFIN:
18
19
we
Also,
the
standard
will
be
having
in
these
That is certainly important.
COL
content,
which
is
an
20
important amount of information, this is your major
21
opportunity to provide us feedback on that content.
22
Because when we come back to you on subsequent COLs,
23
we are not going to repeat that information to the
24
ACRS.
So
this
is
your
opportunity
to
give
us
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
25
1
feedback on standard content.
2
CHAIR RAY:
3
CONSULTANT KRESS:
4
Okay.
Will this standard COL
show up as a NUREG document or will it be a -MS. COFFIN:
5
Eventually, it will be a
6
NUREG document.
7
Safety Evaluation Report.
8
eventually to turn it into a NUREG.
You
9
Right now, it is simply an ADAMS
asked
a
But the goal would be
question
about
the
R-COL
10
applicant transition.
11
is going to be continued to be issued based on the
12
TVA/Bellefonte
13
Southern/Vogtle is going to respond to all open items
14
that
15
Southern/Vogtle
16
specific issues that remain on their review.
17
be evaluating those responses and will be developing
18
the Advanced Final SER with no open items, which is
19
the document that we will come to you with, based on
20
the Southern Nuclear Application.
21
the first AP1000 COL application to come to the ACRS
22
for final determination.
are
application.
related
to
also
has
CHAIR RAY:
23
24
The entire SER with open items
The
standard
to
plan
is
content.
respond
to
that
Then
any
site-
We will
So that will be
So we will see it in that
form first?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
26
1
MS. COFFIN:
2
MEMBER BANERJEE:
3
Correct.
Stephanie, can you give
us an idea of schedule or is that coming up?
4
MS. COFFIN:
Is Ravi here?
5
MR. JOSHI:
This is Ravi Joshi, lead PM
6
April 2010?
for the Vogtle COLA.
7
Right now, the schedule for completion of
8
that one FSAR is December of 2010, and then coming to
9
the Committee on February of 2011.
MEMBER BROWN:
10
11
12
you addressing today?
Excuse me.
Which SERs are
I noticed there were two sets.
There is an SER against the DCD, Rev 17.
against
the
Bellefonte
13
SER
14
understand which one you are going to be talking
15
about today.
16
MS. COFFIN:
17
MEMBER BROWN:
18
COL.
I
There's an
still
Both.
Oh, both?
Okay.
All
right.
MS. McKENNA:
19
I think when we get into
20
the presentations, it will become more clear.
21
if not, please ask again.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
22
23
don't
But,
You are looking for an
interim letter from us or is that not correct?
MS. COFFIN:
24
We would like an interim
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
27
1
letter.
MEMBER
2
3
BANERJEE:
In
our
September
meeting or full Committee?
MS. COFFIN:
4
We would like one as soon as
5
you can get us one.
6
interaction, and getting your written comments only
7
helps us make sure we address any comments you have
8
when we come back to you with the Advanced Final SER.
9
So we are hopeful that you can provide us such a
10
I mean we benefit from this
letter.
CHAIR RAY:
11
letter
that
comes
Excuse me.
to
my
The issue with
12
the
mind
is
one
of
13
completeness.
14
where we are prepared to issue a letter as if that is
15
the last we are going to say on this subject?
In other words, are we to the point
16
I guess what I had said to Sanjoy a bit
17
ago is we need to discuss whether or not we are clear
18
that any letter is strictly limited to what comments
19
the Committee has at the time, but does not represent
20
finality from our standpoint.
MS. COFFIN:
21
22
23
We understand that.
This is
a subset of information that you are receiving today.
It is 10 chapters.
It is not the whole review.
I would just reiterate it is helpful for
24
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
28
1
us to have written comments, with the goal being that
2
we address any concerns that you have before we come
3
back.
Having it written helps us.
4
CHAIR RAY:
Sure.
5
Tom?
6
CONSULTANT KRESS:
When you have an IBR
7
in a COLA, is it referring to the Revised DCD or the
8
older DCD?
MS. COFFIN:
9
10
It is referring to Revision
17, which is under review.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
11
So you may have to
12
look at those and the DCD at the same time to see if
13
they are appropriate?
14
MS. COFFIN:
15
MEMBER BROWN:
16
CONSULTANT KRESS:
17
MEMBER BROWN:
18
CONSULTANT KRESS:
19
You said IBR?
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, it will refer
back to the DCD.
MEMBER BROWN:
20
21
Correct.
now.
Yes, yes, yes, I've got it
I just forgot that.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
22
If I go back to the
23
previous slide, the implication of this structure is
24
that any matter that is presented within the standard
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
29
1
COL of content or the site-specific COL content does
2
not have much of an impact on any material that had
3
been already incorporated by reference from the CDs.
4
How do you assure that that is the case?
MS. COFFIN:
5
6
I'm not sure I understand
the question.
MEMBER
7
ABDEL-KHALIK:
Okay.
If
you
8
divide this into three categories, material that is
9
incorporated by reference, material that is standard
10
COL content, and material that is site-specific, and
11
if I were to look at this, the implication is that
12
what
13
incorporated by reference is you sort of confirm that
14
it is appropriate to incorporate that material by
15
reference.
16
material that is incorporated in the standard COL
17
content
18
content, does not impact the applicability of the
19
material that had been incorporated by reference?
you
do
or
in
reviewing
material
that
is
But how do you assure that the choice of
the
site-specific,
MS. McKENNA:
20
the
the
specific
COL
I think that we always come
21
at it from the other side, that there's kind of a
22
complete set of information that needs to be covered
23
by a COL in a particular chapter, and there is a set
24
of that information that was reviewed and evaluated
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
30
1
as part of the Design Certification as being design
2
information,
3
like selection of materials we would expect would be
4
part of the design.
which
would
include
primarily
things
5
Then, incorporated by reference, the COL
6
is essentially committing that that is the material
7
that they are going to use in their particular plant.
8
9
10
The
standard
and
the
site-specific
tends
to
be
information that supplements that design information.
It may have a more operational focus.
It is things
11
that may not be specific to the actual design.
12
kind of build the pieces together.
There
13
is
whatever
is
the
So we
design
14
information that is in the Design Certification that
15
is incorporated by reference and becomes then part of
16
the COL application.
17
but it is that other set of information that, because
18
of its nature, all the applicants --
There is the standard content,
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
19
I understand this,
20
but is there a formal process by which you see where
21
any
22
touches
23
reference and confirm that it doesn't have any impact
24
on
material
the
any
that
is
material
applicability
within
that
of
these
is
that
two
categories
incorporated
material
that
by
is
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
31
1
incorporated by reference?
MS. COFFIN:
2
in
3
process
4
responsibility, but, of course, we review this as
5
well.
6
DCD, they are required to request a departure or an
7
exemption from that DCD.
of
MEMBER
staff's
it
is
the
applicant's
If they find some things in conflict with the
8
9
terms
But there is some formal
review,
So there is --
ABDEL-KHALIK:
that
the
of
the
checking
11
standard COL content or the site-specific interacts
12
or impacts the applicability of the material that is
13
incorporated by reference, that is not part of your
14
formal review process?
MS. COFFIN:
that
is
any
interaction
15
material
within
10
16
between
process
But
in
Well, I guess I would like
to think that it is.
17
(Laughter.)
18
I mean there are multiple checks.
19
the
This
doesn't happen all the time, but -MEMBER
20
ABDEL-KHALIK:
My
question
is
21
really very specific and process-oriented.
22
a structured process by which you determine that that
23
is, indeed, the case?
MS. McKENNA:
24
Is there
I guess, to me, I think to
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
32
1
a
certain
degree,
2
would
3
information
4
particular chapter is within the Design Certification
5
and
6
complete and, as Stephanie said, it is applicable to
7
the particular COL, or there is information that was
8
not
9
necessary to complete the review in that particular
lead
they
the
staff
that
can
included
using
the
Standard
through
that.
they
are
conclude
in
the
seeking
that
Design
that
to
Review
Plan
Either
find
in
information
Certification
the
that
a
is
is
10
topic area.
Then they would look to the COL concept
11
to provide that additional information, whether it be
12
standard or site-specific.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
13
Well, perhaps it
14
would be helpful if somewhere along the line, if you
15
can find a specific example where your review guided
16
by that process has led you to identify an item that
17
had previously been incorporated by reference that,
18
in your judgment, based on the choice of the standard
19
COL content or the site-specific COL content, that
20
item is no longer appropriate to be incorporated by
21
reference.
MS. McKENNA:
22
Yes.
As we said, we can
23
take that and see, as we go through the chapters, if
24
we touch on one of these.
If not, we may have to
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
33
1
seek something out more specifically.
2
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
3
CONSULTANT KRESS:
Good.
Thank you.
The standard COL won't
4
have places in it where this will be incorporated by
5
reference?
6
MS. McKENNA:
7
CONSULTANT KRESS:
8
Oh, it does.
You will have those in
the standards?
MS. McKENNA:
9
Uh-hum.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
10
I thought that would
11
be a site plant-specific guide, the COLA itself, and
12
where they would make that decision.
13
MS. McKENNA:
Every COL application has
14
to stand completely on its own merits.
15
making
16
specific content is the staff is not going to re-
17
review the same thing seven times.
18
do it once.
19
to
20
applied to that plant.
21
that needs to be done to make sure it is appropriate
22
that that standard across the fleet of AP1000 --
make
distinction
between
standard
and
site-
We only want to
Although with the subsequents, we want
sure
that
standard
is
appropriate
to
be
So there is kind of a review
MEMBER BANERJEE:
23
24
a
The point of
I guess interfacing to
the grid would be a site-specific --
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
34
1
MS. COFFIN:
2
We talked about the transition.
3
The presentation sequence, Westinghouse
4
will
5
Westinghouse will present the Design Certification
6
content.
7
represent the FSAR content.
8
content.
9
distinguish
10
present
on
Right.
a
chapter-by-chapter
basis,
A representative from TVA or NuStart will
That is the scalable
So we have the DCD and have started to
between
Westinghouse
and
TVA
applications.
Then,
11
following
the
applicant's
12
presentations, the staff will present their findings
13
on the Westinghouse Design Certification review and
14
the Bellefonte COL Safety Evaluation Review.
We
15
do
October
have
16
future,
17
chapters,
18
meeting in early 2010.
with
two
and
the
Subcommittees
November,
possibility
19
Okay?
20
MEMBER BROWN:
for
of
an
in
the
additional
additional
Is that the discussion on
21
the transition from Bellefonte to Vogtle that you
22
talked about earlier?
23
MS. COFFIN:
This slide six.
24
MEMBER BROWN:
Okay, that was it.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
35
MS. COFFIN:
1
2
That is it.
I would be
happy to -CHAIR RAY:
3
Well, I have been pondering
4
the point that Charlie is raising here, when trying
5
to listen and digest this at the same time.
6
you just go through it one more time?
7
(Laughter.)
8
MS. COFFIN:
9
Could
I have a big smile on my
face because -CHAIR RAY:
10
I see the words up there.
I
11
mean I understood what you said, but I am not sure I
12
know the implications of it.
MS. COFFIN:
13
14
thing to do.
15
this transition.
16
of this Design Center.
We support NuStart's decision to make
So
17
And this isn't the simplest
We think it is in the best interest
the
Safety
Evaluation
Reports
with
18
open items that you are receiving are going to be
19
providing our findings on the appropriateness of IBR
20
references.
21
for
22
material, and then there is going to be information
23
that is specific only to TVA.
24
Those
It is going to be -- this is the vehicle
conveying
our
position
Safety
on
standard
Evaluation
content
Reports
were
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
36
1
issued to both TVA and to Southern Nuclear.
They are
2
both going to respond to those open items, all of
3
them.
4
open
5
responding to all of the open items that are related
6
to standard content.
Well, TVA is going to respond to all of those
items.
Southern
Nuclear
is
responsible
for
7
So the staff, as we are developing our
8
first Advanced Final SER for this Design Center, is
9
going to do Vogtle first.
They have an early site
10
permit.
So much of the site-specific issues have
11
been
12
Committee.
13
standard content, and Vogtle would be the vehicle for
14
doing so.
already
resolved
presented
to
this
So the great focus will be on resolving
CHAIR
15
and
RAY:
Well,
in
that
case,
for
16
example, my recollection is the ACRS letter on Vogtle
17
ESP
18
regard to the early site permit was not consistent
19
with the then-existing standard design for the Vogtle
20
3 and 4, and that that was noted as an outstanding
21
issue,
22
everybody understood that that had to be resolved.
observed
and
that
just
what
for
was
the
being
record,
presented
so
23
How does that get resolved?
24
MS. COFFIN:
to
with
speak,
That will be one of the key
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
37
1
items we will be presenting to you when we come back
2
on the Vogtle Advanced Final SER.
CHAIR RAY:
3
But we don't think about that
4
now because we are thinking about Bellefonte.
Well,
5
we should move on, but I am just trying to work
6
through all of the steps of that process because, on
7
the one hand, we are required to think about this as
8
the Bellefonte COL, and we will.
9
our mind, we are told that the DCD associated with
10
this review will do something called a transition to
11
Vogtle.
12
work
13
Bellefonte, but something that represents a final SER
14
for Vogtle.
But in the back of
At that point, what we will see is not the
product
that
we
are
looking
at
today
on
So I am just wondering how -- it is sort
15
16
of the question Said asked, I guess.
17
environmental issue, or Sanjoy commented about the
18
grid
19
incorporate by reference, I mean, material.
impacts
that
would
affect
the
It is an
DCD
or
the
So I say all of that, but I don't expect
20
21
an answer, unless you want to give one.
22
telling you it seems like a very complex process that
23
we have to get our mind around.
MS. COFFIN:
24
I am just
Yes, and I will be glad to
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
38
1
work with you to maybe give you a more specific
2
example of how this might work.
3
trying to -- I'm not doing a very good job making you
4
feel comfortable with this process, but the standard
5
content that you are going to see today is applicable
6
to every single applicant.
But I guess I'm
7
I don't believe any of this information
8
has a nexus to some of the site-specific issues that
9
Vogtle needs to respond to.
10
CHAIR RAY:
11
MEMBER BROWN:
12
MS. COFFIN:
13
That is interesting.
You've got -Or else it is not standard.
That is the whole concept.
MEMBER BROWN:
14
these
15
all
16
interrupt for a second.
17
SERs and then there's a DCD SER relative to the
18
standard design.
19
presumption was that there were some -- this standard
20
design has the standard design, but there's something
21
you
22
application, and some will all be the same, and maybe
23
a little bit will be different.
24
it for Bellefonte, but, yet, Vogtle is going to use
have
listing
to
of
But, I mean, you've got
chapters,
I
mean
if
I
can
They are all Bellefonte COL
So I guess in my ignorance my
look
at
relative
to
the
Bellefonte
So we are looking at
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
39
1
it.
MS. COFFIN:
2
You are looking at it for
3
Bellefonte and beyond, all the standard content, and
4
this is the Design Center review approach that we
5
have briefed you on.
6
MEMBER
7
specific, zero site-specific -MS. COFFIN:
8
9
there's
no
site-
There is site-specific on
MEMBER BROWN:
No, for these particular
reviews today.
MS. COFFIN:
12
13
But
TVA.
10
11
BROWN:
There is TVA-specific small
amounts, and we will be presenting that to you today.
CHAIR RAY:
14
whether
the
DCD
The question really, Charlie,
15
is
is
implicated
at
all
in
the
16
expectation that it will apply to Vogtle later, and
17
does that affect any of the material that we are
18
looking at here for Bellefonte, recognizing that they
19
will come forward with a COL in a final form for
20
Vogtle?
I think probably we just need to think
21
22
about
this
some
more,
23
exploration right now; we should move ahead on it.
MS. McKENNA:
24
and
we
Okay.
have
done
enough
Then we will do a
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
40
1
little switch with the -- oh, sorry, it's Andrea that
2
is up next.
MS. STERDIS:
3
4
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to skip you.
Yes.
I need to get to the
COL slide folder, please.
My
5
name
is
Andrea
Sterdis.
As
Jack
6
Bailey said, I am from TVA, and I'm the Manager of
7
Licensing
8
Construction.
for
Nuclear
Generation
Development
and
9
I am not going to reiterate the dates
10
that Mr. Ray and Stephanie both emphasized, but I do
11
want
12
timeframe, going up through current time, we have
13
been
14
Group to address a multitude of RAIs that we have
15
received from the staff.
to
point
actively
out
that,
working
since
as
a
the
Design
January
Center
2008
Working
Consistent with what Stephanie and Eileen
16
17
have presented, those RAIs fall into two boats.
18
is
19
together to establish what the response is, and it
20
applies to all of the AP1000 COL applications, as
21
well
22
Bellefonte.
a
standard
as
24
site-specific
If
23
provides
content
the
you
RAI,
RAIs,
go
outline
where
of
to
everyone
which
the
the
apply
next
COL
One
works
only
slide,
application,
to
this
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
41
1
different parts of our application that are there to
2
address all of the requirements of the regulation.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
3
I guess I am coming
4
back to what I thought Said's question was, which is,
5
how do you decide what is site-specific and what is
6
standard?
7
that?
Is there a formal process in place to do
8
MS.
9
formal process.
We
actually
do
have
a
Eddie, would you like to talk a little
10
11
STERDIS:
bit about our process in detail?
12
MR. GRANT:
13
My
name
is
I would love to.
Eddie
Grant.
I'm
a
Lead
14
Licensing Engineer with NuStart, helping TVA with the
15
coordination of the COL application for Bellefonte.
When we get an RAI letter or a question
16
17
from the staff, we take a look at it.
18
of all, a quick review of the COL to see what piece
19
of the COL the question is related to.
20
had
21
detail,
particularly
22
Report,
you
23
annotations where we have identified portions of the
24
document as either standard or Bellefonte-specific,
a
chance
to
will
look
see
at
the
our
And if you
application
final
that
We do, first
we
Safety
have
in
any
Analysis
left-margin
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
42
1
with a BLN lettering or STD lettering in the left
2
margin for various paragraphs, subdivided by divider
3
lines.
4
I did not bring an example to put up on
5
the screen, but if you take a look, you can see
6
those.
So the first thing we do is look to see
7
8
which
piece
9
relate to.
of
the
application
does
the
question
If it is clearly a standard piece or
10
clearly a Bellefonte piece, that helps us decide how
11
the response is going to go.
12
We develop that response then based on
13
that understanding, and we pass that through a review
14
process that goes to all of the DCWG members.
15
we get what we consider to be a standard RAI or an
16
RAI on standard content, which we then develop a
17
response
18
process, such that we get back comments from over
19
half that indicate, no, we won't be able to adopt
20
this as a standard response, then we change modes and
21
we turn it into a Bellefonte-specific response, with
22
the understanding that each of the other COLs, the
23
S-COLAs, the subsequent COLAs, will probably likely
24
get that same RAI from their various project managers
for,
and
run
that
through
our
So, if
review
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
43
1
within the NRC and be asked to provide a similar, but
2
slightly different, since they couldn't adopt the
3
standard, response on that.
4
that question on each of their dockets.
So they would then get
5
If we can, if everybody does agree, or
6
even if it is most, we don't necessarily demand that
7
everybody
8
response.
9
says, yes, we can all adopt that, then we will label
10
is
going
to
have
the
same
standard
But if we've got a vast majority that
it as standard.
11
There is the possibility that one of the
12
applicants might later on, or even at that time, say,
13
no,
14
different, and for this reason, I can't adopt that.
15
Then they are prompted to send a letter promptly to
16
the project manager to indicate that they will not be
17
able to adopt that standard response, so that that
18
project manager within the NRC can then pursue that
19
on a plant-specific basis.
I
can't;
I'm
the
one
guy
that
is
a
little
20
So we work very closely to make sure that
21
we are able to identify items as standard or, where
22
we cannot be standard for either one or two of the
23
plants, or for the vast majority, to identify that
24
back to the staff.
Again, if it is the vast majority
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
44
1
cannot
be
standard,
then
2
response as plant-specific.
3
standard, we will identify it as standard.
4
there are any individual plants that cannot adopt it,
5
then they will notify the staff that they cannot, and
6
they will do that promptly.
CHAIR RAY:
7
we
will
identify
the
If the majority can be
But if
I think that's all right.
8
Okay, the thing I would like to do, in my own mind,
9
and I won't ask you to do it, either, because maybe
10
it is just something I need to do, is to go through
11
that same recitation that you just gave, but imagine
12
that I'm looking at Bellefonte and expecting somehow
13
to be transitioning to Vogtle.
14
that is maybe -- if we could just say this is going
15
to
16
Vogtle or think about Vogtle, then that is the end of
17
it.
18
room, but not in the room, is confusing to me right
19
now.
be
Bellefonte;
MR. GRANT:
going
to
talk
about
Can I take a 30-second shot
at that?
22
CHAIR RAY:
23
MR.
24
not
But this idea that somehow Vogtle is in the
20
21
we're
That is the thing
Bellefonte.
Sure.
GRANT:
Today
is
primarily
It is a Bellefonte review that has been
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
45
1
conducted
on
the
Bellefonte
2
information is directly applicable to Bellefonte.
3
will cover both standard content and site-specific
4
content.
5
CHAIR RAY:
6
MR. GRANT:
application,
and
the
It
We understand.
At some time in the future,
7
Vogtle will also come back to you for an SER review
8
similar to this, except it will be for their final
9
SER.
10
CHAIR RAY:
11
MR. GRANT:
12
we will have no open items in it.
13
have been resolved at that point.
They
14
the
And that is the difference -That is the difference.
will
standard
indicate
material
So
Everything will
where
that
you
they
will
have
15
adopted
have
16
already looked at in the next couple of days and in
17
the subsequent meetings for Bellefonte.
They will also identify where they did
18
19
not
adopt
the
standard
material,
where
they
were
20
different, and they will indicate we have some site-
21
specific information here.
22
When we get to Chapter 1, I will indicate
23
to you that one of the places where they vary from
24
some
of
the
standard
is
in
Regulatory
Guide
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
46
1
conformance.
2
mentioned the ESP.
3
Guides
4
focus.
5
Statements all ready and in conformance for those
6
positions
7
intend to maintain for the most part.
at
Part of the big reason for that, you
They looked at the Regulatory
sometime
So
they
in
in
the
have
their
past
with
Regulatory
early
site
a
different
Guide
permit,
Position
which
they
8
So there will be some differences in that
9
area of the FSAR, where they will indicate they have
10
site-specific material.
11
it will come back to you as site-specific material
12
for the review during that final SER review.
CHAIR RAY:
13
review,
and
Because it is site-specific,
But it will be at the final
14
SER
15
shouldn't dwell on it any further here.
MS.
16
that
is
STERDIS:
a
I
difference,
will
let
but
the
we
staff
17
address the difference between a six-phase review and
18
a four-phase review, which I believe all the S-COLAs
19
are using.
20
The Bellefonte R-COLA is the only one, I
21
understand, within the AP1000s that is using the six-
22
phase review.
23
discuss the open items that aren't closed.
So this will be the only time we will
CHAIR RAY:
24
Well, that is helpful, Eddie,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
47
1
and it does go to the issue that at least I was
2
struggling with, because the difference between, as
3
you style it, the Vogtle four-phase review and the
4
Bellefonte six-phase review, I am trying to process,
5
well, what are the implications of that for us?
6
Okay, thank you.
7
Eileen?
8
MS. STERDIS:
9
On this slide, you can see that Part 2 is
10
highlighted in red, and that is our final Safety
11
Analysis Report.
12
the SRP.
13
of those chapters today, and the rest of the chapters
14
will be covered as the SER with open items are issued
15
later in this year, in October/November, and possibly
16
into early 2010.
Or Andrea?
I'm sorry.
That's okay.
That report has 19 chapters, per
As you will see today, we are covering nine
17
Next slide, please.
18
I just want to give you a little overview
19
of our site.
MEMBER BROWN:
20
On
21
second?
22
understand
23
discussed with no open items.
24
significant
the
the
Can I go back for just a
four-phase
SER
will
differences,
be
for
the
issued
S-COLAs,
and
will
I
be
But I presume, for
site-specific
differences,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
48
1
they will at least be addressed?
2
MS.
3
required to be.
COFFIN:
Absolutely.
MEMBER BROWN:
4
Okay.
They
are
And say they will
5
be resolved in the following manner, so that they are
6
not open.
7
the information for the --
So that will still be covered in terms of
MS. COFFIN:
8
When you get the Vogtle
9
Advanced Final -- it's an Advanced Final SER.
10
not a Final SER because it has not been to you.
MEMBER BROWN:
11
12
Okay.
All right.
It's
No, I
just -MS. COFFIN:
13
appropriate,
We will reiterate, if IBR is
14
still
we
will
reiterate
standard
15
content.
16
standard content, any departures and exemptions from
17
the DCD, resolution of site-specific material.
18
that will be in that Vogtle --
We will flag anything, any departures from
19
MEMBER BROWN:
20
before they got to a Committee review?
All
And how they were resolved
21
MS. COFFIN:
Yes.
22
MEMBER BANERJEE:
I am sort of curious as
23
to why anybody would -- maybe TVA should tell us --
24
elect a six-phase review rather than a four-phase
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
49
1
review.
2
(Laughter.)
3
MS. COFFIN:
4
(Laughter.)
5
There are a number of reasons, but the
6
most important is we want your feedback early in the
7
process, so that if some important technical issues
8
arise based on your review, we want the time to
9
resolve them, or the risk.
Don't ask.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
10
It seems that they have
11
taken all these other guys' four-phase reviews then,
12
right?
13
MR. GRANT:
14
MS. COFFIN:
15
MR. GRANT:
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
That is our purpose.
We work
16
as a group, and we have picked one lead to go forward
17
first.
MEMBER
18
19
BANERJEE:
I
get
the
picture.
Okay, thanks.
MS. STERDIS:
20
Okay.
I want to give you a
21
little overview of our site.
22
northern Alabama on the Gunnersville Reservoir of the
23
Tennessee River.
24
you
a
couple
Our site is located in
As you can see here, I have given
of
views
that
show
our
emergency
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
50
1
planning zones.
This zone shows you the 50-mile
2
radius, which does cover not only Alabama, but also
3
parts of northern Georgia and southern Tennessee.
4
If you go to the next slide, it shows a
5
little more detail about the Bellefonte site 10-mile
6
radius.
7
site does have partially-completed B&W units, and
8
parts of those structures that exist on the site are
9
being utilized in the COL application for the AP1000
I do want to point out that the Bellefonte
10
units,
specifically
11
cooling towers that exist on that site.
you
the
go
intake
12
If
to
13
actually shows the LOCA --
14
MEMBER BROWN:
the
structure
next
Hold on.
and
slide,
to calibrate me here.
16
plants that were never finished 20 years ago?
MS. STERDIS:
18
MEMBER BROWN:
this
Okay, you have
15
17
the
Those are left over from
They were not finished.
That's the point?
So that
19
that part of the facility was already put together?
20
You are just going to utilize those?
21
MS. STERDIS:
22
This
23
detail.
24
water
picture
That's right.
shows
another
level
of
It is a 1600-acre site, and it shows the
that
is
on
both
sides.
The
Gunnersville
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
51
1
Reservoir is on the right side of this picture, and
2
Town Creek, which is a little tributary off to the
3
side, is on the upper side.
This
4
does
show
you
the
existing
5
structures that we will be using as well as the
6
location of the Unit 3 and Unit 4, the two AP1000
7
units that will be sited at this location.
With that, I am going to turn it over to
8
9
Rob.
10
MR. SISK:
Thank you, Andrea.
11
Good morning.
I'm Rob Sisk.
I'm the
12
AP1000 Licensing Manager.
It is my privilege to lead
13
off the presentations for the amendment to the AP1000
14
Certified Design.
15
As we just started, I would like to note
16
that the amendment represents the work of a lot of
17
people from a lot of different disciplines.
18
as mentioned earlier, we have a small group of folks
19
here
20
presentation and answer the questions you may have.
21
But, for brevity's sake, I am not going to introduce
22
them all here.
23
next day or two here, as we proceed through the
24
sessions.
today
and
on
the
phone
to
I think,
augment
the
We will be calling them up over the
I would like to take, though, just a
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
52
1
minute to acknowledge who they are, and appreciate
2
their support as we go through this session.
3
Just to kind of recap where we were, I
4
guess it was a month and a half ago when we were
5
before the body, the amendment does build on the
6
Certified
7
looking at the changes since Rev 15.
Design,
Certified
Changes
8
were
Rev
made
15,
and
consistent
we
are
with
the
9
regulatory requirements and were made primarily to
10
address CR information items, address DAC, obviously
11
address
12
standardization.
13
that really falls into the enhanced standardization.
14
As we evolve the design, we continue to look at one
NRC
requirements
and
needs,
enhance
the
I have design maturity in here, but
15
standard plant.
16
changes or changes that were needed for consistency
17
throughout the DCD.
CHAIR
18
And of course, to address editorial
RAY:
I
guess
you
mean
design
19
maturity to apply here, but at least the material I
20
read indicated from time to time that changes were
21
made to increase the flexibility in procurement, for
22
example.
23
MR. SISK:
Exactly.
24
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
53
MR. SISK:
1
2
And within the context of
standardization.
3
CHAIR RAY:
4
MR. SISK:
5
As we proceed through the revision, the
6
future changes would be addressed in accordance with
7
the Interim Staff Guidance 11, recently published.
Yes, okay.
Today, Westinghouse has received 13 SERs
8
9
Well, yes.
on the amended design with open items.
We will be
10
discussing 10 of the SERs over the next couple of
11
days, and I have listed them here briefly.
12
be
13
meetings.
discussing
the
rest
of
the
SERs
We will
in
future
14
At this point in time, we have introduced
15
no new exemptions, no new DAC, and we are in the
16
process of resolving open items as they have been
17
identified in the SER.
18
open items and 31 confirmatory items.
Currently, there is about 38
19
We are not planning to talk about the
20
confirmatory items today in that confirmatory items
21
are typically characterized as those that I think the
22
staff and Westinghouse have had some agreement to,
23
and it is simply a matter that ultimately we've got
24
to build these into the final DCD document.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
54
CHAIR RAY:
1
Okay.
Could you comment on
2
the point that was made about the plants in China
3
that are under construction?
4
lessons learned or input from there?
5
as AP1000, but, obviously, their design is going to
6
deviate some from whatever emerges here, just as a
7
matter of timing.
MR. SISK:
8
9
but
Westinghouse
Has there been any
They are styled
There are minor deviations,
does
follow
the
plant
10
standardization across our designs everywhere.
11
are
12
projects
13
pulling lessons learned as they move on.
monitoring
and
support,
As
14
closely
Ed
the
and
had
China
construction
continue
mentioned
We
watching
earlier,
we
and
are
15
moving forward in the construction base net being
16
laid
17
onsite on the ground there learning and watching and
18
seeing what things can be brought back to the designs
19
or be brought back not just to the designs, but to
20
the construction and the quality programs that go
21
into it.
down,
we
are
CHAIR RAY:
22
23
and
continually
having
people
But it is an opportunity, not
a constraint, I take it?
MR. SISK:
24
That is correct.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
55
CHAIR
1
2
RAY:
Eileen,
you
want
to
This is Ed Cummins.
I
comment?
3
MS. McKENNA:
4
MR. CUMMINS:
5
did
No, that's fine.
would like to make just a little comment there.
First, the scope of our supply in China
6
7
does not include the turbine island.
8
that each of the sites in China has a different
9
turbine island design, and it is not equal to the
10
So it turns out
AP1000 turbine island design.
11
If you look at licensing, they have a
12
kind of two-step PSAR or FSAR construction permit,
13
operating
14
provided input for the license as Rev 16 of the DCD.
15
We had every intention at the FSAR stage of updating
to
permit,
Rev
17,
licensing
including
regime.
whatever
Westinghouse
16
that
agreed-upon
17
changes we have with the staff post-Rev 17 into the
18
China licensing environment.
19
So we are trying to keep standardization,
20
I'll say, of the nuclear island because we really
21
don't have any control over the turbine.
22
CHAIR RAY:
Thank you.
23
MEMBER BROWN:
24
the pipes, you don't have it anymore?
So, when the steam leaves
And when the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
56
1
water comes back in, that's when you gain control of
2
it again?
MR. CUMMINS:
3
Well, there is really at a
4
building we have the main steam isolation valves.
5
we take it to the end of the nuclear island.
6
they take the steam pipe and the feed pipe there.
MEMBER BROWN:
7
So
Then
Yes, that is what I was
8
trying to get to.
9
valves out or whatever the demarcation is and feed
10
I just wanted to understand.
reg isolation, whatever that is.
11
MR. CUMMINS:
12
MEMBER BROWN:
13
Stop
Right.
And feed water, that is
where there is demarcation also.
14
MR. CUMMINS:
15
MEMBER BROWN:
necessarily
Exactly.
Downstream of that, it
16
doesn't
reflect
17
relative to the U.S. plants.
18
MR. CUMMINS:
19
MEMBER BROWN:
20
MR. SISK:
21
MEMBER BROWN:
trying
to
make
what
in
your
DCD
It does not.
Okay.
And that is for China.
22
just
23
context of the question.
sure
That's fine.
I
CONSULTANT KRESS:
24
is
understood
No, I was
the
total
Does the China FSAR
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
57
1
follow the same format, the content, that the U.S.
2
FSARs have?
MR. CUMMINS:
3
4
yes.
We use the same basic Reg Guide 178, yes.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
5
6
It is very close to that,
And it has the same
design basis accidents?
7
MR. CUMMINS:
8
CHAIR RAY:
9
MR. SISK:
Yes.
Rob?
Yes, I would like to just make
10
one other note before we go into Chapter 1.
11
being an open session, and we do have our technical
12
folks
13
discussions at the non-proprietary level, obviously.
14
If we need to go into a proprietary discussion, we
coming
in,
we
would
15
would want to identify that.
16
a different or a later time.
CHAIR RAY:
17
look
That's fine.
speak up anytime that that is an issue.
19
MEMBER BROWN:
guess I didn't understand.
21
partial Rev 17.
24
the
You should
One other question.
20
23
have
We can carry that on at
18
I
This says there's some
What does that mean?
MS. McKENNA:
22
to
This
Well, let me speak to that.
As I indicated in the slide, they had submitted 16,
and then last fall they submitted 17.
In some cases,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
58
1
the
staff
had
already
2
particular
3
availability of staff and other reviews, they may not
4
have been able to immediately start the review of Rev
5
17 at that time.
sections
completed
on
Rev
their
16,
and
review
of
based
on
6
We have been working with the staff since
7
then to go back and look at 17 to make sure there is
8
nothing in there that is of concern.
9
will hear on a couple of chapter presentations where
10
there is some new information in Rev 17 that the
11
staff is evaluating.
12
that all the chapters will catch up and include 17
13
and
14
transpired when we come with the final SER.
whatever
16
It is the intention, obviously,
information
MEMBER BROWN:
15
In fact, you
even
beyond
Okay.
17
that
has
It just wasn't
obvious.
17
MS. McKENNA:
18
MEMBER BROWN:
Yes.
The SER for a couple of
19
the chapters that I looked at, I had no clue that
20
this was -MS. McKENNA:
21
Yes, within the details,
22
SERs, you will see on kind of a section-by-section
23
basis
24
information the staff did review, and where an SER
they
specifically
identify
what
scope
of
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
59
1
doesn't cover 17, we will have to catch that up
2
later.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
3
4
You indicated that
there are 31 confirmatory items you will not discuss.
5
MR. SISK:
6
MEMBER
Yes, sir.
ABDEL-KHALIK:
These
are
items
7
that you and the staff had agreed to, but do they
8
involve any technical modifications from the original
9
DCD?
MR. SISK:
10
Generally, what they represent
11
are items of clarification or annotation that needed
12
to be added to the DCD to enhance the clarification
13
or to cover an issue that the staff wanted to see
14
physically in the DCD, but not one that we are in any
15
kind of technical dispute on.
16
catching it.
It is just a matter of
17
We are in the process of looking at an
18
amended design, the amended, all through the RAIs and
19
all through the questions and issues that are being
20
explored today, as we come to an agreement.
MEMBER
21
ABDEL-KHALIK:
I'm
trying
to
22
figure out whether these confirmatory items involve
23
revisions that are of a technical nature that the
24
Committee should look at.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
60
MS. McKENNA:
1
Well, I guess the point is
2
that these, they could, but I think the distinction
3
we
4
whatever
5
being reviewed, there was a presentation in an RAI
6
response, or whatever, that this is the answer to the
7
question, and the staff is satisfied with that answer
8
to the question, but there may be a need for some
9
particular set of information to be carried over into
10
the DCD, whether it is to clarify or to change the
11
wording, or to add some technical detail, whatever
12
that information might be, but that there is nothing
13
that
14
staff.
make
is
between
that
confirmatory
technical
unresolved
and
information
between
the
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
15
open
was
applicant
is
that,
that
and
was
the
But the point I'm
16
trying to make is that the fact that there is nothing
17
yet to be resolved, or the fact that the staff has
18
accepted the response, does not, if the matter is of
19
a technical nature, does not negate or obviate the
20
need for the Committee to look at it.
21
MS. McKENNA:
the
Safety
And they are all discussed
22
in
Evaluation
Report.
If
you
have
23
questions on any particular items, certainly, the
24
staff would be happy to answer those questions.
It
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
61
1
was
a
matter
2
present,
3
distinguish.
of
was
we
really
But
4
what
all
were
what
the
going
we
were
confirmatory
to
trying
to
items
are
5
discussed in the Safety Evaluation Reports.
6
have that information available to you.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
7
actually
So you
The DCD was amended
8
because of significant changes, I presume, to the
9
design?
10
MS. McKENNA:
Yes.
11
CONSULTANT KRESS:
I was looking through
12
the material I have, and I haven't looked at all of
13
it yet, but I was looking for just a list of here are
14
the significant changes.
15
MR. SISK:
Chapter 1, we'll review --
16
CONSULTANT KRESS:
17
MR. SISK:
18
that in just a minute.
That is in Chapter 1?
We are going to talk about
19
CONSULTANT KRESS:
20
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
Well, we are going to talk in
21
more than a minute, maybe two minutes, on Chapter 5.
22
But to just use it as an illustration of Said's
23
question,
it
says
here,
for
example,
as
a
for
24
instance, "The information above was provided by the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
62
1
applicant
in
draft
format,
but
has
not
2
formally submitted to the staff.
3
this issue as confirmatory item" umpty-ump.
yet
been
Staff identified
So they have set forth an answer, but
4
5
they haven't yet incorporated it formally.
6
tagged as a confirmatory item.
MS. McKENNA:
7
Right.
That gets
Again, this is kind
8
of, as you said, a tag for us to go back and make
9
sure that we get Revision 18, that that information
10
was
appropriately
placed
11
Document, so the staff can be satisfied that the
12
issue is, indeed, resolved.
CHAIR RAY:
13
the
point
in
the
Design
Control
Yes, but that doesn't detract
14
from
that,
15
information, and until it is formally included, you
16
don't know for sure.
17
MS. McKENNA:
18
CHAIR RAY:
while
it
is
technical
Right.
In this particular case, for
19
example, there was a comment about the RTD being
20
located at the top of the hot leg, and then later on
21
in the same paragraph in the upper half of the hot
22
leg.
23
But it was just a confirmatory item, and it is not
24
that certain what the end result is going to be.
Well, is that the top or not?
I don't know.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
63
1
Yes, Mike?
2
MR. LEE:
farther.
Let me just push that thread a
3
little
Is
there
4
confirmatory items to become open items?
MS. McKENNA:
5
the
potential
It is possible.
for
As I said,
6
we mark them.
7
information to go into -- I didn't say it becomes an
8
open item, but it is possible that, when we see
9
something in Rev 18 that we thought was confirmatory,
10
if it didn't conform what we had stated as this is
11
what's
12
something that would have to be reviewed further, but
13
I wouldn't call that an open item because it would be
14
something
15
resolution to put in the final SER.
the
We are expecting a certain set of
confirmatory
we
would
just
MR. LEE:
16
--
guess
have
then
to
it
push
would
forward
be
to
Well, how do you distinguish
17
then
18
distinction or differentiation between a confirmatory
19
item and an open item?
20
to the Committee; confirmatory items clearly aren't
21
going to come to the Committee.
MS.
22
23
I
item,
the
COFFIN:
question
is,
what's
the
Because the open items come
Everything
comes
to
the
Committee.
MS. McKENNA:
24
Everything comes.
It's all
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
64
1
written and these are presentations.
2
Again, I think there is a sense of, yes,
3
the open items, there is still something that we have
4
not had a meeting of the minds between the staff and
5
the applicant.
6
developed and reviewed.
There is still information to be
7
Whereas, in the case of confirmatory, if
8
we have one of them right, and maybe we marked one
9
wrong that we said it was confirmatory and we should
10
have labeled it open, but we are tracking all of
11
them.
12
For a confirmatory item, we think we have
13
reached an agreement as to what is the resolution of
14
that issue, and it is a matter of, did it show up in
15
the document the way we expected?
16
all of this information is within the purview of the
17
Committee.
18
interest in the open items because there is still
19
something there to be settled.
I think our sense was there might be more
20
MR. LEE:
21
MS. COFFIN:
22
Okay.
All right.
And they are usually the
more complicated -MS. McKENNA:
23
24
But, obviously,
Right, that's why they are
still open.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
65
1
MS. COFFIN:
2
CHAIR
RAY:
-- technical issues.
Yes.
Well,
in
this
3
particular case, for example, of the RTD, just to
4
dwell on it as an example is all, the location of the
5
RTD has to do with being able to recognize voiding in
6
the rad cool pipe.
7
you really want it at the top?
8
have got to decide on the staff which is required,
9
but it is said both ways, one by the staff, one by
10
So is the upper half okay or do
Who knows?
You guys
the applicant, and they aren't exactly the same.
11
It would be nitpicking to say, I think,
12
in my opinion, in a way that that is an open item,
13
but, on the other hand, you may care whether it is in
14
the top or just in the upper half.
15
technical issue, like Said was indicating.
16
Okay, where are we?
17
MS. COFFIN:
18
switch
to
19
presenters.
Chapter
1.
MR. SISK:
20
Chapter 1?
Chapter 1.
We
That makes it a
are
We are going to
going
to
switch
I was going to say Chapter 1
21
is a nice place to start really because it provides a
22
nice overview of the Certified Design.
Chapter 1 is the introduction and general
23
24
discussion portion.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
66
CHAIR RAY:
1
Wait one.
2
pile of paper here somehow.
3
Appreciate it.
4
Thank you.
Got it.
MR. SISK:
In general, Chapter 1 provides
overview
of
5
a
6
Simplified Passive Advanced Lightwater Reactor Plant.
7
It also discusses the objective design criteria for
8
the operating characteristics of the AP1000 plant
9
site
10
general
I got on the wrong
interface
the
requirements
Westinghouse
and
AP1000
references
the
design documents regulatory basis for the AP1000.
Again, as the Certified Design, what we
11
12
are
really
looking
at
today
is
focusing
on
the
13
changes to the Certified Design, and they will be
14
discussed in-depth as we proceed through the various
15
chapters.
16
We had a question with regard to, what
17
were the typical, the major changes, if you will?
18
What we have done is I have provided just a brief
19
list
20
significant changes are.
21
little bit in other chapters because they really do
22
fall into the technical chapter discussions.
of
we
think
these
more
interesting
or
We will talk about those a
But to kind of give a quick overview, the
23
24
what
extension
of
the
seismic
spectra
to
various
soil
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
67
1
conditions
beyond
the
2
revision to building for enhanced protection; looking
3
at the security issues; clearly, working with our
4
resolution to resolve DAC where we can with -CHAIR RAY:
5
hard
rock,
Excuse me.
if
you
will;
You have to be
6
careful about your microphone.
It may be somebody on
7
the telephone line.
8
we need somebody as an expert, we will take it off.
We'll put it on listen-only.
If
Go ahead.
9
MR.
10
SISK:
Okay.
We
have
certainly
11
worked to address the DAC with the protection system
12
instrumentation, changes to the electrical system,
13
and we did make a change to the turbine manufacturer.
14
Next slide.
15
CHAIR RAY:
Excuse me.
Did the change to
16
the turbine manufacturer, based on looking at the
17
rest of the stuff, that impacted the control system
18
as well, which you discussed?
19
20
We will talk about that a
CHAIR RAY:
No, I understand that.
little bit.
21
22
MR. SISK:
I'm
just saying, was that the change that impacted that?
23
MR. SISK:
24
CHAIR RAY:
No, sir.
Or was that separate?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
68
1
MR. SISK:
2
changed the turbine manufacturer.
3
Certified
4
Through the progression of Westinghouse, we now use a
5
Toshiba turbine, but they basically meet the same
6
requirements.
Design,
CHAIR
7
we
RAY:
8
single-shaft machine.
9
MR. SISK:
10
CHAIR RAY:
11
MR. SISK:
12
CHAIR
RAY:
It is separate.
were
As the original
using
It's
a
We actually
an
big
MHI
turbine.
change
to
a
It's a big turbine.
Completely different.
Yes, sir.
You
will
talk
more
than
13
briefly about it, I suppose, when we get to these
14
chapters --
15
MR. SISK:
16
CHAIR RAY:
-- but that's the right thing
MR. SISK:
Again, continuing down the
17
Yes.
to do.
18
19
list a little bit, the sump screen design analysis
20
that really is focusing on addressing the industry
21
issue GSI-191; addressing control room ventilation,
22
both to the control room issues; spent fuel pool
23
capacity; load-handling capability.
24
wastewater monitoring tanks.
We have added
We will talk about that
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
69
1
in Chapter 11 today, as it turns out.
2
We made a change to the integrated head
3
-- we changed out the head packet to put in an
4
integrated
5
methodology, going to the best estimate ASTRUM.
6
have made changes with regard to some of the reactor
7
internal changes and pressurizer-shaped changes.
head
package.
We
revised
our
LOCA
We
8
So, again, we will touch on these as we
9
go through some of the chapters and get a better
10
understanding of what those changes might be, what
11
their impacts might be.
12
Next slide.
13
MEMBER BANERJEE:
Are these changes also
14
going to be incorporated in the Chinese plants, like
15
the pressurizer-shaped changes?
MR. SISK:
16
Yes.
With regard to what is
17
within the nuclear island, again, I want to clarify
18
or reiterate what Ed was saying earlier.
19
nuclear island, we have a consistent design.
20
like the turbine outside, that doesn't necessarily
21
apply.
MEMBER
22
BANERJEE:
Yes,
but
Within the
Things
whatever
23
changes are going through here will be incorporated
24
in the Chinese design as well, right?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
70
1
MR. SISK:
2
MEMBER BANERJEE:
3
Within the nuclear island.
island.
4
MR. SISK:
5
MEMBER BANERJEE:
6
Yes, within the nuclear
Yes, sir.
Okay.
And you're going
to talk about all these, each of these items?
MR. SISK:
7
We will touch on them as they
8
impact the chapters.
9
individuals go into specific questions as you have
10
them within the constraints of the time and interest
11
that you have in details.
12
about the chapter changes and putting them in context
13
to
14
questions that need to come up, I think we should
15
explore them within the technical chapter.
those
chapters.
CHAIR RAY:
16
Now we can certainly have the
We are going to be talking
Then,
as
there
are
other
Rob, your answer could be
17
interpreted as more of a commitment than a goal.
18
you mean it as a commitment, that the Chinese plant
19
would incorporate all of the --
20
MR. SISK:
21
CHAIR RAY:
22
MR. SISK:
23
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
24
CONSULTANT
KRESS:
Did
It is not a commitment.
Yes.
It is a goal.
Do
any
of
these
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
71
1
changes impact the PRA results?
MR.
2
SISK:
All
of
the
changes
are
3
evaluated with regard to what their impact would be
4
on PRA.
5
certainly raise that question again, but we do look
6
at these changes for what their impact may be on PRA.
MR. CUMMINS:
7
8
We will talk about Chapter 19 and we can
So maybe I'll comment -- Ed
Cummins -- on the Chinese again.
The
9
and
Chinese
that
has
and
a
Westinghouse
scope
of
have
supply.
a
10
contract,
The
11
contract comes somewhere before you have all your
12
changes maybe.
13
all the changes we had at the time that we signed the
14
contract.
15
the time of signing of the contract are included.
The contract was signed that covered
So all those changes that we knew about at
16
As you go forward, changes that we might
17
make, there's got to be a commercial and technical
18
discussion with the Chinese regarding whether they
19
are willing to incorporate.
20
MR. SISK:
Yes.
21
MR. CUMMINS:
So, for example, the best
22
example is an airplane crash.
23
space
24
airplane
on
what
crash.
the
Chinese
They
We are in an unknown
are
haven't
going
to
decided.
do
with
We
have
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
72
1
decided for the U.S., but they haven't decided.
2
that is an example of one where we are still talking.
MEMBER
3
BANERJEE:
With,
for
So
example,
4
GSI-191, I mean the way to deal with it might involve
5
insulation, a buffer, or sump screens.
6
a wide-ranging solution to these problems.
7
is not just a sump screen.
I mean it is
I mean it
8
So are you also making any changes to,
9
for example insulation of resources or is it just the
10
sump screen?
MR. SISK:
11
Well, we can talk about that
12
when we get to the details on GSI-191.
13
have addressed cleanliness of the containment.
14
can address insulation.
15
of those issues that go into addressing the GSI-191,
16
and we do that for all of our plants.
MEMBER
17
18
BANERJEE:
And
the
buffer,
presumably?
MR. SISK:
20
MEMBER BANERJEE:
And the buffer.
If you're happy with
your buffer, it's okay.
22
CHAIR RAY:
23
MR. SISK:
24
We
We address sump screen, all
19
21
Generally, we
Okay.
Okay.
With regard to Chapter
1 of the DCD, there were two open items that were
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
73
1
identified that we are working with the staff to
2
resolve.
3
recognizing that Chapter 1 tends to be a bit of a
4
catch-all chapter.
5
open to address or capture changes that may come out
6
of the other chapters.
Both
of
these
we
really
anticipated,
These are, I think, primarily
Specifically, NWE2-01, which talks about
7
8
the list of figures, COLA action items.
We have a
9
list, but should that list change as a result of the
10
reviews of the other chapters, that list would have
11
to be updated.
The other open item is a confirmatory
12
13
again.
We have a list, a final Reg Guides list,
14
other information as part of the reconciliation of
15
Chapter 1 with other chapters.
16
Again,
as
the
other
chapters
complete
17
their review, if there's an impact to the overall
18
list
19
figures, COL actions, we would expect that we would
20
have to incorporate that into the final Chapter 1.
of
regulations,
overall
21
CONSULTANT KRESS:
22
MR. SISK:
23
they're never ho-hum.
list
of
drawings,
You have ho-hum items?
I would like to say that, but
(Laughter.)
24
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
74
1
I would agree.
2
With that, that really covers where we
3
are with Chapter 1 and the DCD.
I will turn it over to Eddie to talk
4
5
about Chapter 1 and the COLA.
CHAIR RAY:
6
Well, somewhere in here, and
7
I'm not sure where yet, it's not important, I guess,
8
these are described as extensive changes.
9
that is an accurate statement, quite a number of
10
I think
substantive changes.
11
MR. SISK:
12
CHAIR RAY:
13
MR. GRANT:
14
Eddie
Grant,
15
NuStart.
again,
We agree.
Okay.
Thank you very much, Rob.
Lead
Licensing
Engineer
with
I appreciate the opportunity.
This slide just lists out the sections of
16
17
Chapter 1.
They match with the DCD and Reg Guide
18
1.206, which is the requirements for the format and
19
content of an FSAR.
20
Go on to the next one.
21
We
have
tried
to
understand
your
22
preferences, where we are going to attempt to discuss
23
and lay out a format here where we would discuss
24
those things that are different from the FSAR.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
75
On the previous slide, you saw that we
1
2
listed those sections out by two-digit section.
3
each
4
reference, generally, at the beginning of that two-
5
digit section, the DCD information.
6
additional information in a number of ways.
one
of
those
sections,
we
With
incorporated
by
Then we provide
One is the COL items, which we've got
7
8
here on this slide.
9
the DCD that they did not address, that indicated
10
These are items left over from
that an applicant would need to address those items.
We
11
also
had
supplemental
information
12
where we looked at the Reg Guide 1.206 that is,
13
again,
14
guidance on what needs to be in an FSAR.
15
that there was information that was not provided by
16
either IBR, incorporating by reference the DCD, or by
17
answering
18
information because we know the staff is expecting to
19
get
20
annotation of SUP, supplemental information.
the
that.
staff's
the
COL
That
standard
items,
is
content
then
addressed
we
and
If we saw
would
with
a
format
add
that
left-margin
21
The third item that we have, a third
22
item, is where we might need to take a departure from
23
the COL.
24
annotation of DEP, departure.
We would identify those with a left-margin
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
76
1
The final item on that that we would
2
generally cover today at least would be the open
3
items, the things where we still have either some
4
disagreement with the staff or disagreement, more
5
likely,
6
There's been quite a bit of time between then and
7
now, and we, hopefully, have addressed most of those
8
or we are getting close.
at
the
So
9
time
these
that
COL
the
items
SER
was
are
written.
some
of
the
10
listings of the items that are in Chapter 1.
Well,
11
actually, it will be all of them between this slide
12
and the next one.
Construction start-up schedule, there was
13
14
a request.
The DCD, of course, cannot address the
15
construction and start-up schedule for each plant.
16
So that is an individual thing.
You
17
will
note
18
identified as BLN 1.1-1.
19
item.
20
is specific to Bellefonte.
there
that
that
is
So that a plant-specific
The schedule information was provided, but it
The Regulatory Guide conformance, the DCD
21
22
addresses
a
large
number
of
the
Reg
Guides
and
23
portions of many of the remaining Reg Guides, but
24
there are portions of the Reg Guides that are plant-
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
77
1
specific
or
are
applicable
to
programmatic-type
2
information.
3
that said that we needed to go back as an applicant
4
and address those portions of those Reg Guides.
5
we have done that.
Where those exist, there was a COL item
So
The vast majority of those we were able
6
7
to identify as standard information.
You will see
8
there that that COL item, again, is listed as STD or
9
Standard 1.9-1.
The same type of information with regard
10
11
to
bulletins
12
written up to a certain point in time.
Bulletins and
13
generic letters continue to come out.
So there are
14
some
15
addressed that we needed to address.
16
some
17
address
18
information or information related to plant-specific
19
systems.
that
of
and
are
those
generic
beyond
letters.
the
bulletins
ones
and
plant-specific,
example from this STD 1.9-2?
22
example of -MR.
24
GRANT:
generic
DCD
they
was
have
There are also
letters
that
programmatic
Can you give us an
21
23
that
either
MEMBER BANERJEE:
20
The
Can you give us an
Bulletins
and
generic
letters?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
78
MEMBER BANERJEE:
1
2
example.
Yes.
Take one, for
Take one.
MR. GRANT:
3
Well, 05-02 I think was one
4
of the last ones that was issued.
5
content there is not coming to mind.
6
the DCD had not addressed up through 2005.
7
submitted back in approximately in 2003, something
8
along those lines.
9
that point.
But I know that
They were
So they had addressed them up to
We looked at 2005-02, and I believe that
10
11
I'm sorry, but the
was a bulletin.
MEMBER
12
BANERJEE:
So
2004-02,
for
13
example, with regard to GSI-191 was not addressed
14
then?
MR. GRANT:
15
I would have to go back and
16
check on that.
17
get back to you with that information.
CHAIR RAY:
18
19
I will be glad to look into that and
Perhaps during a break, you
can do that.
20
MR. GRANT:
Yes.
21
MEMBER BANERJEE:
22
somewhere, right?
23
clearly of interest to us.
I mean STD 1.9-02 and 1.9-03 are
MR. GRANT:
24
You have a list of that
Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
79
MEMBER BANERJEE:
1
2
We need to know exactly
what --
3
MR. GRANT:
4
When we look at them, I do not see 04-02
5
listed in our document, but it begins with 05-01 and
6
05-02.
7
as it turns out here, and we would have addressed
8
that
9
again.
in
Yes, sir.
Okay.
05-02 was emergency preparedness information,
our
emergency
plan,
in
our
application,
10
The 04-02, I believe -- and I will have
11
to go back and check -- I believe that was addressed
12
through the DCD, but let us check on that and we will
13
get back with you.
14
MEMBER BANERJEE:
15
MR. GRANT:
16
Please, yes.
I know they certainly are
addressed in GSI-191.
MR. SISK:
17
Yes, GSI-191 was not closed
18
out in the Certified Design, but as an action on that
19
list, it can be closed out.
20
MEMBER BANERJEE:
21
MR. GRANT:
22
There is a bit of information with regard
specifically
Okay.
Thank you.
23
to
generic
issue
191.
That
is
the
24
Standard 1.9-3, unresolved safety issues and generic
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
80
1
safety issues.
2
up to a point; we picked up the ones that are new.
3
We also addressed the ones where they had addressed
4
the
5
information.
6
information and provided our conformance assessment
7
on those.
design
Again, the same type of thing, only
portion,
So
but
we
not
looked
the
programmatic
the
programmatic
at
8
1.9-1, for instance, has some information
9
with regard to housekeeping and cleanliness, and how
10
we are going to do that.
So we provided information
11
in Chapter 6 of our FSAR to address that portion of
12
GSI-191.
13
The next slide.
14
This is other information.
second
portion
of
the
You see that
15
the
left-margin
annotation
16
there is SUP, S-U-P, for supplemental information.
17
This is particular information that we provided.
18
In the first case, where we thought it
19
was important, it wasn't necessarily requested by Reg
20
Guide 1.206, but because we were using these left-
21
margin
22
information and the plant-specific information, where
23
we have addressed the COL, where we are trying to
24
address
annotations
a
departure,
to
address
where
we
the
are
standard
providing
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
81
1
supplemental
information,
we
wanted
to
get
that
2
across, what type of information each one of those
3
is.
4
So we needed to put something in Chapter
5
1 to let the staff know, to help them understand what
6
we were doing, and why the information was there,
7
whether it was standard or whether it was plant-
8
specific.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
9
10
MR. GRANT:
11
MEMBER BANERJEE:
Excuse me.
Yes, sir.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
12
If you go back to your previous slide, for example,
13
you mentioned that in the LOCA methodology now you
14
are using ASTRUM for your best estimate on certainty
15
analysis.
16
MR. SISK:
17
MEMBER BANERJEE:
approved,
course,
So, once it
simply
to
is
19
approval process, but what was the need to change --
20
was there a need to change the methodology or just to
21
make things orderly, a housekeeping sort of thing?
MR. SISK:
22
you
Yes, okay.
18
23
of
Once it gets approved.
refer
the
Well, it is the preferred
methodology for -MEMBER BANERJEE:
24
Right, but you already
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
82
1
had something accepted, right?
MR.
2
3
It's
MEMBER BANERJEE:
best
estimate
Was there any open item
related to that or it was all closed out in the --
6
MR. SISK:
7
MEMBER BANERJEE:
8
MR. SISK:
9
MEMBER BANERJEE:
10
the
methodology that we currently use throughout.
4
5
SISK:
Right.
-- old DCD?
Correct.
Why did you bring it up
then?
MR. SISK:
11
As I recall, there was a 50.46
12
that had to address, as you do the analysis, the 50-
13
degree temperature difference that ASTRUM addressed.
14
MEMBER BANERJEE:
15
MR. SISK:
16
MEMBER BANERJEE:
17
MR. SISK:
Come again?
There is a 10 CFR 50.46 -Right.
-- requirement that, when you
18
go beyond 50 degrees PCT, you have to have a plan to
19
recover that, and ASTRUM was the methodology we used
20
to recover that.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
21
22
Maybe you can
go -MR. CUMMINS:
23
24
Okay.
Maybe I can help here.
Ed
Cummins again.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
83
1
Basically, our customers and us both want
2
to margin to our limits, and we have had in the
3
Certified
4
centerline temperature limit.
5
with this different probabilistic treatment of the
6
results, we got -- I don't remember exactly -- 150
7
degrees
8
motive.
Design
instead
very
of
50
small
tells me exactly why you did it.
11
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
the
peak
that
is
Thank you.
the
That
With regard to item
12
1.9-2,
13
understandable,
14
bulletins
15
books when you submit the application.
16
the staff evaluate the applicability of any bulletins
17
and/or generic letters that may be issued between the
18
time the application is submitted and the approval
19
process is completed?
and/or
and
So
Okay.
10
bulletins
to
And you couldn't get,
degrees.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
9
margins
of
course,
generic
MR. SEBROSKY:
20
generic
letters,
that
letters
you
it
is
address
any
that
are
on
the
But how does
My name is Joe Sebrosky.
21
I work for Stephanie Coffin.
22
Manager for the Bellefonte Safety Review, and I will
23
look to Eileen if I say anything incorrect.
It
24
is
something
I'm the Lead Project
that
we
have
had
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
84
1
experience
with
before.
If
you
go
back
to
the
2
designs that we have certified, the four designs that
3
we have certified, what an applicant is required to
4
do is address the medium- and high-priority USIs and
5
GSIs.
6
the operational experience, we would expect them to
7
address bulletins and generic letters.
Through SECY papers, we also said, as part of
8
Obviously, when you looked at some of
9
those applications that came in, and it took us five,
10
six years to review that, what we did is, as that
11
bulletin or generic letter became known to the staff,
12
we would ask RAIs and ask Westinghouse to disposition
13
those.
So,
14
if
you
look
at
the
SERs
for
the
15
designs that were certified, it pretty much tries to
16
update those to the bulletins and generic letters
17
that were in effect at the date that the SER was
18
issued.
19
It is required that the date that the
20
Design Certification -- and I will look to Jerry
21
Wilson if I say this incorrectly -- the date that we
22
did the certification, they are required to comply
23
with all rules and regulations that are in effect as
24
of that date.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
85
1
So, if a rule gets promulgated on the day
2
that we intend to do it, the Design Certification, we
3
may have to go back and change our schedule and
4
adjust it, and make sure that the applicant addresses
5
that.
So,
6
to
answer
your
question,
there's
7
things that are required by our regulations that have
8
to be up-to-date when we do the certification.
9
bulletins and generic letters, the process that we
10
worked is to try to make it as current as possible on
11
the date of the activity, either granting the license
12
or granting the certification.
For
Jerry, Mr. Wilson, who wrote 10 CFR Part
13
14
52,
just
indicated
15
acceptable to him.
that
my
16
(Laughter.)
17
MEMBER BANERJEE:
I am still sort of
19
generic safety issues.
20
plants, there is a process that people go through to
21
close
22
compliance to the requirements.
the
bit
somewhat
struggling
with
these
things
like
So, for the existing current
conformance
or
whatever
exists,
The staff are handling these on a case-
23
24
little
was
18
out
a
answer
by-case basis.
Now are you going through a process
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
86
1
like that for this plant now with, say, GSI-191?
2
There is a clear process which every current plant
3
goes through.
4
doing right now?
Is that the sort of thing you are
MR. SISK:
5
6
question
7
experience and history throughout, identifying any
8
kind
9
GSI-191 --
of
correctly,
We are, if I understand the
safety
we
do
issue.
But
10
MEMBER BANERJEE:
11
MR. SISK:
12
monitor
let's
the
just
operating
focus
on
Yes.
-- a long-term industry issue
that is being resolved.
13
We are working with the staff, as part of
14
their resolution to the amended design chapters, so
15
that we will come to a satisfactory solution to that
16
issue.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
17
18
So, for an existing
plant, for example, the staff at NRR --
19
MR. SISK:
Right.
20
MEMBER BANERJEE:
-- requires they go
21
through some testing protocols.
22
to prove that things work.
23
process of review.
24
process
it
goes
You know, they have
Eventually, there is a
There is an integrated review
through.
Then,
eventually,
each
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
87
1
plant individually is closed out.
2
yet, but it is in the process.
3
MR. SISK:
4
MEMBER BANERJEE:
It hasn't happened
Right.
Maybe, by the end of
5
next year, we hope we will close all of them out, if
6
we can.
Okay.
It
7
is
a
pretty
formalized
process
of
8
testing and all sorts of things that go into this for
9
a plant, water management schemes, and so on.
Because
10
11
this
design
MR. SISK:
13
MEMBER BANERJEE:
15
when
it
is
certified, it is going to be built like this, right?
12
14
now,
Right.
And we have to be sure
that you don't have the sump-screen-blockage problem.
Are you going through some process like that?
16
MR. SISK:
17
MEMBER BANERJEE:
So that came up after,
18
more or less, your original?
Now you have re-opened
19
this.
MR. SISK:
20
Yes.
We do sump screen testing.
We
21
are doing a lot of these same tests that the industry
22
is doing, and I think the important point to note
23
about a new plant or AP1000, this issue was there
24
when the plant was being designed.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
88
1
MEMBER BANERJEE:
2
MR.
SISK:
Sure.
So,
from
day
one,
a
3
consideration of cleanliness and how the plant was
4
put together, this issue -MEMBER BANERJEE:
5
Yes.
Let's say, it
6
would be foolish for a plant today to put any fiber
7
in the insulation.
8
right?
You have no fiber, I take it,
MR. SISK:
9
I won't say that, no.
But you
10
have to consider GSI-191 and the potential for sump
11
blockage and downstream effects in your design and in
12
the application of where you might -- we put MRI -MEMBER
13
BANERJEE:
You
have
a
golden
14
opportunity to eliminate the problem, right, as much
15
as possible?
16
MR. SISK:
17
MEMBER
18
MR. CUMMINS:
23
24
Yes,
as
much
as
Maybe I can help here.
Ed
Cummins again.
I would say that there is a resounding
21
22
BANERJEE:
possible.
19
20
As much as possible, yes, sir.
yes to your question.
I don't know.
doing
all
the
Does yes apply to everything?
But yes applies to GSI-191.
things,
at
least
more
We are
than
other
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
89
1
things, the operating plants are doing.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
2
3
You have the sword of
Damocles hanging over these plants?
4
MR. CUMMINS:
Right.
5
MEMBER BANERJEE:
6
MR. CUMMINS:
Right.
But just to get a kind of
7
regulatory basis of it, the reason we did no known
8
finality
9
because we had an open item regarding sump screens.
10
So, if you had a different issue, for example, where
11
we did have finality, you might have a different
12
answer.
that
topic
in
the
Certified
Design
But in this case -MEMBER
13
14
on
BANERJEE:
Say
with
non-
condensables in the safety injection line.
MR. CUMMINS:
15
Yes, I would say, in that
16
case, we have to ask the staff what their review is,
17
but there we would say that that is part of the
18
Certified Design, I believe.
19
MEMBER BANERJEE:
20
venting and sloping and all that sort --
21
MR. CUMMINS:
22
MR. SISK:
You've designed as much
Right, right.
I do want to add it is part of
23
Certified Design, but we do look at other things.
If
24
there are safety issues, we would have to address
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
90
1
them.
2
One of the mechanisms -- and I can defer
3
to the staff on that -- we are like an operating
4
plant in many respects.
5
we still have to evaluate it against our plan.
6
is not a significant safety issue -MEMBER BANERJEE:
7
8
So, when an issue comes up,
If it
That is a good answer,
yes.
MR. SISK:
9
MR.
10
Okay.
GRANT:
And
I
was
able
to
find,
11
Member Banerjee, that we did, indeed, address Generic
12
Letter
13
blockage.
14
information that I indicated is in Chapter 6.
15
will get a chance to look at that when we talk about
16
Chapter 6.
04-02
17
on
the
potential
impact
debris
That is the housekeeping and cleanliness
So we
MEMBER BANERJEE:
Yes.
I would also be
in
this
non-condensables
18
interested
19
business is an ongoing issue right now.
knowing
--
20
MR. GRANT:
21
MEMBER BANERJEE:
22
of
Okay.
How you are dealing
with that?
23
MR.
GRANT:
24
questions on the COL items?
All
right.
Any
other
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
91
1
(No response.)
2
Next slide.
3
Picking up with the second item there,
Bellefonte
Yes, thank you.
4
the
Supplement
5
identifying agents and contractors that are used to
6
build,
7
something
8
individual plant.
design,
and
that
the
We
9
1.4,
operate
DCD
the
could
have
we
plant,
not
in
are
do
just
again,
for
each
Section
1.6
10
identification of -- you have heard a couple of times
11
"incorporate
by
12
specifically
identify
13
incorporate by reference.
reference".
those
This
is
documents
The first one is the DCD.
14
where
that
we
we
do
That is the
15
major document that we incorporated by reference.
16
This is where we identify the specific revision that
17
is incorporated by reference, and it does currently
18
say Rev 17.
19
a
20
incorporate whatever revision turns out to be the
21
last
22
adjust that here.
later
one,
revision
then
of
So
23
24
When there is a Rev 18, or, God forbid,
incorporated
by
the
that,
we
will
adjust
Certified
wherever
reference
the
our
Design.
COL
to
We
will
we
have
you
read,
DCD
throughout
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
92
1
document.
You
2
revision that is in Section 1.6.
We
3
come
have
back
also
here
to
find
incorporated
out
what
four
NEI
4
template documents, 06-13, 07-02, 07-03, and 07-08.
5
These
6
programs,
7
program
8
achievable.
address
training
radiation
to
keep
programs,
protection
doses
as
maintenance
programs,
low
as
rule
and
a
reasonably
9
We were able, as an industry, to put
10
together a template that says we believe this is an
11
acceptable program; it doesn't matter who you are or
12
where you are, this would be an acceptable program
13
description.
14
as a template and adopted those just as though they
15
were written into the FSAR.
16
by reference is intended to apply.
We have put those together through NEI
Those
17
That is what incorporate
documents
are
a
portion
of
Those documents are still under review.
our
18
FSAR.
19
they are approved -- actually, two, three of them
20
have been approved; 06-13 has been approved; 07-02
21
and 07-03 have been approved.
22
completely incorporated with the latest version that
23
was approved.
24
within
the
When
Two of those we have
07-03 we should get to the staff
next
couple
of
weeks,
the
final
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
93
1
incorporation of that.
2
07-08 we understand is on schedule for an
3
approval approximately the end of August, and it will
4
take us a month or so to do that incorporation.
5
will do that as that comes around.
We
So plant-specific systems are identified
6
7
in 1.7.
It's just a list.
8
in different portions of the document.
9
systems are circulating water, raw water, service
10
water, and the offsite power system is, as Member
11
Banerjee
12
Chapter
13
further in those discussions.
14
specific.
15
margin annotation.
pointed
8,
out
Chapter
Those are discussed later
earlier.
9,
Some of those
Those
Chapter
10
will
and
be
in
discussed
And those are plant-
So you note that it starts with BLN left-
Interfaces COL items and departures, we
16
17
have
identified
18
information.
19
some
20
standard, but we didn't break out individual, tiny
21
pieces to call those standard when it was a large
22
response.
23
each of the plants, each of the AP1000 applications,
24
to address those items.
of
that
as
Bellefonte
supplemental
Generally, it is that way.
the
information
that
could
There is
have
been
So there will be individual items from
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
94
We will talk a little bit about some of
1
2
the departures later in the day.
In fact, I've got a
3
slide coming up very soon to address those.
Section 1.9, we have already talked about
4
5
through
6
criteria and guidance conformance.
7
there,
8
information, because much of it was COL items, but
9
one piece that wasn't covered by the COL items is
10
the
a
COL
items,
large
some
piece
of
of
the
that
regulatory
In particular
supplemental
Standard Review Plan conformance.
I would like to point out here that one
11
12
of
the
things
that
we
do,
as
the
Design
Center
13
Working Group, is take a look at the Standard Review
14
Plan.
15
the Reg Guide 1.206.
16
and what kinds of things the staff is going to be
17
looking for that wasn't identified in either the DCD
18
or through the COL items, and put that together, the
19
information,
20
conformed with the Standard Review Plan or, no, we
21
are missing a piece of information and don't want to
22
put that in, and therefore, identify an exception,
23
and of course, then justify that exception if we take
24
one.
We use that as guidance as well, along with
so
that
We look for missing information
we
can
say,
yes,
we
have
But all of that, again, is in a table in
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
95
1
Section 1.9, where we address Standard Review Plan
2
conformance.
But we can look there to identify if
3
4
there is anything missing.
5
Guide 1.206 to make sure that anything is missing,
6
much the same as the staff does when they get the
7
application in.
8
make
9
missing.
sure
We check against the Reg
They use those same documents to
everything
is
there,
nothing
has
been
10
And we use our subject matter experts to
11
look at the individual items that we are putting in
12
and to check it against the incorporated by reference
13
DCD, to make sure that whatever we are doing does
14
match up (a) with the interfaces, as identified in
15
Section
16
something that would cause a problem with any of the
17
Certified Design or the DCD document.
1.8
there,
and
that
we
are
not
doing
So we do look, just as you indicated,
18
19
Member Abdel-Khalik.
20
with that name, but I will work through it.
21
do
22
anything that we have provided would cause a conflict
23
with any of the Design Certified information in the
24
DCD.
look
for
those,
I may have a little trouble
and
to
determine
if,
But we
indeed,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
96
When
1
and
we
do
use
subject
those
3
experts
4
documents,
5
identify those, just as the staff does when it comes
6
in.
7
during that review to identify those concerns.
and
very
how
our
of
things --
are
we
one
2
who
again,
identify
familiar
they
need
with
to
both
fit
matter
sets
of
together
to
They will use their own subject matter experts
8
We use that, then, to identify if we need
9
to take a departure or do we need to do something
10
else.
Perhaps we need to modify the information
11
we're going to provide, so that we don't have to take
12
a departure.
CHAIR RAY:
13
Well, it is good for you to
14
assure us of that.
15
we gain visibility to that process?
16
MR. GRANT:
17
because
it
18
process --
is
I think our question goes, how do
a
Yes.
very
Well, that is difficult
much
behind-the-scenes
19
CHAIR RAY:
Yes.
20
MR. GRANT:
-- that is conducted, again,
21
mostly by the subject matter experts as they look at
22
the individual pieces of information and do those
23
reviews, both within our organizations and within the
24
staff's, I believe.
So making that visible could be
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
97
1
difficult.
CHAIR RAY:
2
3
pondering.
Well, that is what we are
Okay.
Ed, before you go to the next page, I
4
5
wanted to note something to Mike Lee here.
6
Dr. Mike Ryan is participating, although he couldn't
7
be here, in this Subcommittee's review of certain
8
sections.
9
included ones that are still pending approval that he
I will note that these NEI documents here
10
will want to be aware of.
11
07-08.
MR.
12
Member
GRANT:
Actually,
haven't
has
been
completed
our
approved.
14
incorporation of that approved document, but we are
15
very close to that, moving that in.
16
CHAIR RAY:
All right.
17
MR. GRANT:
07-08 is still under review.
19
just
07-03
13
18
We
I think it is 07-03 and
It looks like the schedule for that is near the end
of August.
20
CHAIR RAY:
21
areas that he is looking at for us.
22
Thank you.
23
MR. GRANT:
24
But they have to do with
This slide just addresses a
listing of the departures.
Again, you will see they
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
98
1
are in various chapters.
2
bottom four there are all plant-specific, and they
3
will be addressed in Chapters 8, 9, Chapter 13, and
4
the last one is primarily in Chapter 2, Chapter 6,
5
and Chapter 15.
6
chapters we are going to discuss today or tomorrow.
7
But I wanted to give you this list of departures that
8
is identified in Chapter 1 and also in Part 7, which
9
is
actually
The technical ones, the
Unfortunately, none of those are
where
the
justifications
and
long
10
discussions of those departures and any associated
11
exemptions would be.
The
12
first
one
is
pretty
much
an
13
administrative item.
14
that the COLA FSAR has to follow the organization and
15
numbering of the DCD.
16
places where that is very difficult for us and/or
17
places where we need to add sections because of the
18
requirements or the guidance, rather, of Reg Guide
19
1.206.
20
organization
21
identified that with this standard departure, again,
22
an administrative item.
24
In fact, there are a few
So everywhere where we are different from the
and
The
23
There is a regulation that says
numbering
BLN
of
8.2-1,
the
the
DCD,
we
have
transformer
arrangement, we had a place, because of the way that
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
99
1
the left -- unless you have questions, I would rather
2
not get into Chapter 8, Chapter 9, and Chapter 13
3
information at this time.
4
the various chapters as they come along.
We will discuss those with
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
5
Going back to the
6
previous slide, on Item 1.A, I think the best way
7
perhaps for you to demonstrate to us this process is
8
by indicating examples where this process has led to
9
the
10
identification
of
items
in
which
there
was
conflict.
MR. GRANT:
11
again,
or
12
back
13
slide, that bottom item down there, well, all four of
14
those departures are examples of that information
15
where we were looking at particular things in the DCD
16
and we decided -- let's take the fourth one down, BLN
17
18.8-1, relocated the TSC.
The
18
not
Certainly, and if you will go
DCD
back,
I'm
sorry,
indicates
that
forward
the
one
Technical
19
Support Center that supports emergency functions is
20
in a particular location within a building for an
21
individual
22
written for single-unit plants.
23
sites
24
inefficient
have
plant,
because
ordered
to
dual
staff,
or
the
DCD
originally
Well, all of our
units.
not
was
just
It
is
staff,
somewhat
but
to
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
100
1
outfit two sets of Technical Support Centers.
2
some of the sites, Bellefonte being one of those,
3
have decided to move it out of that area and move it
4
over into a specific area on its own.
So that is a departure from the DCD.
5
6
looked at it.
7
we need to do something different.
8
make this departure.
So we're going to
So, say the wastewater
10
monitoring system, is that a site-specific item?
11
example, tritium and -MR. GRANT:
12
We
We said, no, that doesn't work for us;
MEMBER BANERJEE:
9
So
Some of it is.
For
Some of it is
13
standard.
But those portions that are site-specific,
14
the DCD, we didn't have a departure because the DCD
15
identifies
16
conceptual design information.
those
portions
17
MEMBER BANERJEE:
18
MR. GRANT:
No.
of
the
systems
as
Is it DAC or -No, it's a little bit
19
different.
20
I think it is, where we had the listing -- I'm sorry,
21
right there.
22
sorry.
No, one more.
No, the other way.
I'm
Right there.
You will see that, from the left-margin
23
24
If you back up two or three slides there,
annotations, the last item there is CDI.
That is a
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
101
1
place where the Design Certified Document identifies
2
some
3
information to be able to say this is the way the
4
design works, but we recognize that each plant might
5
be a little bit different, but it is going to fit
6
within these parameters.
information
If
7
because
you
look
they
needed
through
the
enough
DCD,
in
8
particular Chapter 10, where some of this stuff might
9
be covered,
10
it is in brackets.
That is the way they
have identified this conceptual design information.
If you look through the regulation, you
11
12
will
see
that
conceptual
design
information
is
13
specifically called out as not Certified Design, not
14
certified information.
15
So we, then, are allowed, through the
16
processes and rules under Part 52, to go into that
17
bracketed information and make it plant-specific.
18
we have provided some plant-specific information in
19
that area, but it did not require a departure because
20
it was conceptual design information in the DCD, one
21
more little nuance of a way that is addressed under
22
Part 52.
CHAIR
23
24
RAY:
Okay.
Now
the
TSC
So
is
consolidated for both units, as you say?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
102
1
MR. GRANT:
2
CHAIR RAY:
Uh-hum.
That brings to my mind the
3
issue of turbine missiles, which are addressed in the
4
DCD for a single unit, but are not resolved for a
5
dual unit.
6
MR. GRANT:
7
CHAIR RAY:
8
the
9
10?
Yes, sir.
Where is that addressed in
application at hand here?
MR. GRANT:
10
Is that in Chapter
No, it is in -- well, there
11
is a reference to it in Chapter 10.
It is a minor
12
reference.
The actual evaluation of the hazard is in
13
Chapter 3.
So that will come up in the fall.
14
We do have a section in Chapter 3, 3.5-15
15
I believe it is, that talks about those dual-unit
16
potential missiles from the opposite unit turbines.
17
CHAIR RAY:
18
MR. GRANT:
Right.
Right.
So we have looked at that.
19
We have determined that the probabilities are low
20
enough that it meets the criteria.
21
CHAIR RAY:
22
Right.
We will get to that
later.
23
MR. GRANT:
24
CHAIR RAY:
Yes, in the fall.
But my only point is that
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
103
1
that is another example of where the two units make a
2
difference --
3
MR. GRANT:
4
CHAIR RAY:
Yes.
-- as compared to the DCD,
5
and it has to be addressed on a plant-specific, site-
6
specific basis.
MR. GRANT:
7
That is quite correct, and I
8
believe that is supplemental information.
9
have to go back and look again, because it wasn't a
10
I would
COL item because it was a DCD single-unit approval.
11
CHAIR RAY:
12
MR. GRANT:
that
asks
for
Right.
But when we look at the Reg
13
Guide
certain
14
content, we know that when there are two units, that
15
that is a piece of information that the staff will be
16
looking for because the guidance says they will be.
17
So we have added that information in.
18
in Chapter -CHAIR RAY:
19
information
that a departure or --
21
MR. GRANT:
No, sir.
22
CHAIR RAY:
No, it's not?
23
MR.
24
departure.
FSAR
Again, it is
Following your protocol, is
20
GRANT:
for
No,
that
would
not
be
a
Again, it is supplemental information.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
104
1
We have added to what is in the DCD to address the
2
requirements for the COLs.
3
The last item --
4
MEMBER
BANERJEE:
This
change
is
5
addressed in the DCD, I mean the amended one that you
6
are now looking toward, Revision 17 or something,
7
right?
MR.
8
9
GRANT:
The
dual-unit
turbine
missiles?
10
MEMBER BANERJEE:
11
MR. GRANT:
Yes.
No, sir, they will not be.
12
Again, the DCD continues to be Certified Design for a
13
single unit, but the COL application is for a dual
14
unit.
15
application.
So
it
will
be
16
MEMBER BANERJEE:
17
MR. GRANT:
addressed
in
the
COL
Okay.
Although I will say I believe
18
we do have a question on that, but I will let him
19
address that when we get to Chapter whatever that is.
20
MR. SISK:
21
MR. GRANT:
22
Chapter 10.
There is an item
on that, on the DCD.
But we have addressed it in the COL.
23
24
Chapter 10.
So
I know it has been covered.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
105
The final item here or the final slide or
1
2
two is the open items for Chapter 1.
CHAIR
3
4
discuss
5
dispersion value.
RAY:
exclusion
area
MR. GRANT:
6
Wait,
wait.
boundary
You
didn't
atmospheric
Oh, I'm sorry.
You won't
7
actually see that one discussed much in the SER that
8
you have in front of you because that is one of those
9
things that is beyond Rev 1.
10
I listed it on here to
be complete.
11
There was a revision to the DCD, and we
12
followed those revisions fairly closely and looked at
13
those.
14
revisions, the Rev 17 revisions, we identified that,
15
indeed, for the exclusion area boundary atmospheric
16
dispersion coefficients, the CHI over Q's, there was
17
one set of the exclusion area boundary CHI over Q's
18
that
19
Bellefonte site.
20
do
21
specific CHI over Q's for that area.
was
some
When we looked at one of the more recent
not
bounded
for
the
TVA
site,
for
the
So that resulted in us having to go
plant-specific
analysis
using
our
site-
22
Again, those are primarily discussed in
23
Chapter 2, where the CHI over Q's are discussed, in
24
Chapter 6, where there is an impact, and in Chapter
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
106
1
15, which is the actual dose calculations.
2
will be covering that in more detail in the fall when
3
we get to those chapters.
CHAIR RAY:
4
that
gives
rise
So we
Again, it is an environmental
5
item
to
6
pondering the way in which we have visibility to how
7
that is identified.
8
so that makes it easy.
departure.
We
are
Now you have identified it here,
(Laughter.)
9
But if it has not been picked up on, is
10
11
there
12
deliberating?
any
way
to
recognize
13
Okay, proceed.
14
MEMBER BANERJEE:
15
a
that
as
what
we
are
In other words, what
else is there?
16
(Laughter.)
17
CHAIR RAY:
That's right.
18
MR. GRANT:
The staff could help us with
19
those when we get questions about things.
20
(Laughter.)
21
CHAIR RAY:
22
our role to play, too.
MR. GRANT:
23
24
Stephanie
indicated
I'm sure they do, but we have
Absolutely.
earlier,
that
As Eileen and
is
one
of
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
107
1
reasons why we are here, why we would like to talk to
2
you early, to get that kind of feedback.
3
Open items that remain, there is an open
4
item that will be standard, which is, as discussed
5
earlier, to incorporate by reference the final DCD,
6
whatever
7
revision, because we do identify it specifically by
8
revision.
Once it is approved, then we will need to
9
come
in
that
back
might
and
turn
do
out
that.
to
This
be,
is
a
whatever
tracking
10
mechanism for the staff and for us to make sure that
11
that gets done.
12
The
second
item
is
license
condition
13
criteria.
I will let the staff talk more about that,
14
but they are still looking at what criteria they are
15
going to use for determining what things should be
16
license
17
acceptable just as commitments.
18
a placeholder for them to come up with criteria.
conditions
and
what
things
might
be
So that is basically
19
Interface content identification, we have
20
provided information on our interfaces and where we
21
have addressed the DCD interfaces.
There's still a
22
few questions outstanding on that.
We are working
23
with the staff to close those out.
I
24
show
both
standard
and
Bellefonte-
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
108
1
specific there because we are still working through
2
that.
3
leaning
4
response that each of the COLAs would then have to
5
address as well.
I would say at this point we are kind of
toward
CHAIR
6
7
examples here?
provide
some
being
RAY:
a
Bellefonte-specific
Okay.
How
about
some
Interface content identification?
MR. GRANT:
8
9
that
If we could back up and maybe
similarities,
when
we
looked
at
COL
10
information or looked at supplemental information, we
11
provided those left-margin annotations in the various
12
places to tell the staff where that information was
13
being
14
throughout the document, but we didn't specifically
15
identify them in any way.
addressed.
We
did
address
the
interfaces
16
So what we have done recently is give
17
them a table that matches up with the DCD table that
18
identifies the interfaces to help them address or
19
identify where in the FSAR those interfaces have been
20
addressed.
21
That table gives them a section number.
22
We still did not identify it with a specific LMA
23
because in some cases it is COL information; in some
24
cases it is supplemental information.
So it was a
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
109
1
little bit difficult for us to figure out a way to do
2
that.
3
working with them to make sure they understand what
4
we've got there and how each of those items is being
5
addressed.
So we gave them the table.
We are, again,
6
We don't think there's a real technical
7
issue there because we have addressed each one of
8
those.
9
identified in each one of the specific chapters.
If there is a technical issue, it will be
10
CHAIR RAY:
11
MR.
GRANT:
Thank you.
But
this
one
is,
again,
12
pretty much administrative on where is it, help us
13
find it kind of thing.
14
Regulatory Guide compliance, we had some
15
questions about conformance on the Regulation Guides
16
and various ones, and trying to make sure that the
17
tables in Chapter 1 match up with the documentation
18
of the Regulatory Guide conformance throughout the
19
rest of the book.
Again,
20
this
one
appears
to
be
mostly
21
administrative in making sure that those matches are
22
maintained.
23
working through and working with the staff to make
24
sure they get the information again that they need.
We've got some issues there that we are
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
110
1
And there is also the possibility, as
2
they go through the remainder of the review, that
3
they may have other questions about Regulatory Guide
4
conformance.
5
those.
So, as those come up, we will address
That
6
is
the
reason
why
7
standard and Bellefonte.
8
those questions will be just yet.
9
either one.
it
is
both
We are not sure what all
So it could be
Construction impacts and operating units,
10
11
the
staff
is
looking
at
12
complete
their
13
criteria
is.
14
regard to the construction impacts.
review
We
have
some
and
criteria
what
provided
the
there
to
acceptance
information
with
The second one there on that page as
15
16
well,
to
provide
17
implementation
18
statement.
19
there, and we should be getting that to the staff
20
very soon.
timing,
a
positive
we
are
statement
working
on
of
that
We think we understand what they need
Again, it should be a standard content.
21
The 1.4-3, perhaps --
22
CHAIR RAY:
Does that include, by the
23
way, construction of the second unit on the first
24
unit?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
111
1
2
That is exactly what it is,
CHAIR RAY:
Well, at Vogtle it would be
in fact.
3
4
MR. GRANT:
more than that, I would think.
MR. GRANT:
5
It would be.
The question
6
between Vogtle and Bellefonte is the 1.4-3.
When
7
does that need to go into place, at what point during
8
the construction?
9
working through, when does that need to take place?
10
What kind of commitment do they need from us with
11
regard to sites where there is already an operating
12
unit?
And the staff, again, is still
13
For a site like Bellefonte, 1.4-4, for
14
instance, where there is not an operating unit, but
15
would be at some point, where you complete the first
16
unit, in our case, Unit 3, and you're still working
17
on Unit 4, well, it is obvious that the place to
18
implement this program on construction impacts is at
19
the time that Unit 3 goes into operation because
20
there will be active construction on Unit 4 at that
21
time.
22
Now when the COL, however, is issued on
23
Vogtle, for instance, there will be operating units,
24
but there won't be any active construction, or may
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
112
1
not
be
for
some
length
of
time.
Some
of
that
2
construction may not have potential to have an impact
3
on the operating units.
4
So we are still working through exactly
5
when do we need to implement that on plants that have
6
currently operating units.
7
item 1.4-3.
8
that later.
That is part of the open
I will let the staff talk more about
That is my best understanding of it.
1.5 is Part 30/40/70 licenses.
9
In the
10
old days, we would ask for those separately and get
11
those ahead of the operating license under Part 50
12
because we would need to receive, possess, and use
13
either
14
nuclear material on site, primarily sources.
15
would get those ahead of the Part 50 license.
16
they would be asked for separately.
source
and/or
some
byproduct
or
special
But we
So
17
What we are trying to do here is make
18
sure that the current COL application has all the
19
necessary
20
order to be able to issue those Part 30/40 and 70
21
licenses along with the Part 52 operating license.
information
that
the
staff
requires
in
So there were some questions about some
22
23
of the information.
Where is it?
24
address the Part 30/40/70 concerns?
How does it
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
113
1
Again, we are very close to having that
2
completed, so that we can help the staff understand
3
where
4
completed as well.
that
information
is
and
get
that
review
5
CHAIR RAY:
Thank you.
6
MR. GRANT:
Yes, sir.
7
CHAIR RAY:
Serita, you have been waiting
8
patiently.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
9
10
Could I go back and ask
a question, please?
11
CHAIR RAY:
12
MEMBER
Yes.
BANERJEE:
With
regard
to
the
13
shape of the pressurizer, why didn't you change that?
14
Was it the shape of the pressurizer or the surge
15
lines?
MR.
16
17
pressurizer,
but
18
shortly, yes.
SISK:
we
MR. GRANT:
19
It
will
was
be
the
shape
talking
of
about
the
that
If I might, one other item
20
that I had on my list here that I forgot to address,
21
it is not a slide, Joe.
So go ahead with yours.
The confirmatory items, we talked about
22
23
those
a
little
bit.
The
vast
majority
of
our
24
confirmatory items, we have already written a letter
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
114
1
to the NRC and said this is the information we're
2
going to put into the FSAR; here are the words.
3
is where we are going to put it.
This
4
They have agreed with that and said, yes,
5
that is acceptable, and when you put that in, we will
6
close this out.
7
because, again, those are all issues that have been
8
agreed upon and done.
We are not going to talk about those
9
We have a couple of exceptions on that
10
where there are confirmatory items that are of a
11
different type.
12
be addressed with Chapter 5 and Chapter 12, where
13
those reside.
We will address those.
CHAIR RAY:
14
15
of
16
straightforward, but anyway.
17
MR.
18
a
confirmatory
Okay.
item.
GRANT:
I gave you my example
It
And
wasn't
where
we
absolutely
have
those
types, we will cover those today.
19
CHAIR RAY:
20
MEMBER BANERJEE:
21
Those will
Okay.
Are you also going to
address LOCA methodology today?
MR. SISK:
22
23
later on.
24
discussions later.
No, LOCA will be addressed
It will actually be part of Chapter 15
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
115
MEMBER BANERJEE:
1
2
So you just marked that
as an item?
3
MR. SISK:
Just marked it as an item.
4
MEMBER BANERJEE:
Is it only the blowdown
5
phase or are you also doing re-analysis of the long-
6
term cooling phase?
MR. SISK:
7
8
a re-analysis.
MEMBER
9
10
BANERJEE:
But
of
MR. SISK:
12
MEMBER
The whole thing.
BANERJEE:
The
whole
MR. CUMMINS:
blowdown phase.
16
term cooling in support of sump screens --
We have done some analysis on long-
17
MEMBER BANERJEE:
18
MR. CUMMINS:
Right.
-- because you have to know
how much DP you can actually stand.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
20
Okay, but that is going
to be addressed in a separate meeting?
22
MR. SISK:
23
CHAIR RAY:
24
thing,
I think it is just the
15
21
the
including long-term --
14
19
just
blowdown phase?
11
13
With regard to ASTRUM, we did
Correct.
All right, anything else on
Chapter 1?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
116
1
(No response.)
2
MR. GRANT:
Thank you.
3
CHAIR RAY:
All right, your turn, Serita.
4
MS. SANDERS:
5
Serita
Sanders,
and
6
Certification Amendment.
Good morning.
I'm
a
PM
for
My name is
the
Design
I work for Eileen McKenna.
7
I will be giving the portion for the CDA for Chapter
8
1 today, and Joe Sebrosky will give the portion for
9
the Bellefonte COLA.
10
I would like to take this opportunity --
11
CHAIR RAY:
12
I've got
an administrative thing.
I am keeping close track of the agenda,
13
14
Excuse me a second.
and we will take a break.
15
MEMBER BANERJEE:
16
CHAIR
RAY:
What a task master.
Well,
I've
got
to
march
17
through here.
18
5 before the break, but we won't get there.
19
want, if possible, Serita at least to finish her part
20
on Chapter 1.
MS. SANDERS:
21
22
We're actually supposed to end Chapter
Oh, great.
But I
I will go
quickly.
23
(Laughter.)
24
CHAIR RAY:
I thought that would be a
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
117
1
consequence, yes.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
2
3
Thank you.
We are just one hour
behind schedule or one and a half hours.
CHAIR
4
RAY:
You
have
to
continue
5
excuse us.
6
of item 3, which is supposed to be done at 10:00.
7
we're a half-hour behind.
9
So
I will only take a couple
of minutes.
CHAIR RAY:
10
11
It's 10:30 and we are almost to the end
MS. SANDERS:
8
to
discussion.
But this has been a good
I have thought it was worth having.
12
Go ahead, Serita.
13
MS. SANDERS:
to
I would like to take this
14
opportunity
acknowledge
the
staff,
the
staff
15
review team that is.
16
the COL, which is Stephen Koenick, Eric Oesterle -- I
17
really practiced this name -- Michael Dusaniwskyj,
18
and
19
the COL, it is Joe Sebrosky for Bellefonte and Sujata
20
Goetz, and for the DCA, I'm the Chapter 1 project
21
manager,
22
acknowledge David Jaffe, who is a major contributor
23
to the development of Chapter 1.
We have the technical staff for
Richard Pelton, and for the project managers for
but
I
would
be
remiss
if
I
did
not
We just provided you on this slide with a
24
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
118
1
brief overview of the DCA and the COL.
2
summary of the open items.
3
Design Certification Amendment to the COL.
4
the purpose of this slide.
It is a
You can compare the
That was
5
Next slide, please.
6
For this slide, it gives you an overview
7
of the DCD and the DCA.
8
talked about changes, and we just simply stated where
9
there were no major changes and where there were
10
As mentioned earlier, they
conforming changes to the DCD versus the DCA.
11
Next slide.
12
Chapter 1 provides the context of the
13
Supplement 2 of NUREG-1793.
It helps explain to
14
anyone that reads the NUREG, collectively, what is
15
the scope of the review.
16
chapter illustrates the key functions.
The organization of the
As you can see, you have an historical
17
18
perspective,
19
SERs,
20
perspective,
21
chronology we identify important correspondence, and
22
to the application we cited the milestones, but we
23
also considered, as stated earlier by Westinghouse,
24
that there are a lot of players involved in the
and
summary,
two
open
you
information
items.
have
a
With
generic
the
chronology,
to
all
historical
and
in
that
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
119
1
development of this.
2
new PMs.
We are all new; a lot of us are
A lot of people are new from Westinghouse.
It
3
gives
a
chronology
from
when
the
4
application was tendered back at March 28th, 2002,
5
all
6
Westinghouse submitted the Revision 17.
7
a great historical perspective in Chapter 1.
the
way
through
September
22nd,
2008,
when
So it gives
8
We also have a summary, not as extensive
9
as Westinghouse, but Chapter 1 also points you to
10
other things in the chapter, so you can have the
11
summary
12
subsequent SERs, read what the changes are.
of
the
design
changes
and
you
can,
in
Then it also helps with the organization
13
14
of the SERs.
In the generic piece, it is information
15
that you will see repeatedly through every chapter of
16
the DCA.
So, lastly, we have the open items, which
17
18
Westinghouse
19
those open items as to make sure that in the final
20
that
21
consistent.
tables,
about
earlier.
figures,
and
Reg
We
generated
Guides
are
If there are no questions, that concludes
22
23
all
talked
my presentation.
CHAIR RAY:
24
Okay.
That was brief and to
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
120
1
the point.
Thank you.
2
I've got one question, though, which I'm
3
going to ask now, just so I can calibrate myself.
4
Looking ahead beyond the section in this package that
5
we have on the hard copy, Chapter 1 is followed by a
6
staff presentation on Chapter 4, but I don't see that
7
on the agenda here today.
8
MS. McKENNA:
9
Chapter 4 is actually on
the agenda for tomorrow.
10
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
11
MS. McKENNA:
When we were putting the
12
agenda together, we kind of looked at times, of sizes
13
of chapters and availability of people.
14
probably the major exception, where we are out of
15
sequence, although I think there's another.
16
(Laughter.)
17
CHAIR RAY:
So this is
You're actually in sequence,
18
Eileen, because 1, 4, 5, that's in order.
19
I wanted to ask if I had missed something.
It is just
Okay.
20
Well, we were to complete our review of
21
Chapter 5 before our break, but given that it is five
22
minutes to go -MS. COFFIN:
23
24
Mr. Ray, we still have a
presentation to do.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
121
CHAIR
1
2
right.
RAY:
Yes,
I left off Joe.
I
understand.
All
Sorry, Joe.
3
(Laughter.)
4
MR. SEBROSKY:
5
CHAIR RAY:
Oh, that's okay.
Serita, I was made so nervous
6
by Sanjoy's worrying about the coffee break that I
7
speeded us up too much.
8
(Laughter.)
9
So go ahead, Joe.
MR. SEBROSKY:
10
11
12
Thank you.
My
name is Joe Sebrosky.
I'm Lead Project Manager for the Bellefonte Safety
Review, and I work for Stephanie Coffin.
The purpose of this slide is to show you
13
14
--
and,
actually,
15
application --
16
Bellefonte application, where the different parts of
17
the application are dispositioned in our SER.
So
18
1
has,
but
there's
it
the
is
Safety
if
you
to
11
parts
show
you,
Evaluation
look
at
the
to
the
for
the
Report
first
for
19
Chapter
three
20
sections, 1.1 through 1.3, it talks about the 11
21
parts of the application, and it provides a roadmap
22
for how those things are dispositioned in our Safety
23
Evaluation.
So, for example, if you look at Part 1,
24
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
122
1
it
is
the
general
2
financial information.
3
actually
4
Evaluation.
reviewed
administration
information
and
The financial information is
in
Section
1.5.1
of
the
Safety
Part 2 of the application is the Final
5
6
Safety Analysis Report.
For the most part, that is
7
evaluated on a chapter-by-chapter basis.
8
find Chapter 2 FSAR information evaluated in Chapter
9
2 SER chapters.
So you will
The Environmental Report is Part 3 of the
10
11
application.
12
environmental PMs, and the product that is going to
13
look
14
Statement.
at
That
that
is
is
the
being
Final
addressed
by
Environmental
the
Impact
The tech specs are discussed in Chapter
15
16
16, the emergency plan, and in Chapter 13.
There is
17
no limited work authorization for Bellefonte.
18
that is not applicable.
So
Part 7 is something that Eddie alluded to
19
20
earlier.
21
more detail and the justification for each departure.
22
You won't find that kind of information typically in
23
It is the departures report.
It gives much
the FSAR.
Part 8 of the application is the security
24
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
123
1
plan.
There
will
only
be
a
summary
2
provided in Chapter 13 in the SER.
description
Part 9 in the application has withheld
3
4
information.
Some of the proprietary information,
5
for example, is some of the financial information.
6
You will see that in Part 9 in the non-public version
7
of the document.
8
that.
The public version, you won't see
Part 10 of the application contains the
9
10
proposed license conditions.
11
there's some license conditions we will talk about in
12
a little bit.
Part
13
on
11
your
in
the
handouts;
It includes ITAAC, and
application,
it
is
not
it
on
is
14
actually
this
15
particular slide.
16
the TVA Quality Assurance Program description.
17
is evaluated in Chapter 17 of the Safety Evaluation
18
Report.
But Part 11 of the application has
That
19
So the purpose of this slide and the
20
purpose of the discussion in the SER is to provide a
21
mapping of the different parts of the application and
22
how they were addressed by the staff.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
23
24
Does the ITAAC also
contain the DAC?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
124
MR. SEBROSKY:
1
2
The ITAAC incorporates by
reference the ITAAC from the Certified Design.
3
MS. McKENNA:
4
The DAC are a subset, if you will, of
5
ITAAC.
They are within -MEMBER
6
7
BANERJEE:
Yes,
so
they
are
included?
8
9
This is Eileen McKenna.
MEMBER BROWN:
What chapter is that in in
MS. McKENNA:
The ITAAC are actually in
the DCD?
10
11
Tier 1 of the DCD, which has a separate numbering
12
different from the Chapter 1 through 19 that we have
13
in the Tier 2 and the FSAR.
14
MR.
SEBROSKY:
The
Emergency
Planning
15
ITAAC, which are unique to Bellefonte, you will find
16
them in Part 10 of Bellefonte's application.
17
10 of the application for Bellefonte incorporates by
18
reference
19
Eileen
20
includes the Emergency Planning ITAAC, and it also
21
addresses other systems that potentially could have
22
ITAAC.
said
Design
are
Tier
Certification
1
material,
ITAAC,
and
which
also,
it
One of those, for example, is offsite
23
24
the
So Part
power.
We may end up with ITAAC on the offsite
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
125
1
power.
So that is where you would find the ITAAC
2
3
that are outside the scope of the Certified Design.
On slide seven, Eddie alluded to this.
4
5
He discussed the departures and the exemptions.
As I
6
said, Part 7 of the application provides much more
7
detail on the justification for those departures and
8
exactly what they are departing from or what they are
9
requesting exemption from.
10
The only thing that I would clarify is
11
the exclusion area boundary, the ACRS members have
12
Revision 1 of the application.
13
Bellefonte incorporates by reference Rev 17.
14
that I have provided to Mike earlier for the members
15
have links.
16
fact that when you look at any particular chapter,
17
the
18
reference.
19
going to go to the public version of Rev 17.
first
So Revision 1 of
The CDs
So, when you go -- Eddie alluded to the
section
will
say
we
incorporate
by
Well, if you click on that link, you are
20
What we describe in Chapter 1 of our
21
Safety Evaluation Report is that, for the most part,
22
we are basing our Safety Evaluation Report on that
23
Revision
24
supplemental
1
of
the
application.
information
that
we
There
also
are
intend
some
to
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
126
1
address in the SER.
The exclusion area boundary
2
exemption request came in the form of an RAI response
3
that was after Rev 1.
4
in our SER that we are going to provide to the
5
Committee.
But we intend to evaluate that
So in Chapter 1 we also provide a mapping
6
7
of
8
discussed in the SER.
9
issued all the other chapters.
10
where
the
departures
and
the
exemptions
are
We issued Chapter 1 before we
Typically, Chapter 1
would be a rollup that would be done at the end.
Some of that mapping may change.
11
For
12
example, the Technical Support Center, we mention
13
that it will be in Chapter 18.
14
departure came from, but the departure will probably
15
also be discussed in Chapter 13 for the Emergency
16
Plan.
17
the
18
supplied by the normal ventilation system for the
19
plan, and it was filtered.
20
moving that, we may discuss that in Chapter 9.
21
haven't completed that mapping.
22
until all the SERs are done.
That is where the
It may also be discussed in Chapter 9 because
ventilation
system
for
the
TSC
used
to
be
So the fact that they are
We
We won't do that
23
So the purpose of this slide was, again,
24
to let you know about Part 7 of the application and
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
127
1
to let you know in Chapter 1 we attempted to provide
2
a
3
exemptions would be discussed.
roadmap
for
where
the
various
departures
and
This next slide, we are going to try, you
4
5
will
see
6
going to provide a slide like this in each one of the
7
chapters.
8
an idea of the reliance of the Safety Evaluation
9
Report
on
in
the
additional
presentations,
we
are
It is meant to try to give the Committee
how
much
of
it
is
incorporated
by
10
reference, how much of it is standard, and how much
11
of it is site-specific.
So let's back up.
12
The Safety Evaluation
13
Report for all the COLs, Bellefonte, Vogtle, any of
14
the seven plants that may get to that stage, is going
15
to support the license for that particular plant.
16
in that Safety Evaluation Report, in each section we
17
try to provide a mapping for how the various things
18
are evaluated.
So,
19
for
example,
the
incorporated
So
by
20
reference, what you will see in our Safety Evaluation
21
Report is a pointer to eventually the NUREG 1793
22
supplement that Eileen is working on.
23
If you look at the standard information,
24
it tries to, similar to the left-margin annotation
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
128
1
for what the applicants are doing, our SERs try to
2
identify what is standard and what is site-specific.
3
The idea is that, when we get to the S-COLs, for the
4
S-COLs, they will point back; for the stuff that is
5
within the scope of the Certified Design, the SER is
6
going to point back to the NUREG that talks about the
7
Design Certification.
8
it is going to point back to the R-COL, how that
9
information was reviewed under the R-COL.
it
For the standard information,
10
site-specific,
is
going
to
provide
11
evaluation for the site-specific.
a
For the
detailed
12
So in this slide, and you will see it
13
with Chapter 5, we try to identify the standard and
14
site-specific
15
discussion that we had earlier today.
content.
It
gets
back
to
the
So, for Bellefonte, the SER is going to
16
17
support the Bellefonte Combined License.
18
thing
19
Summer.
20
one of those SERs is, under the Design Center Working
21
Group approach, you are going to see pointers and
22
credit
23
makes sense.
for
Vogtle,
and
the
same
thing
The same
for
V.
C.
What you are going to see, though, for each
being
taken
for
previous
reviews,
if
that
So this slide, if you look at 1.1, it
24
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
129
1
mentions that there is some incorporated by reference
2
material, there is some standard material, and there
3
is also site-specific.
4
try to break out the standard information and the
5
site-specific information and provide an evaluation
6
on each one of those on an individual basis.
If you look at our SER, we
7
The idea is that we do that so that we
8
can point back and take advantage of that in the next
9
COL evaluation.
So, if you look at 1.3 and 1.5, they are
10
11
completely incorporated by reference.
12
Evaluation, what we say is we have looked at 1.3 and
13
1.5,
14
incorporate
15
furthermore, there isn't anything else that we think
16
needs to be provided in those sections for us to make
17
a safety determination that will provide the basis
18
for issuing the Combined License.
we
agree
those
You
19
20
and
that
it
sections
will
see
is
by
that
In our Safety
appropriate
reference
consistent
to
and,
language
throughout all our SERs.
21
The other thing that you will see, as we
22
talk about the other chapters, is a highlight of the
23
areas that we think may benefit from review from the
24
ACRS.
In this particular slide, we have highlighted
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
130
1
1.8, 1.9, and 1.10.
Not only do we intend to talk
2
about the open items, but there's some issues in
3
those chapters that are resolved by the staff, but
4
may be of interest to the ACRS.
5
So these open items are the open items --
6
CHAIR
7
chapters".
8
1?
RAY:
You
"in
those
Do you mean in those sections of Chapter
MR. SEBROSKY:
9
said,
Well, I guess what I meant
10
to say is, for my presentation, I intend to talk
11
about 1.8, 1.9, and 1.10, not only the open items,
12
but issues that may be of interest to the ACRS for
13
Chapter 1.
14
You are going to see the same kind of
15
format when we go to Chapter 5; we have that kind of
16
discussion.
So these are the open items that Eddie
17
18
went through.
I am not going to reiterate the open
19
items.
20
sitting next to Stephanie Coffin.
21
Chapter 1.
But what I would point to is Eric Oesterle is
There
22
are
three
23
developing staff guidance for.
24
determine
the
FSAR
items
He helped with
that
we
are
1-2 is the staff to
commitments,
which
FSAR
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
131
1
commitments require a license condition and which
2
ones are appropriate as an FSAR commitment; how you
3
delineate between what is a license condition and
4
what is acceptable for an FSAR commitment, and the
5
guidance
6
developing, and he intends to promulgate through an
7
ISG.
8
industry.
9
process
10
for
that
is
something
that
Eric
is
That is more for the staff than it is for
It will let our stakeholders know the
that
we
are
going
through
to
make
that
determination.
The other one that I would point to, and
11
12
that Eddie alluded to, is the construction.
The
13
1.4-3, staff, the complete review of the applicant's
14
assessment of the potential hazards.
15
to one of the issues.
Eddie alluded
16
One of the issues is, when you have a
17
green-field site, it is pretty easy to say for the
18
second unit the management programs need to be in
19
place when you make the finding to support fuel-
20
loading
21
operating units, when do those management programs
22
need to be in place?
on
first
one.
But
when
you
have
The other thing that the ISG is going to
23
24
the
do
is,
if
you
look
at
the
application,
it
goes
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
132
1
through an assessment of the hazards and it goes
2
through the risks associated with that, and then it
3
provides management programs to mitigate that.
4
If you look at the North Anna application
5
and you look at Bellefonte, it is mostly standard
6
information.
7
programs are appropriate.
8
are going to use to judge across Design Centers.
9
the office instruction is going to help with that.
The
issue
is
whether
or
not
those
That is something that we
So
10
The last item is 1.5-1, and you will see
11
that the open item is only related to the 10 CFR 30
12
and 40.
It is not to the 10 CFR Part 70.
We indicate in Chapter 1 of the SER that
13
14
there's
enough
information,
15
information
16
appropriate to provide a Part 70 license.
17
for new fuel, for example.
to
evaluate
the
staff
whether
or
has
not
enough
it
is
That is
So, if you look in various parts of the
18
19
application,
20
security programs that need to be in place with the
21
receipt of new fuel onsite.
22
protection elements.
So
23
24
you
will
the
see
staff
a
discussion
of
the
You will also see fire
believes
that
there
is
enough information to make a judgment about the Part
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
133
1
70.
We are still not sure about the Part 30 and the
2
Part 40 portions of it.
3
that open item, and Eric is working on the guidance
4
for that.
So that is the purpose of
5
This last slide, there aren't open items
6
necessarily tied to these, but it is some information
7
that we wanted to bring to the ACRS's attention.
The
8
9
financial
done in Chapter 1.
review
is
Mike Dusaniwskyj from NRR is the
10
reviewer that did that.
11
to
12
Bellefonte 3 and 4.
build,
qualification
operate,
It evaluates the resources
and
eventually
decommission
It is a little different; North Anna has
13
14
that in an appendix for Bellefonte.
15
Chapter 1.
We have that in
16
The second bullet was alluded to earlier,
17
about the reinstatement of the construction permits
18
for Bellefonte 1 and 2.
19
1 that discusses NRR has reinstated the construction
20
permits for Bellefonte 1 and 2, and you heard TVA say
21
earlier that they have infrastructure from 1 and 2
22
that is used in the 3 and 4 application, the cooling
23
towers, the switchyard, the intake structure.
In
24
We have a writeup in Chapter
addition,
there's
things
like
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
134
1
Emergency Plan, the Security Plan.
2
Unit 3 and 4, not 1 and 2.
3
based on 1 and 2 not being built.
They are based on
The entire application is
4
So what we provide in Chapter 1 of the
5
SER is a discussion that, if they do decide to go
6
forward with building Unit 1 and 2, the design basis
7
for Unit 3 and 4 is going to change.
8
for TVA's decision is such that it will be done
9
before -- a decision will be made on Unit 1 and 2
10
before we would be granting a license on 3 and 4.
11
So, one way or another, we will know the outcome.
The timeframe
12
Bullet No. 3, COL holder items, if you go
13
to Part 10 of the application, what TVA provides is a
14
list of COL information items that come from the
15
Design Certification.
16
do
17
information
18
Certification.
19
information items that will not be addressed until
20
after the COL is issued.
as
part
of
the
items
So what they are required to
COL
is
that
There
are
address
are
a
in
all
the
the
subset
COL
Design
of
those
21
So what TVA proposes in Part 10 of the
22
application is COL, they call them "holder items", in
23
that they propose that those be license conditions in
24
the license.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
135
1
What you are going to see in our SER is a
2
discussion that follows a format, and right before we
3
make the conclusion in the SER there's a discussion
4
about post-COL commitments.
5
SER is whether or not it is appropriate to defer that
6
COL information item to after the COL is granted.
What we evaluate in the
7
We are not sure at this point if we are
8
going to have it as a license condition or an FSAR
9
commitment, but what Part 10 of the application does
10
is it gives you an idea of the list of items that is
11
proposed
12
issued.
to
be
deferred
until
after
the
COL
is
An example of that would be the spent
13
14
fuel coupon monitoring program.
That is something
15
that is listed as a COL holder item.
The last item on this list is operational
16
17
program
implementation.
18
conditions that talk about operational programs.
19
example,
radiation
20
protection
program.
21
programs are described and we make a finding on those
22
high-level descriptions as to whether or not it is
23
appropriate to grant a license.
What
24
protection
So,
you
There's
see
at
a
in
two
license
program,
high
Part
level,
10
of
An
fire
those
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
136
1
application are license condition 3, which provides a
2
milestone
3
implemented.
4
there's parts of that security program that have to
5
be implemented before the receipt of new fuel onsite.
6
The fire protection program, there's parts of that
7
that need to be implemented before the receipt of new
8
fuel onsite.
for
that
program
needs
to
be
So, for example, the security program,
So
9
when
there's
milestones
associated
with
10
those operational programs that are provided as a
11
proposed
12
application.
13
condition 6, which that license condition basically
14
says we have the milestones established in accordance
15
with
16
requires periodic updates.
17
months of granting the COL, Bellefonte will provide a
18
detailed schedule for those milestones, when they
19
expect those milestones to be achieved, so that we
20
can plan accordingly with our inspection resources.
21
It requires that to be updated on a six-month basis.
license
condition
Then
license
you
condition
3
also
3;
in
see
Part
10
another
license
of
the
license
condition
6
It states that, within 12
22
So, again, the purpose of this slide was
23
to highlight areas that don't necessarily have open
24
items that may be of interest to the ACRS.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
137
1
CHAIR RAY:
2
MR. OESTERLE:
3
the staff.
4
some clarification.
Are there questions for Joe?
This is Eric Oesterle from
I just want to add something to provide
5
If there is any information that is the
6
subject of the COL holder item or action item that
7
the
8
issuance of the license, that information cannot be
9
deferred
staff
needs
until
to
make
later.
their
So
we
determination
are
looking
on
at
10
information like updates of information that would
11
update the FSAR or other licensing basis documents or
12
information that the licensee would notify the NRC of
13
in terms of schedules, of implementation of certain
14
programs, or completion of engineering or design work
15
for DAC, to let us know when they will be ready for
16
us to come and take a look at it, to inspect it,
17
things like that.
So I just want to make that clear.
18
There
19
will be no information necessary for the staff to
20
make a license determination that will be deferred.
CHAIR RAY:
21
Well, I noticed that, for
22
example, in one case, DAC, an open item was created
23
to
24
That is the kind of thing you are talking about.
answer the question, when will this be done?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
138
1
That is an open item in Chapter 10.
2
Anything for Joe before we quit?
3
(No response.)
4
Okay.
We were due to take a break at
5
10:45.
It's 15 minutes late.
We will break until
6
11:15, but before, I want to alert everybody that we
7
may only get through the applicant portion of Chapter
8
5 before lunch because we will try to take a lunch
9
break on time.
The staff may, therefore, be after
10
lunch, as opposed to before lunch, as shown here.
11
will see.
We
12
Anything else?
13
(No response.)
14
11:15.
15
(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off
16
the record at 11:04 a.m. and went back on the record
17
at 11:16 a.m.)
CHAIR RAY:
18
We will come back to order,
19
please, and pick up with, roll our sleeves up, and
20
get to work on a technical chapter, Chapter 5.
Rob, I guess you're going to begin, is
21
22
that correct?
MR.
23
24
SISK:
Well,
actually,
I
will
introduce John Deblasio, Licensing Lead for Chapter
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
139
1
5, and Mr. Dale Wiseman, our Technical Lead.
2
let John walk us through the presentation.
MR. DEBLASIO:
3
Okay.
I will
Basically, Chapter
4
5 is an overview of a reactor coolant system.
5
broken up into four parts.
6
system and connected systems, the integrity of the
7
reactor
8
vessel, and the reactor coolant system component and
9
subsystem designs.
coolant
design
It is the reactor coolant
pressure
Under
10
those
boundary,
four
areas,
11
covers
12
performance and flows, and PNIDs.
13
boundary,
14
50.55(a),
15
pressure
16
components,
17
boundary and water chemistry.
the
code
basis,
ASME
major
code
cases,
boundary,
reactor
the
overview
system
Under the pressure
overpressure
detection
the
components,
compliance
materials,
leakage
It is
ISIS
with
10
CFR
protection,
of
Class
through
1
pressure
18
Under the reactor vessel, it addresses in
19
the DCD design basis and design materials, including
20
surveillance, PT curves, ISI, and insulation.
21
Under the last major heading of Chapter
22
5, components, it addresses RCP, steam generator,
23
loop
24
pressurizer, ADS valves, RNS valves, pressure-relief
piping,
main
steam
flow
restrictors,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
140
1
devices,
component
supports,
pressurizer
relief
2
discharge, and high-point vents for CMT PRHR heat
3
exchangers.
The next slide is really the meat of the
4
5
chapter.
We identified nine major changes since the
6
Design Certification, which is a little bit of a
7
misnomer.
8
we determined, out of the nine, there are really
9
three major changes.
When we were looking at these last night,
The other six that are changes
10
are more significant than very minor changes, but
11
they are not major.
12
(Laughter.)
13
Anyway, the three major changes that we
14
identified was the reactor coolant pump design, which
15
encompassed the revised heat removal design and the
16
flywheel
17
configuration control, and the reactor vessel changes
18
relative
19
reduction
20
penetration.
material
to
the
of
change;
addition
in-core
of
the
a
pressurizer
flow
instrumentation
skirt,
and
for
head
21
I was going to talk about those three.
22
If you want to hear anything about the additional
23
ones, we could address that as well.
But,
24
first,
the
reactor
coolant
pump
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
141
1
design, the revision to heat removal --
2
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
3
MR. DEBLASIO:
4
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
5
MR. DEBLASIO:
The relocation of
I will turn to Dale for
that one.
MR. WISEMAN:
8
9
Yes.
the instrumentation, what is the motivation for that?
6
7
Excuse me.
This is Dale Wiseman from
Westinghouse.
10
The instrumentation, the narrow-range hot
11
leg temperature instruments were moved downstream of
12
the pressurizer because of concerns about measuring
13
out-surge from the pressurizer into the hot leg.
14
There was also a wide range --
15
CHAIR RAY:
16
It says
upstream.
MR. WISEMAN:
17
18
Excuse me a second.
Yes, it was moved upstream.
I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong, the Rev 16
19
figure.
The Rev 17 figure has them upstream, so that
20
the out-surge from the pressurizer does not impact
21
the temperature measurements.
22
There
is
also
a
wide
range
hot
leg
23
temperature that was moved upstream of the passive
24
RHR
heat
exchanger
connection,
so
that
during
an
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
142
1
accident scenario, when cooling is being provided by
2
the passive RHR, it gives the good indication of the
3
temperature
4
going into the passive RHR.
coming
out
of
MEMBER BROWN:
5
the
reactor
vessel
and
Was that just based on an
6
analysis?
Was that just based on analysis or you
7
just look at it and say, "Well, gee, we ought to move
8
it farther away."?
MR. WISEMAN:
9
I think this was based on
10
an engineering evaluation.
11
detailed analysis.
12
we
13
location that we had them in and what would be a
14
preferable location to get the specific information
15
that we were looking for.
looked
at
what
I wouldn't say it was a
It's engineering evaluation when
we
would
MEMBER BANERJEE:
16
be
measuring
in
the
Now have we finished
17
with that item or are you going to talk about the
18
zinc?
MR. DEBLASIO:
19
20
them.
21
MEMBER BANERJEE:
22
MR.
23
We can summarize all of
DEBLASIO:
Well, okay.
I
was
planning
on
originally hitting the three bigger ones first.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
24
Pick whatever, and then
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
143
1
I want to hear about the zinc.
2
(Laughter.)
3
MR. DEBLASIO:
So the first one that I
4
started to talk about was revisions to heat removal
5
incorporations of the external shell and the tube
6
heat
7
change
8
originally wrapped around the stator.
exchanger
and
eliminated
stator
the
heat
cooling
jacket.
exchanger
design
This
that
9
As the pump design was finalized, because
10
we were still into design finalization, the pump heat
11
removal requirements were increased, which meant that
12
the wraparound design was not a practical design.
13
we made modifications.
The next one under the wrap, the coolant
14
15
So
pump design, was -MEMBER BANERJEE:
16
Does this allow you to
17
procure pumps from different vendors or is it for a
18
specific pump?
19
MR. WISEMAN:
This is Dale Wiseman again.
20
No, this is still a single-pump design.
21
This heat exchanger, it is just the implementation of
22
the heat removal from that specific reactor coolant
23
pump.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
24
So if anybody wanted to
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
144
1
get a different pump, they would have to file some
2
sort of a deviation then?
3
MR. WISEMAN:
4
CONSULTANT KRESS:
5
MR. WISEMAN:
Yes, these are can motor
pumps.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
8
9
These are what, can
motor pumps?
6
7
Yes, that is correct.
pump seal LOCAs?
So you eliminate the
That is probably a good idea, but I
10
don't think there is a lot of vendors out there that
11
make can motor pumps.
MEMBER BROWN:
12
13
Who is the vendor for this
one?
14
MR. WISEMAN:
15
MEMBER BROWN:
16
MR. WISEMAN:
17
MEMBER BROWN:
18
CONSULTANT KRESS:
19
Curtis Wright.
Curtis Wright.
EMD?
EMD, yes.
Okay.
This flywheel, is that
a bimetallic, I understand?
MR. DEBLASIO:
20
Yes.
The major change
21
there was the retainer ring is the ring that holds
22
the
23
sensitivity to hydrogen-assisted stress corrosion and
24
cracking.
tungsten
alloy
insert
was
changed
to
reduce
The revised material was 18/18, 18 chrome,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
145
1
18 manganese, alloy material which was developed for
2
rotating parts in generators, due to resistance to
3
SCC.
4
steel, which is a high-strength steel.
5
an improved material.
So the original material was nickel marange
CONSULTANT KRESS:
6
7
Did you have to do a
missile analysis for that?
8
MR. DEBLASIO:
9
MR. WISEMAN:
10
So we went to
Yes.
Yes.
This is Dale Wiseman
again.
We did redo the missile analysis with the
11
12
new materials.
That was just completed, and if it
13
hasn't been submitted, it will be submitted within a
14
few days.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
15
Is there any change
16
in the inertia of the flywheel as a result of the
17
change
18
pretty much the same density?
in
the
material?
MR. WISEMAN:
19
when
we
are
these
materials
The change in the flywheel
20
retainer
21
material that we are now using is a lower strength.
22
So the thickness of that material increased slightly.
23
To maintain the overall envelope of the flywheel,
24
ring,
Or
changed
materials,
the tungsten inserts decreased slightly.
the
So there
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
146
1
was a very slight change in the inertia.
2
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
3
MR. WISEMAN:
coastdown
5
material versus the original retainer ring material,
6
the change is so slight that you can almost not
7
distinguish
8
reduction, but we still have margin to the safety
9
analysis inputs.
curves.
MEMBER
10
So
the
there
BANERJEE:
MR. WISEMAN:
new
is
The
flywheel
a
slight
rundown
is
Slightly?
This is the in the loss of
power, loss of flow condition, yes.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
14
But you still have the
pump rundown during blowdown, right?
MR. WISEMAN:
16
17
they do coastdown.
18
MEMBER
19
with
different than a blowdown, for example.
12
15
the
pump
If you plot
the
13
the
Less inertia.
4
11
of
In which direction?
When you say, "rundown",
BANERJEE:
Yes,
well,
call
it
whatever, yes.
MR.
20
WISEMAN:
Yes.
During
a
LOCA,
21
because they are tripped whenever the core makeup
22
tanks
23
although that is not the major input to the LOCA
24
analysis.
come
on,
The
that
does
coastdown,
occur
the
during
importance
a
LOCA,
of
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
147
1
coastdown, is really in the loss of power or loss of
2
flow event.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
3
4
doesn't make any difference in your analysis?
MR. WISEMAN:
5
6
But in the LOCA, it
Well, we are including that
in the --
7
MEMBER BANERJEE:
8
MR. WISEMAN:
9
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
10
there
was
a
11
consequently,
12
coastdown
13
slight?
-- revised Safety Analysis.
slight
there
When you say that
change
was
characteristics
MR. WISEMAN:
14
The revised --
a
in
slight
of
the
inertia,
change
pump,
and
in
the
what
is
I can provide the exact
15
numbers.
I just need to look them up here.
16
over lunch I can provide that.
17
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
18
CHAIR RAY:
Maybe
Thank you.
Now the change that you are
19
talking about isn't contrasting with the depleted
20
uranium.
21
opposed to 17 versus 15, correct?
So you're talking about 17 versus 16 as
22
MR. WISEMAN:
23
CHAIR RAY:
24
MR.
Yes, that is correct.
All right.
WISEMAN:
Yes.
We
had
already
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
148
1
changed
to
2
uranium --
tungsten
alloy
3
CHAIR RAY:
4
MR. WISEMAN:
5
CHAIR RAY:
from
the
depleted
All right.
-- in 15.
And we will come back to the
6
missile discussion later, but you say that has just
7
been completed and submitted?
MR. DEBLASIO:
8
9
I don't know if it has
been submitted yet.
MR. WISEMAN:
10
Yes, I'm not sure it has
11
been submitted from Westinghouse, but it is ready to
12
be submitted.
13
CHAIR RAY:
14
MR. DEBLASIO:
15
the pressurizer configuration change.
16
we went from the original pressurized design, which
17
did not result in favorable seismic loads relative to
18
the movement of the ADS.
19
decreased in height and increased in the diameter.
20
The net result was the volume was unchanged from the
21
original design, which reduced the seismic loads of
22
the ADS valve package on the top of the pressurizer.
23
24
This
reconfiguration
Okay.
Okay.
The next one was
This is where
The revised design was
provided
acceptable
results
relative to our revision to the design.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
149
MEMBER BANERJEE:
1
Now, if I remember, I
2
wasn't a member, but a consultant at the time the
3
AP1000 was certified, you had this sort of chugging
4
behavior during loss of coolant accidents where you
5
got dump and oscillatory sort of phenomenon.
6
was also seen in experiments with a specifically-
7
scaled pressurizer of whatever height you had.
Now
8
9
does
that
change
that
This
type
of
behavior, the shape of the pressurizer?
10
MR. CUMMINS:
11
We did do the safety analysis over again,
12
and there was essentially no change in the results of
13
the safety analysis from the pressurizer decrease in
14
size.
MEMBER
15
No.
This is Ed Cummins.
BANERJEE:
Yes,
I
guess
that
16
oscillatory behavior was not caught by any of the
17
codes, was it?
18
MR. CUMMINS:
19
MEMBER
Right.
BANERJEE:
But
it
was
20
characteristic phenomena, if I remember.
21
dump and fill.
MR.
22
23
CUMMINS:
Yes.
I
mean
a
very
It would
there
is
reason to have counter-current flow there.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
24
Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
150
MR. CUMMINS:
1
The break wants the flow to
2
come out, and the venting wants the flow to go up.
3
So there is an effect of the pressurizer.
4
MEMBER
BANERJEE:
5
difference doesn't affect that?
MR. CUMMINS:
6
Yes,
but
that
No, and the times that we
7
were worried about it, when you were reviewing it, is
8
how that affected ADS-4 because the ADS-4 could get
9
some flow from the pressurizer.
The ADS-4 was really
10
what
because
11
controlled the safety after it opened.
12
near the end of the pressurization.
we
were
hard
MEMBER BANERJEE:
13
14
studying
it
really
So that is
This effect is very
minor?
15
MR. CUMMINS:
Very minor.
16
MEMBER BANERJEE:
So the overall height
17
is not affected that much, if you take the surge
18
lines and everything into account?
MR.
19
decreased
The
20
pressurizer
21
Maybe it was 15 feet.
22
was lowered by about 15 feet.
CONSULTANT
23
24
was
CUMMINS:
by,
I
height
think,
of
12
the
feet.
So the top of the pressurizer
KRESS:
I
think
this
oscillatory behavior, as best I remember, was never
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
151
1
predicted by any of the codes.
2
MR. CUMMINS:
3
CONSULTANT KRESS:
redone
the
Right.
4
have
5
pressurizer.
6
whether it has affected this behavior.
with
the
new
height
So I don't know how you would know
MEMBER
7
tests
And I don't think they
BANERJEE:
The
concern,
as
Ed
8
pointed out, was water chugging into the ADS line and
9
reducing its effectiveness.
10
CONSULTANT KRESS:
11
MEMBER BANERJEE:
Yes.
So when reducing the
12
height, if anything, I mean if we did a back-of-the-
13
envelope
14
would be less --
calculation, it
would
15
CONSULTANT KRESS:
16
MEMBER BANERJEE:
suggest
that
there
Less opportunity.
-- yes, opportunity,
17
for that to happen.
But, again, I think it is a
18
point that needs an evaluation, just to reassure us
19
that this doesn't change things.
20
Because I think the tests that were done
21
in -- was it Rosa 4? -- yes, was the same whatever
22
your height was at that point, yes.
23
MR. CUMMINS:
This is Ed Cummins.
24
We were planning to talk about that when
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
152
1
we talk about Chapter 15.
2
MEMBER BANERJEE:
3
MR. CUMMINS:
4
Okay.
We will add that to our
list.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
5
6
the
aspect
7
maintained
8
volumes?
ratio
the
of
same
the
gas
9
MR. CUMMINS:
10
Not exactly.
Now, by changing
pressurizer,
space
and
have
liquid
you
space
Ed Cummins again.
I think that the behavior
11
is often controlled by the volume, but there are some
12
things that are controlled by the relative level.
So
13
we wanted to achieve similar relative levels.
So
14
what we did was use shorter heaters, so that we could
15
be lower, and so we would have the same control band,
16
not exactly the same, but almost the same, the same
17
control band in terms of level that we had before.
18
CHAIR RAY:
19
MR.
20
All right, proceed.
DEBLASIO:
Do
you
want
to
say
something?
21
MR. WISEMAN:
This is Dale Wiseman again.
22
Just to give you those inertia numbers,
23
the original inertia numbers that we had were 23,519
24
pound-foot squared, and with this material change,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
153
1
the inertia was reduced to 23,107 pound-foot squared.
CHAIR RAY:
2
3
But are you comparing now
again 15 to 17 or 16 to 17?
MR. WISEMAN:
4
No, this is tungsten alloy
5
15 with marange steel retainer ring 15 to tungsten
6
alloy 18/18 retaining ring in Rev 17.
CHAIR RAY:
7
8
The
Certified Design is depleted uranium flywheel.
MR. DEBLASIO:
9
10
Now let's start again.
I don't know.
I don't
think so, but --
11
MR. WISEMAN:
12
CHAIR RAY:
No.
I believe --
All right.
Well, then I'm
13
not reading what is in the NCR here.
14
the stats later.
15
MR. CUMMINS:
16
We
did
have
We will get to
Ed Cummins.
depleted
uranium
at
17
stage in the passive plant development.
18
ended up in Revision 15, we had better look up.
19
MR. WISEMAN:
We will check.
20
MR. CUMMINS:
Yes.
21
CHAIR RAY:
All right.
some
Where we
In any event, the
22
requirement is for the coastdown to not violate the
23
curve that is assumed in the analysis, as I recall.
MR. WISEMAN:
24
Right.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
154
CHAIR RAY:
1
2
These pumps weigh 100 tons.
That is not a small machine.
3
MR. WISEMAN:
4
CHAIR RAY:
5
MR. DEBLASIO:
6
Yes.
Anyway, go ahead.
Okay.
The next change was
the reactor vessel changes.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
7
So, back to the
8
pressurizer change, if you don't mind, you indicated
9
that
10
there
was
a
slight
change
in
the
pressure
control band?
11
MR. CUMMINS:
Ed Cummins again.
12
No change in the pressure control band,
13
but in the control scheme the setpoints for charging
14
and the setpoints for stopping charging and spray,
15
all those things are redone, and they are slightly
16
different than --
17
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
18
MR. CUMMINS:
And backup heaters?
The same thing.
All those
19
things that are setpoints based on pressurizer level
20
that are for control functions were changed slightly,
21
but almost none.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
22
23
So the control band
remained the same?
MR. CUMMINS:
24
Very similar, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
155
MEMBER
1
initial
ABDEL-KHALIK:
2
selecting
3
analysis scenarios, that hasn't changed?
MR.
4
conditions
So,
CUMMINS:
for
That
as
far
various
hasn't
as
safety
changed.
5
Usually, you start at either the high-level setpoint
6
or the low-level setpoint.
7
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
8
MR. DEBLASIO:
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
The reactor vessel
9
changes that were made were an addition of a flow
10
skirt, which was a perforated cylindrical attachment
11
which was added to the lower head of the vessel.
12
purpose was to provide a core flow inlet distribution
13
that would provide minimum crossflow between the fuel
14
assemblies.
15
flow-induced vibration loads.
17
This will minimize crossflow loads and
MEMBER
16
The
BANERJEE:
Does
this
improve
mixing in the lower plenum or what was the purpose?
18
MR. WISEMAN:
19
The purpose of flow skirt was to direct
20
the flow into the more peripheral assemblies, so that
21
the
22
uniform.
overall
into
the
core
was
more
That was its major intent.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
23
24
distribution
This is Dale Wiseman.
What does this do to,
say, boron mixing and things in the lower plenum?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
156
1
Does that have any effect?
2
MR. CUMMINS:
No.
Ed Cummins.
3
No, I don't think so.
I know we did
4
analysis of breaks and things, and the results were
5
essentially the same.
6
the
7
through this, we were concerned that maybe it would
8
have an impact, and it didn't.
staff.
Where
We provided those results to
you
could
get
flow
backwards
The driving force for this is the fuel
9
10
criteria
has,
for
protection
of
the
fuel
from
11
fretting and wearing, has very tight criteria on even
12
distribution of flow to the fuel elements.
13
of that is done by the six support plates.
And some
14
But when we did analysis of this, we
15
couldn't prove to the fuel people that we would meet
16
the flow distribution that they required.
17
added this to improve the flow distribution.
So we
18
MEMBER BANERJEE:
19
MR. CUMMINS:
20
MEMBER BANERJEE:
21
MR. WISEMAN:
22
I think we were using CFX at that time.
23
CONSULTANT KRESS:
24
Did you do some CFD?
We did, yes.
Yes.
What did you use?
This is Dale Wiseman.
Did this change in
flow distribution affect the plant temperature during
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
157
1
the hot -- did it affect hot channel factors?
2
seems like you are reducing the flow to it.
It
3
MR. CUMMINS:
Ed Cummins.
4
I guess, in actuality, it reduced the hot
5
channel factors by making it more even, but I think
6
that none of those were based on the predicted CFX
7
flows.
8
don't actually know from old history of factors of
9
safety.
So where we get the hot channel factors, I
MEMBER
10
ABDEL-KHALIK:
So
what
is
the
11
ratio between the peak and average bundled inlet flow
12
with and without this skirt?
13
MR. WISEMAN:
14
The
issue
This is Dale Wiseman.
we
were
having
was
in
the
15
peripheral assemblies, where I think our analyses
16
were showing 65 to 75 percent of nominal in the
17
periphery.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
18
19
We want to be above 85 percent.
Do you have a sketch of
this?
20
I'm sorry, go ahead.
21
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
Well, I was just
22
trying to ascertain, No. 1, the need for and the
23
effectiveness
24
plenum anomaly.
of
this
skirt
in
eliminating
lower
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
158
MR.
1
2
WISEMAN:
The
skirt
was
not
specifically looking at lower plenum anomaly at all.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
3
But, nevertheless,
4
the purpose is to provide a more uniform inlet flow
5
to the various assemblies.
6
is the ratio between peak and average assembly inlet
7
flow before and after implementation of this design
8
change?
MR. WISEMAN:
9
10
MEMBER
ABDEL-KHALIK:
And
minimum
to
average.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
13
14
I would have to get back to
you on what those exact numbers, peak to average.
11
12
And the question is, what
I am trying to picture
what this skirt looks like.
15
MR. CUMMINS:
Ed Cummins.
16
So
will
maybe
I
try
to
describe
the
17
skirt.
It is a cylindrical plate that is in the
18
downcomer.
19
is really mounded, it is welded to the bottom of the
20
reactor vessel.
21
of the plate between the downcomer and the plate.
It is at the bottom of the downcomer.
It
So there is a little gap at the top
22
And the cylindrical plate goes to the
23
diameter of the core, and it has holes drilled into
24
that.
The holes are --
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
159
CONSULTANT KRESS:
1
2
The full diameter of
the core?
MR. CUMMINS:
3
Yes, it's a cylinder with a
4
diameter of, say, the tube support plate, a little
5
bit greater than the tube support plate.
6
water comes in and goes through these holes and then
7
up into the bottom of the fuel.
8
MEMBER
9
How
big
are
these
Less than an inch.
They
holes?
MR. CUMMINS:
10
11
BANERJEE:
So the
were different sizes.
12
MR. WISEMAN:
13
They are in the range of three-quarters
14
of an inch, I think, but there are, I think, two
15
different sizes.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
16
17
Do you think GSI-191
would be involved there?
MEMBER BANERJEE:
18
19
This is Dale Wiseman.
big.
No, the holes are too
They would be okay on that.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
20
If the purpose is
21
to reduce the extent of crossflow, so that you can
22
reduce
23
affected not just by increasing the minimum flow in
24
the periphery region, but it would also be impacted
rod
fretting,
et
cetera,
that
would
be
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
160
1
by how the peak flow will be affected by this.
2
is why I am asking for how the peak to average
3
changes and how the minimum to average changes.
4
MR. CUMMINS:
5
We challenged the designers to use their
and
to
develop
a
Yes.
That
This is Ed Cummins.
6
CFX
design
that
met
the
fuels
7
criteria, which I think Dale said was, you know, 85
8
percent minimum of average, and I don't know, 110 or
9
115 percent maximum.
Then adjacent fuel elements
10
have some criteria also, which is smaller than 15
11
percent.
So
12
they
created
various
different
13
designs, and then let the CFX pick the one, and,
14
ultimately, we are doing a seven-scale test in Japan,
15
starting soon.
16
because there's all this concern over whether CFX
17
really works.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
18
19
That is going to measure the flow
Where in Japan are you
doing it?
20
MR. WISEMAN:
21
The test is being run in Yokohama.
22
MEMBER BANERJEE:
23
MR. WISEMAN:
24
And
the
This is Dale Wiseman again.
At Toshiba?
At Toshiba, yes.
question
about
high
flows
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
161
1
certainly applies.
2
results that led us to a flow skirt, it was the low
3
flows that were driving us.
4
high flows certainly do apply.
MR. SISK:
5
6
point
7
correct.
8
the flywheel.
9
10
I would like to make just one
clarification,
so
the
record
is
The tungsten was introduced in Rev 16 for
CHAIR RAY:
Yes, I just was reading it
MR. SISK:
I just didn't want that to
CHAIR RAY:
So if we are comparing 15 to
17, you are comparing depleted uranium to --
15
MR. SISK:
16
CHAIR RAY:
17
MR. WISEMAN:
18
Let
me
That is correct.
-- what is proposed here now.
This is Dale Wiseman.
clarify
19
numbers are for 16 to 17.
20
are all tungsten numbers.
21
CHAIR RAY:
22
MR. WISEMAN:
23
that
go --
13
14
of
But you're right, the
here.
11
12
Our CFX results, our initial CFX
then.
Those
inertia
They are tungsten.
They
Yes.
And the only difference is
the retaining ring material.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
24
With the difference
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
162
1
in inertia between 15 and 17?
MR. WISEMAN:
2
3
I am going to look before I
say anything now.
4
(Laughter.)
5
CHAIR RAY:
You can find the discussion
6
on page 518 of the SER, but, basically, it says that
7
the uranium wasn't able to meet the required angular
8
inertia without getting too big and exceeding its
9
stress limits.
MR. WISEMAN:
10
Right.
At some point when
11
we got all the losses added up, the uranium flywheel
12
was getting to the point where it wasn't feasible to
13
show the stress -CHAIR
14
15
described here.
RAY:
Right.
reactor
is
what
is
Okay.
MR. DEBLASIO:
16
That
head
The other change
17
was
18
reduction in the number of head penetrations for in-
19
core
20
penetration
21
diameter.
22
package.
instrumentation.
to
eight
penetrations.
We
went
from
We
42
penetrations,
had
a
one-inch
4.75-inch
This was all part of the integrated head
As a result, it gave us the ability to
23
24
vessel
Okay.
leave
the
instrumentation
under
water
in
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
163
1
refueling
canal,
2
outage for ALARA concerns.
resulted
MEMBER BANERJEE:
3
4
which
in
reductions
in
You are going to talk
about any of the other items as well?
5
MR. DEBLASIO:
Yes, sir.
The one you
6
mentioned was the injection of zinc.
We proposed
7
changes to incorporate the ability to inject zinc
8
into the RCS.
9
shown to change the oxide film on primary compounds,
Zinc in a cooling system has been
10
reducing
occupational
11
potential for crud formation, crud deposition on the
12
fuel rods and subsequent power shifts.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
13
14
and
the
Is there any cobalt in
CONSULTANT KRESS:
That is why they use
these.
17
MEMBER
18
what it does, yes.
BANERJEE:
CONSULTANT
19
20
exposure
the system?
15
16
hazard
That
KRESS:
Yes,
is
mainly
right,
it
protects against these.
21
MEMBER BANERJEE:
22
MR. WISEMAN:
23
Yes, there will be some cobalt in the
24
system, yes.
So do you have cobalt?
Yes.
This is Dale Wiseman.
We minimize it, but there is still
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
164
1
some.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
2
Okay.
This keeps the
3
cobalt from getting activated and getting into the
4
water?
MEMBER BANERJEE:
5
6
Well, it sort of
replaces the zinc.
But
7
8
Yes.
capability?
why
did
you
injection
Dale?
MEMBER BANERJEE:
10
the
What was the reason for doing it -MR. DEBLASIO:
9
change
11
before?
12
something different?
-- from what you had
Was there some evidence that you needed
13
MR. CUMMINS:
14
I
think
This is Ed Cummins.
EPRI
is
in
the
process
of
15
suggesting this is best practice for PWRs.
16
particularly of concern to the Fuel Division, the
17
fuel peak designers.
18
high-density core, zinc has been shown to reduce this
19
offset anomaly, or whatever they call it now, but a
20
power distribution in the core.
good for ALARA.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
23
24
When you have a relatively
So I think it is best practice and it is
21
22
It is
the
radionuclide
migration,
But, usually, to reduce
so
that
you
get
less
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
165
1
occupational doses.
MR. CUMMINS:
2
3
the crud on the core.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
4
5
Right, but it also affects
it does it, yes.
Of course, that's how
That is the procedure.
But I'm just wondering what you mean by
6
7
change.
You already had zinc injection capability in
8
the old design, did you not?
MR. CUMMINS:
9
Well, what we ended up
10
using, a line that was used for hydrogen addition
11
that came into the auxiliary building, and then you
12
put, I will say, a skid of a pump and a tank and
13
meters that wasn't in the design there.
And you
14
could
addition
15
system.
16
chemical volume control.
zinc
in
using
MR. DEBLASIO:
20
MR. CUMMINS:
That was in what, Rev
Rev 15.
Well, I don't think so.
I
think this came after that.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
22
23
hydrogen
15?
19
21
the
It is part of, we call it, CVS, which is
MEMBER BANERJEE:
17
18
pump
It is not a change.
It is addition?
MR. SISK:
24
So it is additional.
Yes, it is an addition.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
166
1
MR. CUMMINS:
2
MR. SISK:
3
Yes.
Zinc addition is being added
to -MR. CUMMINS:
4
We didn't have it in the
5
Certified Design, though I don't actually remember
6
where the Revs are.
MR. SISK:
7
It is Rev 16, but what they
8
were doing is, in Rev 15 we did not have the zinc
9
addition
in
there,
but
it
was
determined,
based
10
really on operating experience, that zinc addition
11
has a tremendous benefit, but doing it from day one,
12
instead of adding it in later.
13
MEMBER
BANERJEE:
Well,
Langstock
has
14
been doing this for 15 years now, but that is, of
15
course, a BWR.
MR. SISK:
16
But this was perceived to be
17
an added value, best practice.
It is better to do it
18
now than to bring it back in later, as a lot of
19
plants have done.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
20
As far as the axial
21
offset anomaly, would this be considered a high-duty
22
index core?
MR. SISK:
23
24
I think it could be considered
a high-duty core, but I don't think axial offset.
We
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
167
1
will talk about it a little bit in Chapter 4.
2
will have our field design folks here.
We
3
But, with the implementation of graded
4
rods, which were approved in Revision 15, the actual
5
offset anomalies and deviation, we don't see that
6
with the graded rods because you really do a flat and
7
then
8
throughout the core.
you
are
power
distribution
But, nevertheless,
it is still dictated by peak heat flux locations --
11
MR. SISK:
12
MEMBER
13
the
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
9
10
maintaining
Right.
ABDEL-KHALIK:
--
and
power
distribution.
MR. SISK:
14
I'm going to reserve the full
15
answer to that when our core designer gets here and
16
gives you a better answer.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
17
which
we
discussed
first
19
relocation of instrumentation, relocating the narrow-
20
range RTD upstream of the pressurizer surge line,
21
does that have any impact on the dead band for rod
22
control?
MR. DEBLASIO:
23
earlier
Back to the
18
24
issue
Okay.
about
the
I don't know the answer.
I don't think so, but we could get a definitive
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
168
1
answer for you.
CHAIR RAY:
2
So long as we are on that
3
point, it may be pretty picky, but I also would like
4
to
5
purpose whether the RTD is in the top or just in the
6
upper half?
know,
does
it
matter
for
this
void
detection
Because it is described both ways.
7
MR. WISEMAN:
8
We ended up, actually, in Rev 17 with a
9
note on the PNID that it should be in the upper half.
CHAIR RAY:
10
This is Dale Wiseman.
Yes, I see that.
Elsewhere
11
it is described as having to be at the top, and I
12
don't
13
inconsistency that I was curious about.
14
dwell on it now.
want
to
belabor
it,
but
it
seems
like
an
Let's not
15
MR. WISEMAN:
Well, I believe that the
16
upper half is sufficient.
I don't think it has to be
17
on the top, but we will confirm that.
MR. SISK:
18
We typically like to give
19
ourselves a little bit of wiggle room, only in the
20
sense that the top and then you go out.
CHAIR RAY:
21
22
Well, I understand, but it
sort of stands out, and it is described both ways --
23
MR. SISK:
24
CHAIR RAY:
We should be consistent.
-- to be at the top, and
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
169
1
another place says now we're satisfied if it is in
2
the upper half.
3
it may make a difference where it is located.
If you are trying to detect a void,
4
Okay, anything more on any of this?
5
CONSULTANT KRESS:
Is there any data on
6
how much zinc actually gets coated on the fuel rods
7
during their lifetime?
8
MR. CUMMINS:
9
Yes,
is
using
I
don't
zinc
Ed Cummins.
know
all
addition.
this.
EPRI
I
had
know
10
Vogtle
a
11
program.
12
think that they did fuel tests for several years and
13
determined that the zinc had a positive effect on
14
fuel corrosion and fuel performance.
Westinghouse and EPRI worked together.
15
MR. SISK:
16
terms of any heat transfer impact.
I
And an insignificant effect in
CONSULTANT KRESS:
17
big
Yes, I was concerned a
18
little bit about any steam zinc reaction in severe
19
accidents.
20
heat, and I don't know if that has been factored into
21
the core melt progression for severe accidents or
22
not.
23
difference.
Steam zinc reaction would liberate more
It may not be enough zinc on there to make any
That is why I was asking how much.
MR. SISK:
24
I don't have an answer today
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
170
1
off the top to give you a definitive number.
2
only reiterate, I think, that zinc addition -CONSULTANT KRESS:
3
4
I can
This would be a PRA
issue and severe accident issue.
MR. SISK:
5
And zinc addition has been
6
looked at and been incorporated in the fleet.
7
not a new idea or a new incorporation for AP1000, but
8
the operating plants have been incorporating it and
9
it has been looked at in some depth.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
10
11
It is
But it would be a
good idea to follow up on this question.
12
MR. SISK:
13
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
14
MEMBER BANERJEE:
if
your
fuel
Oh, I wrote it down, yes, sir.
looks
Thank you.
It is really a question
15
of,
16
operating pumps, that is, of course, there is a lot
17
of experience now with it.
18
-- your core is the same height, isn't it, or is it
19
-- yes, it is a longer core.
20
was asking.
21
zinc in these like with longer cores?
much
like
you
are
But if you are changing
That is really what I
I mean, is there an experience base with
MR. SISK:
22
very
The person that would know
23
that answer will be here tomorrow, but I don't know
24
the answer for sure.
We do have plants with the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
171
1
longer core.
The only thing I am trying to remember
2
is whether they had incorporated zinc addition at
3
some
4
remember off the top of my head.
point
in
the
plant
CHAIR RAY:
5
life,
and
I
just
don't
Back to these reactor coolant
6
pump flywheels are of concern to me or interest, we
7
had better say.
8
are
9
analysis.
relying
They can never be inspected.
entirely
on
the
missile
So we
penetration
10
It is not clear -- and I will comment to
11
the staff later, but there is a discussion that makes
12
it appear as if it is not possible for flywheel
13
missiles to penetrate something that is called the
14
pump casing.
15
meant by that?
16
surrounds the flywheel already?
Can any of you folks tell me what is
Or are we talking about the can that
17
MR. WISEMAN:
18
The flywheel missile analysis basically
19
shows that, if the flywheel would fail and impact the
20
pressure boundary of the pump, it would not penetrate
21
the pressure boundary of the pump.
22
CHAIR RAY:
23
MR. WISEMAN:
24
This is Dale Wiseman.
Really?
The can?
No, the can is not the
pressure boundary.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
172
CHAIR RAY:
1
2
All right, that is what I am
trying to understand.
MR.
3
WISEMAN:
Right.
The
pressure
4
boundary is the big flange and forgings that enclose
5
the motor and the hydraulics.
6
CHAIR RAY:
7
MR. WISEMAN:
8
CHAIR RAY:
9
10
Okay.
So it is substantial.
Well, we will need to see a
picture to understand what we are talking about here,
but that is an item, certainly, of interest.
MEMBER
11
BROWN:
Can
I
ask
12
relative to that?
13
mean I would imagine it would have to be.
a
question
Is the flywheel inside the can?
I
MR. WISEMAN:
It is inside the pressure
16
MEMBER BROWN:
Oh, okay.
17
MR. WISEMAN:
But it is not inside --
14
15
boundary.
18
these are can motor pumps.
19
cans that are around the stator and the rotor.
20
keeps the stator dry.
21
bound.
MEMBER BROWN:
22
23
you
would
puncture
24
circumstance?
the
The cans are the thin
So it
But they are not pressure
But if that came apart,
pressure
boundary
in
this
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
173
MR. WISEMAN:
1
2
pressure boundary.
4
CONSULTANT KRESS:
It is all inside the
pressure boundary.
MR. WISEMAN:
7
8
So that little, thin can
is strong enough?
5
6
That is what our analysis --
MEMBER BROWN:
3
You would not puncture the
The thin can is not the
pressure boundary.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
9
MR. WISEMAN:
10
pressure
boundary.
It's inside.
Yes, the thin can is inside
11
the
12
reactor coolant from the stator and rotor, but it is
13
not the pressure boundary structure.
CHAIR
14
RAY:
The
thin
Okay.
can
Well,
keeps
we
the
need
a
15
picture because some of us have -- can motor pumps
16
and -MEMBER BROWN:
17
Yes, my brain is back into
18
another thought process.
19
MR. CUMMINS:
20
I mean there is an ASME pressure boundary
is
designed
for
This is Ed Cummins.
21
that
reactor
coolant
pressure.
22
There's also this can, which is a pressure -- I will
23
call it a pressure boundary, but it relies on, it
24
backs up against the bars, so it doesn't really take
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
174
1
all the pressure.
2
MEMBER BROWN:
Against the what?
3
MR. CUMMINS:
The conductor bars.
4
MEMBER BROWN:
Oh, okay.
5
MR. CUMMINS:
So it really doesn't take
6
all
the
pressure,
but
it
7
windings dry.
8
pump, but you didn't get any leak; you didn't get any
9
LOCA.
the
electrical
Failure of that means you failed the
10
MEMBER BROWN:
11
CONSULTANT KRESS:
12
missile
doesn't
13
obviates
14
analysis?
15
of a frequency failure.
the
keeps
I understand.
penetrate
need
to
do
By asserting that the
the
a
pressure
probabilistic
boundary
missile
It doesn't go through all the probability
16
MR. CUMMINS:
17
CHAIR RAY:
Okay, I get a better picture
MR. SISK:
Do you have a picture we can
18
now then.
19
20
put up?
Do you want to talk to it?
CHAIR RAY:
21
22
Right.
Well, given the hour, well,
it is actually in this chapter, isn't it?
23
MR. SISK:
24
CHAIR RAY:
Yes.
If it is handy and you can do
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
175
1
it in two minutes, I think it would help all of us to
2
understand better.
3
Because I was confused by the topic we
4
have just been discussing, which is -- it's a can
5
motor pump that flywheel missiles won't penetrate the
6
pressure boundary.
MR. SISK:
7
8
up that computer to the -CHAIR RAY:
9
10
It's all right.
Never mind.
We will look to some later time to -MR. SISK:
11
12
We have to have the guy hook
the break.
I will bring it around.
CHAIR RAY:
13
I would be glad to show it at
-- examine this.
Well, I'm
14
more concerned that all of the Subcommittee members,
15
and perhaps the Committee members as well, look at
16
it.
But it is an important thing because, as
17
18
I
say,
there
19
flywheel, and it is sitting there forever operating
20
at
21
positively
22
pressure boundary from the flywheel, and that is not
23
clear enough without seeing a picture.
24
MEMBER BROWN:
high
is
no
speed.
So
sure
that
way
we
to
conduct
need
there's
to
no
ISI
be
of
this
absolutely
threat
to
the
Is this the same pump that
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
176
1
is going to be used in the Chinese application?
2
MR. WISEMAN:
3
Yes, this is the standard licensed pump
4
This is Dale Wiseman.
for AP1000, China and U.S.
CHAIR RAY:
5
It was interesting in the
6
discussion -- again, I am referring not to what the
7
applicant has said, but what the staff has said --
8
that there was some back and forth on changing the
9
terminology to allow a generic reference to the can
10
motor pump, as if maybe there would be more than one
11
vendor, but that got resolved finally.
12
MR. CUMMINS:
13
The staff convinced us that it was too
14
hard to keep options open for something as important
15
as that.
CHAIR
16
17
Let's go ahead.
RAY:
This is Ed Cummins.
Okay.
All
right,
fine.
Where are we?
MR. DEBLASIO:
18
Yes.
Well, the last bullet on
19
that page was the normal residual heat removal, low-
20
temperature relief valve.
21
really was decreased, the valve size, because we had
22
some detailed discussions with the valve vendor and
23
described the conditions that those valves would be
24
under, and the vendor recommended using a smaller
It says "increase"; it
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
177
1
valve to avoid valve chatter.
MEMBER BROWN:
2
I would ask one question
3
relative to the pump for the Chinese applications.
4
read
5
transfer associated with building these plants.
6
you say there's not going to be anybody else building
7
this, but I would imagine -- and if this is out of
8
bounds, just tell me, but I've forgotten where I read
9
it, but the Chinese are buying all this technology
somewhere
that
there
was
some
technology
10
after some number of whatever.
11
be making these pumps, is that correct or not?
So
So somebody else will
12
MR. CUMMINS:
13
Yes, there is a technology transfer; the
technology
Yes.
I
transfer
Ed Cummins.
14
actual
from
the
pump
is
from
15
Curtis Wright directly to the Chinese.
16
have consulted with their other customers and they're
17
okay with this.
18
the Chinese to build the can motor pumps in China in
19
their own industry.
I know they
I think there's a long-term goal of
20
MEMBER BROWN:
21
MR. CUMMINS:
Okay.
And that is something that
22
is not going to occur in our first four plants.
We
23
are supplying all of the pumps for the first four
24
plants.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
178
CHAIR RAY:
1
Okay.
I see a cross-section
2
of a motor up there.
3
a relatively brief period of time or am I taking us
4
down a bunny trail here?
MR. SISK:
5
6
Is this something we can do in
through it?
Dale, do you want to talk
Do you want me to just point to it?
CHAIR RAY:
7
Give it a try.
The problem will be that the
8
microphones don't pick up generally when somebody is
9
standing at the screen.
So, if you can stand and
10
look toward us and just wave your arms toward the
11
screen, it will help.
MR.
12
13
WISEMAN:
Okay.
This
is
Dale
Wiseman.
14
There are actually two flywheels in the
15
pump, one up just below the impeller and diffuser and
16
hydraulics
17
there's two there is it is a rotor dynamics issue, a
18
balance in the rotor dynamics.
and
one
down
below.
The
only
reason
19
But the pressure boundary, when we talk
20
about not penetrating the pressure boundary, we are
21
talking about not penetrating, as Ed said, the ASME
22
pressure boundary, which is this big flange here with
23
the casing, and the stator closure flange in here.
The
24
black
area
here
are
the
tungsten
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
179
1
inserts, and then the small ring just outside of it
2
is the retainer ring that holds the tungsten inserts
3
onto the shaft.
4
So, up here, these two big flanges are
5
the pressure boundary flanges that we are looking at,
6
and down at the lower flywheel it is this stator
7
closure that is the ASME pressure valve.
8
The cans, when you are talking can motor
9
space, and if we had a better picture here, you could
10
see that the cans are inside this blank space here,
11
and the stator windings are in here.
CHAIR
12
RAY:
All
right.
I
think,
13
conceptually, we have the idea.
There's actually two
14
barriers.
15
and the other is the pressure boundary, in the event,
16
which I guess isn't exposed to RCS pressure normally,
17
is that right, because the can would prevent that?
One is the can that keeps the stator dry,
18
MR. CUMMINS:
19
No, there is water that is cooling the
20
pump that is always at RCS pressure.
CHAIR RAY:
21
22
Oh, I see.
All right.
Okay,
sure.
MR. CUMMINS:
23
24
Ed Cummins.
There are little kind of
thermal barriers that try to restrict the flow in
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
180
1
there, but it is always at RCS pressure.
2
true for the other people's pump, too.
CHAIR RAY:
3
Okay.
That is
Well, this probably
4
isn't a good time to go into any further depth.
5
Thank you.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
6
Those tungsten pieces,
7
they are not full cylindrical all the way around?
8
They are little partial -MR. WISEMAN:
9
They are pie-shaped.
10
CONSULTANT KRESS:
11
MR. WISEMAN:
Pie-shaped.
There's, I believe, maybe a
12
dozen pie-shaped tungsten inserts that fit around,
13
and then they are all held in place by the retaining
14
ring that is shrunk onto them.
15
CHAIR RAY:
16
CONSULTANT KRESS:
17
Okay.
That makes the missile
analysis easier.
18
CHAIR RAY:
Rob, are you in charge here?
19
MR. SISK:
20
(Laughter.)
21
I think you are, sir.
22
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
Yes, sir.
Well, let's get some order
23
out of the chaos I created, and tell me what more we
24
need to cover.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
181
MR. SISK:
1
If members are satisfied with
2
the discussion by Westinghouse, we would turn it to
3
the COL applicants now and allow them to talk about
4
Chapter 5 from a COL perspective.
CHAIR RAY:
5
6
Ed, how long are you going to
need?
MR.
7
GRANT:
It
depends
on
how
many
8
questions you have, but I will try to run through it
9
in 10 minutes.
10
CHAIR RAY:
That will be fine.
11
MR. GRANT:
All right.
12
The same basic summary for Chapter 5 in
13
content, system summary descriptions, and those types
14
of things.
15
COL items, the things that need to be
16
covered, the ASME code and addenda, because they've
17
got a design, but time goes on, marches on.
18
will have to identify the ASME code and addenda that
19
we are going to use.
20
one that is 12 months prior to the time that we begin
21
to operate, or not operate, but the time that we --
That is actually my rule, the
22
CHAIR RAY:
Field?
23
MR. GRANT:
Yes.
24
So we
Anyway, down the road
some.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
182
What
1
we
will
do
is,
once
we
are
2
absolutely certain what that ASME code and addenda
3
is,
then
we
will
do
a
4
necessary
to
match
up
with
5
addenda.
CHAIR RAY:
6
7
MR. GRANT:
9
depends on the --
10
CHAIR
design
code
and
What is the milestone though?
No, it's not.
Hang on.
What's
event
RAY:
MR. GRANT:
the
It
that
I don't have that in front of
me, but I will look that up.
14
CHAIR RAY:
15
MS. COFFIN:
16
the
as
triggers --
12
13
reconciliation
It's not field load, is it?
8
11
code
Stephanie?
I can go on and I can see if
I can --
17
CHAIR RAY:
18
Go ahead.
19
MR. GRANT:
All right, after lunch.
All right.
The second item
20
was plant-specific inspection program.
21
was something that is programmatic and, therefore,
22
the DCD didn't cover it, so we provided, again, just
23
a full description of our inspection program.
Vessel
24
pressure
and
Again, this
temperature
limit
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
183
1
curves.
The
staff,
2
Westinghouse folks have provided some generic curves.
3
But this is an item that is dependent on the asreactor
or
not
vessel.
staff,
5
slightly.
Once we have the as-build reactor vessel
6
materials,
then
7
temperature limit curves.
9
of the operating license.
10
license condition for that.
MR.
GRANT:
We
would
CONSULTANT
KRESS:
Are
have
to
ask
the
Italians
making that?
17
MR. SISK:
18
CONSULTANT KRESS:
19
MR. GRANT:
Korea.
Korea?
There aren't many places to
get one these days.
21
CONSULTANT KRESS:
22
MR. GRANT:
23
Reactor
24
Who is making your
Westinghouse.
15
20
pressure
vessel?
13
16
final
So we have proposed the
CONSULTANT KRESS:
11
14
the
vary
So that is a post-COL item, post issuance
8
12
get
may
the
built
will
materials
but
4
we
The
the
Two or three places?
Yes.
vessel
materials
surveillance
program, again, that was applicant-specific.
We have
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
184
1
provided some information there to supplement the
2
portion of the program that the Westinghouse folks
3
had already provided.
4
going to put the program together, where we were
5
going to get the samples directly from the reactor
6
vessel, and how we would then pull those out.
Most of that was how we were
CHAIR RAY:
7
There is leak-before-break
8
materials criteria that you have to comply with.
9
not
10
trying
13
re-raise
that
issue.
That
is
an
existing requirement, right?
MR. GRANT:
11
12
to
I'm
There are leak-before-break.
I'm not sure that is directly applicable to the
reactor vessel.
CHAIR RAY:
14
No, it's not.
I'm talking
15
about -- oh, yes, I'm sorry, it does say reactor
16
vessel.
17
MR. GRANT:
18
CHAIR
19
RAY:
Yes.
I
was
focusing
on
the
on
the
materials here, and I didn't notice that.
20
MR. GRANT:
I know.
21
CHAIR RAY:
Piping material.
22
MR.
GRANT:
No problem.
Yes.
23
piping material.
24
addressed in the DCD, Chapter 3.
Definitely
But I believe all of that has been
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
185
CHAIR RAY:
1
2
issue.
So I say it is a settled
I was just trying to confirm it in my mind.
MR. GRANT:
3
very
similar
to
All right.
one
of
Standard item
4
53-4,
the
previous
ones,
5
reactor vessel materials properties verification.
6
has to do with, again, as-built reactor vessel and
7
materials, just as we have to verify those materials,
8
and as I indicated in a previous one, that would feed
9
then into the pressure temperature limits.
It
10
Both of those, again, must be performed
11
after the vessel is built or as the materials are
12
identified to build the vessel.
13
later.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
14
the
weld
So that would be
I'm sorry.
How do you
That
generally
15
verify
16
important for pressured thermal shock.
17
vessel that's -- you can get the material samples
18
there, right?
MR.
19
materials?
GRANT:
Right,
is
Do you have a
exactly.
As
the
20
material is built or as the vessel is built, and as
21
they use the rods to do the welding, they will take
22
sample rod --
23
CONSULTANT KRESS:
24
MR. GRANT:
Yes.
Okay.
The last item was a steam
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
186
1
generator
tube
integrity
program,
and
that
is
a
2
pretty standard program these days.
It is a template
3
that has been accepted, NEI 07-06.
We will use those
4
guidelines, and also, that refers to some EPRI steam
5
generator management guidelines.
6
those, and we describe the program through adoption
7
of those pretty standard programs.
So we will adopt
8
Next slide.
9
The other information that is provided, a
10
couple of sets of standard supplemental information,
11
reactor coolant chemistry program.
12
something back to expected information within the COL
13
application.
14
and where we would go with that.
Again, this is
So we describe that chemistry program
Pressure temperature control procedures,
15
16
again, pressure temperature limits.
17
able
18
procedures that we would follow during operation of
19
the plant.
to
and
we
describe
the
set
of
So we are pretty straightforward there.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
22
23
that,
There are no open items for Chapter 5.
20
21
do
We have to be
Back to your steam
generator.
MR. GRANT:
24
Uh-hum.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
187
CONSULTANT KRESS:
1
2
that a new design?
MR.
3
4
As I recall, isn't
GRANT:
Design,
I
will
turn
to
Westinghouse.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
5
It is not the same
6
steam generators you are using in the other PWRs, is
7
it?
MR. SISK:
8
9
I will let Dale discuss the
design here.
10
MR. WISEMAN:
This is Dale Wiseman.
11
The AP1000 generator is bigger than our
12
standard plant design, our current plant designs, for
13
the most part.
14
of the CE unit generators.
But it does approach the size of some
15
So it is a new design, using features
16
that have been proven in our current plans, but the
17
overall -- this is a new design, putting those all
18
together, yes.
MR. SISK:
19
20
the design, though.
Well, it is not a change in
It has been reviewed.
21
CONSULTANT KRESS:
22
MR. SISK:
23
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
24
For the AP1000.
Right.
Now this item 5.3,
the pressure temperature control procedures, this is
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
188
1
just the procedures, not the setpoint study involved?
MR. GRANT:
2
3
I'm sorry, I missed that.
I
was still concentrating on -MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
4
You were talking
5
earlier about change in the pressurizer aspect ratio
6
and how that may impact the setpoints.
7
MR. GRANT:
8
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
9
10
Yes, sir.
So how was that
taken into account in your R-COLA specification of
these pressure temperature control procedures?
11
MR. CUMMINS:
12
The
13
responsibility.
This is Ed Cummins.
setpoints
are
14
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
15
MR. CUMMINS:
Westinghouse
design
All right.
Yes, and I believe that
16
what he is talking about here in the COL item is a
17
program,
18
maintains.
19
is
20
makes the setpoints, and then the power companies
21
incorporate them in procedures and monitor them and
22
do things that are process-oriented.
23
is process-oriented, not design-oriented.
that
so
a
program
that
or
that
So the difference between the two things
Westinghouse
does
the
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
24
monitors
error
analysis
and
So the COL item
So where are the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
189
1
changes in the results of the setpoints study that
2
are caused by design modifications described?
MR. CUMMINS:
3
Yes, maybe they are not,
4
but we will take that as an open item.
5
Westinghouse design question.
6
as a question.
7
8
It is a
So we will take that
CHAIR RAY:
Okay, anything else, Chapter
MR. GRANT:
The only thing I would add
5?
9
10
here is this is one of those places where we do have
11
a couple of confirmatory items that don't fit the
12
mold, where we have told them we are going to put
13
this information in the FSAR and they said, yes, when
14
you do that, everything will be fine.
We have a couple of items there where the
15
16
staff has basically told us what they need.
We
17
understand what they need, and we just need to send
18
them a letter that says, yes, we will put statements
19
to that effect into the FSAR.
20
that very soon.
So we will be doing
One of those has to do with a recent rule
21
22
change.
We had originally committed to meet a code,
23
as identified in a proposed rule change, and that is
24
what our FSAR says.
The confirmatory item is for us
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
190
1
to change that reference to the final rule, which we
2
certainly understand and we will do that.
3
a simple, straightforward item, but it doesn't meet
4
the mold of the others that we talked about.
So that is
The final one is reference to the reactor
5
6
vessel
surveillance
program,
the
materials
7
surveillance program that we talked about.
8
has asked for us to confirm that the surveillance
9
capsules are backfilled with inert gas.
The staff
That is a
10
standard thing that goes with the associated code
11
that goes with that ASTME-185.
12
they need.
13
says we meet that part of the code, and we are
14
certainly willing to do that.
15
that to them, again, fairly soon.
So we understand what
We just need to put a statement in that
So we will be getting
16
Again, just because it is different, that
17
it doesn't meet the same format of where we already
18
told them what we are going to put in, and they have
19
agreed that that is the right stuff.
20
the other way around this time; they told us what to
21
put in.
22
CHAIR RAY:
23
Okay.
24
12:10.
All right.
It is kind of
Thank you.
We were to break for lunch at
It is now 12:20.
We will take an hour lunch,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
191
1
but
I
2
through the full agenda, even if it runs late today,
3
because we need to go through these items as we have
4
been doing.
5
hoping to get out early today, but we won't be able
6
to do that, in all likelihood.
to
advise
everybody
that
we
will
go
I think that may affect some who were
So we will resume at 1:20 with a staff
7
8
want
discussion of Chapter 5.
9
(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off
10
the record at 12:22 p.m. for lunch and went back on
11
the record at 1:22 p.m.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
192
A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N
1
S-E-S-S-I-O-N
1:22 p.m.
2
CHAIR RAY:
3
4
please.
We will complete now Chapter 5 with a
5
6
We will come back to order,
presentation by the staff.
I will note we will take a coffee break
7
8
this
9
since some of us are in a different time zone and
10
afternoon,
we
are
running
late,
So, with that, yes, Eddie, you want to
say something?
MR. GRANT:
13
14
though
have to compensate for that, and other reasons.
11
12
even
Could I have 30 seconds to
address --
15
CHAIR RAY:
Not more than that, yes.
16
(Laughter.)
17
MR. GRANT:
18
You asked a question about our first COL
19
item or code identification and a milestone that it
20
was dependent on.
-- a question from before?
21
CHAIR RAY:
Right.
22
MR. GRANT:
It is actually not dependent
23
24
on a milestone.
It is already identified in the DCD.
It depends more on the contract, when the contract
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
193
1
is signed, and when you order the equipment, the
2
vendor will provide whatever he is building it to,
3
and we will do our code reconciliation against the
4
DCD at that point.
Now there is a milestone associated with
5
6
the
in-service
7
program.
8
fuel load.
inspection
and
in-service
test
That code addenda is 12 months prior to
9
CHAIR RAY:
Right.
10
world hasn't changed that much then.
11
MR. GRANT:
Right.
12
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
13
MR. BUCKBERG:
14
CHAIR RAY:
15
MR. BUCKBERG:
All right, so the
Perry, are you up?
Good to go.
Go.
Good afternoon.
My name
16
is Perry Buckberg.
I'm a Senior Project Manager on
17
the AP1000 Projects Branch on the DCD side, working
18
for Eileen.
I'm going to kick off the Chapter 5
19
presentation
of
20
Amendment review on the staff side.
the
AP1000
Design
Certification
21
Joining me and Ravi Joshi, who is going
22
to take over for the staff's Bellefonte COL portion;
23
our primary technical staff members, Dave Terao and
24
Gene Hsii, over on the side.
There are many other
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
194
1
staff members who contributed.
Chapter
2
5
of
the
SER
reflects
the
3
evaluation of DCD Revision 16 changes and some of the
4
Revision 17 changes.
It is a bit of a mix.
5
Review of the four Chapter 5 sections
6
resulted in two DCA open items in each of Sections
7
5.2 and 5.4, and those the COL open items.
CHAIR RAY:
8
I don't think there is any
9
reason for the ACRS to take note of 16 versus 15.
10
That probably is important to you all, but we are
11
only interested, I think, in 15 to 17.
12
MR. BUCKBERG:
Which that will be the end
13
of the story after the final SER, but we are tracking
14
it.
So it is important to us.
15
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
16
MR. BUCKBERG:
17
Changes the staff considers significant
Next slide.
18
are listed by section in this slide.
19
other
20
changes are a subset that will be presented by the
21
technical staff in the following slides.
changes
The
22
as
well,
staff
is
though.
prepared
There are many
The
to
highlighted
address
any
23
questions on any other changes evaluated in the SER.
24
I don't think the members need to know, to tell you
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
195
1
that.
With no further ado, I will pass it on to
2
3
Dave Terao.
4
MR. TERAO:
5
Good afternoon.
of
the
Okay, thank you, Perry.
6
Chief
Component
7
Division of Engineering.
I'm David Terao.
Integrity
Branch
in
I'm
the
8
There's a lot of issues to cover today in
9
both the AP1000 Design Certification Amendment and
10
Bellefonte's
11
prepared to discuss are the issues that we think
12
would
13
necessarily the open items.
14
open
15
Well, some of the other issues I think are worth
16
discussing
17
Amendment and COL, there's some new issues that have
18
come up.
be
COL
of
items,
application.
interest
I
would
because
to
say,
with
So
you.
what
They
we
are
are
not
In fact, some of the
are
the
really
Design
non-issues.
Certification
I do want to say that I have several
19
20
subject matter experts in the audience.
So, if I
21
need support, I will call on them for any technical
22
assistance.
23
I also wanted to mention that, with Rev
24
17, since it came in late last year, our Branch has
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
196
1
not completed all of its review of some of the Rev 17
2
changes,
3
unsolicited.
4
Westinghouse and still reviewing some of those Rev 17
5
changes.
6
that
7
review, and some of those issues will come up, as you
8
will see.
we
especially
some
of
those
that
were
So we are still having discussions with
I didn't want to give you an impression
are
completely
finished
with
the
Rev
17
So let's go to the first issue, which is
9
10
on the applicable code cases.
11
open items that I will just run through very quickly.
12
It is not that important, but I wanted to raise this
13
because the AP1000 DCD has a table, 5.2-3, that lists
14
the
15
design.
ASME
code
cases
that's
This is one of those
used
for
the
AP1000
As you are well aware, code cases are
16
17
ASME-approved
alternatives
18
requirements, and the NRC staff then approves those
19
code cases in Reg Guides 1.84, 1.147, and 1.192,
20
specifically
21
Operation and Maintenance code cases, respectively.
for
Section
3,
to
the
Section
ASME
11,
and
code
the
22
The AP1000 table lists primarily the ASME
23
Section 3 code cases, but there are some Section 2
24
materials code cases and some Section 9 welding code
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
197
1
cases listed there as well.
2
AP1000 DCD addresses in part, and maybe more than
3
just part, some of the ISI and IST programs, which
4
are Section 11 and OM, the staff asks Westinghouse,
5
are there any design-related code cases related to
6
ISI
7
testing, that need to be included as part of the
8
Certified Design?
9
We've
or
IST,
in-service
And also, because the
inspection
gotten
some
or
in-service
responses
from
10
Westinghouse.
I think this issue has been resolved
11
with the latest response, and I think the answer was
12
there weren't any.
CHAIR RAY:
13
14
example,
15
requirements for in-service inspection?
16
17
an
exception
the
normal
MR. TERAO:
It's not part of the Section
CHAIR RAY:
Yes, it is not a pressure
boundary part, I know, but okay.
20
MR.
21
flywheel later.
TERAO:
But
we
22
CHAIR RAY:
All right.
23
MR. TERAO:
All right.
24
to
11 ISI.
18
19
represent
Well, does the flywheel, for
pretty much resolved.
will
get
to
the
So this issue is
Westinghouse will be revising
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
198
1
its DCD to specifically address whether or not they
2
are using any Section 11 or OM code cases.
3
Next slide.
4
On
this
slide,
in
the
Design
5
Certification Amendment, Westinghouse changed some of
6
its materials and properties of the reactor coolant
7
pressure boundary materials that was specified in the
8
Certified
9
examples up there.
Design.
For
Westinghouse
10
example,
added
some
we
have
more
a
few
commonly-
11
available stainless steel materials, Types 304 and
12
304L,
13
nickel-based
14
304LN and 316LN.
for
example,
to
stainless
supplement
steel
the
low-carbon,
materials,
the
Type
15
Based on operating experience, the staff
16
found these materials, the more commonly-available
17
stainless steel materials, to have good resistance to
18
stress corrosion and cracking in PWR environments and
19
are compatible with reactor coolant water chemistry.
Some of the other changes that were made
20
21
is
Westinghouse
raised
the
copper
limit
from
.03
22
percent to .06 percent.
23
this was to allow, in part, flexibility and potential
24
forging suppliers.
As Westinghouse discussed,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
199
The staff found that this higher copper
1
2
limit
does
not
have
3
pressurized thermal shock and is within the screening
4
criteria of 10 CFR 50.61.
There
5
were
a
significant
some
changes
to
impact
the
on
delta
6
ferrite upper limit.
7
ferrite number.
8
found is that the changes to the materials met the
9
ASME code Section 3 and at this time there are no
10
It was increased to 20 FN
But, essentially, what the staff
open items that have been identified.
11
I do want to point out that one of the
12
changes that Westinghouse added in Rev 17 is they did
13
propose some new carbon steel-based materials for
14
reactor coolant pressure boundary components, such as
15
the pressure forgings, including nozzles and 2Gs for
16
the steam generators.
17
some questions on how they can incorporate the effect
18
of
19
coolant pressure boundary.
20
as an open item.
using
carbon
So the staff is still pursuing
steel-based
materials
in
reactor
So it is not identified
We are still reviewing that.
21
CHAIR RAY:
It is cladized, though?
22
MR. TERAO:
Hopefully.
23
CHAIR RAY:
Yes.
24
MEMBER
BROWN:
The
new
materials
are
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
200
1
304 -- or the current materials are 304LN and 316LN?
2
MR. TERAO:
3
MEMBER BROWN:
4
Those are the certified materials?
5
MR. TERAO:
But the 304,
Yes, as of Rev 15; Rev 16 was
later, yes.
MEMBER BROWN:
8
9
I'm reading your sentence.
304L, 316, and 316L are new?
6
7
The certified materials.
Okay.
Is there other
experience with these as stainless steel, as pressure
10
boundary materials in other plants?
11
MR. TERAO:
For Boiling Water Reactors,
12
it is a concern with IGSCC, inter-granular stress
13
corrosion cracking.
14
found any significant degradations, just corrosion
15
cracking,
16
environments.
for
But for PWRs, the staff has not
this
MEMBER BROWN:
17
18
environments?
19
information?
of
material
in
PWR
Is it used in other PWR
Or is this just based on the test
20
MR. TERAO:
21
MEMBER
22
type
No, no.
BROWN:
Yes, it is used.
Okay,
that
was
my
question --
23
MR. TERAO:
Yes, yes.
24
MEMBER BROWN:
-- are they used in other
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
201
1
PWRs?
So there is experience with the material as a
2
pressure boundary in other PWR applications?
3
MR. TERAO:
4
MEMBER BROWN:
5
Yes.
the Rev 15?
6
MR. TERAO:
7
MEMBER BROWN:
8
MR. TERAO:
9
All
10
It is just a change from
right,
Right.
Okay.
Again, to allow flexibility.
the
next
slide
deals
with
pressure and temperature limits.
11
Earlier Professor Abdel-Khalik asked the
12
question about, how does the staff ensure that IBRed
13
information
14
information
15
asked for some examples, if we can come up with one
16
on when it might not be appropriate to incorporate by
17
reference some DCD information.
18
example.
19
detailed
20
example to you.
is
or
not
impacted
site-specific
by
standard
information,
and
COL
you
Well, this is a good
So I will get into this a little bit more
than
I
intended
to
try
to
explain
this
21
In fact, your question is a very good
22
question because the staff does more than just take
23
it for granted that information that is IBRed is
24
acceptable.
In fact, that I would consider is one of
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
202
1
our
2
compatibility of the information that is being IBRed
3
and also the information that is put into a COL FSAR.
4
We will talk about this item again in the Bellefonte
5
more
technical
reviews,
is
to
look
at
the
portion.
But I will give you a little history on
6
7
this
item.
8
provided generic pressure temperature limit curves
9
for
the
In
AP1000
the
DCD,
reactor
originally,
vessel
based
Westinghouse
on
limiting
10
material properties, copper and nickel content, in
11
order to meet the fracture toughness requirements of
12
10 CFR Appendix G.
13
I should point out that the P-T limits
14
are required to be in tech specs, but at that time,
15
when we looked at the AP1000 tech specs, the tech
16
specs did not have the pressure temperature limit
17
curves
18
referenced
19
report, but it didn't specify a specific document.
20
It was just APTLR.
in
there.
Rather,
a
a
So
21
PTLR,
the
the
pressure
staff
--
AP1000
DCD
temperature
at
that
only
limit
point,
22
Westinghouse had two choices.
23
the generic P-T limit curves into their tech specs or
24
they
could
pursue
developing
They could either put
a
PTLR
specifically
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
203
1
using those P-T limit curves.
So
2
Westinghouse
decided
to
develop
a
3
PTLR.
And, oh, I would point out that if the P-T
4
limit curves were put into the tech specs themselves,
5
into
6
happen is that each COL applicant, as they built
7
their vessel, would have to update those P-T limit
8
curves specifically for their vessel, and then those
9
P-T limit curves would then have to be reviewed by
the
AP1000
DCD
tech
specs,
then
what
would
10
the staff.
So it would entail quite a bit of work by
11
both COL applicants as well as the NRC staff to
12
review
13
plant's tech specs.
plant-specific
P-T
limit
curves
in
each
14
So Westinghouse did decide to develop a
15
PTLR, and by doing so for the AP1000, now they would
16
have a generic pressure temperature limit report that
17
COL applicants can now reference, and the P-T limits
18
are no longer in the tech specs.
19
controlled outside the tech specs, so that the COL
20
applicants,
21
change the P-T limit curves, as long as they meet the
22
PTLR methodology for developing those curves and not
23
have to submit it to the NRC staff for review and
24
approval.
the
COL
licensees
at
In fact, it is
that
point
can
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
204
1
But what it required is for the staff to
2
upfront review the PTLR methodology, the curves, and
3
make sure that the PTLR met the NRC's guidance.
4
that is basically what happened, is that Westinghouse
5
followed the guidelines of Generic Letter 96-03 in
6
preparing the PTLR, and staff eventually approved the
7
generic PTLR in a letter dated December 30th, 2008.
So
8
At this time, there is no issue there.
9
But, going back to your question about whether or not
10
a COL applicant, if he had just referenced the tech
11
specs as written, and had we not looked in detail at
12
those tech specs, we might have had a problem later
13
on.
14
out to you.
So that is one example that I wanted to point
15
I would point out, also, that the PTLR
16
was reviewed, I would say, outside of the Design
17
Certification.
18
our approval letter.
In other words, we did it by letter,
It was also by letter.
19
The item left, it is a confirmatory item,
20
but the Westinghouse DCD still references a generic
21
PTLR, and what Westinghouse is now going to do as a
22
confirmatory item is specifically state which PTLR it
23
is,
24
specific on what the PTLR is that COL applicants
perhaps
reference
the
letter,
but
be
more
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
205
1
should follow.
CHAIR RAY:
2
3
topical report?
Or is it functionally the same as?
MR. TERAO:
4
5
a topical report.
6
help me.
Well, it wasn't submitted as
I don't know.
Maybe Neil Ray can
Are PTLRs typically submitted as topical
7
8
Why wouldn't this have been a
reports?
MR. NEIL RAY:
9
Topical
10
This is Neil Ray.
reports
and
technical
reports,
11
that is like they are different.
When a subject is
12
completely new to staff, then we basically treat it
13
as a topical report because we have to do a lot of
14
research, and so on and so forth.
15
is not.
In this case, it
So we treat it as a technical report.
As Dave pointed out, PTLR is a quite
16
17
detailed
and
almost
once-in-a-lifetime
kind
of
a
18
report for a plant.
19
we have to look at each and every criteria, so that
20
the staff has to be satisfied with each and every
21
criteria before we approve it.
So there are seven criteria, and
22
So, to answer your question, this was
23
submitted as a technical report outside the CD, and
24
we reviewed and approved it.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
206
MR. TERAO:
1
And the only thing left is
2
that I would point out that a COL applicant still has
3
the option, I mean it could still put P-T limit
4
curves in its tech specs if it wanted to.
5
is
6
address how they are going to use their PTLRs, and we
7
will
8
specifically.
a
COL
information
talk
about
that
item
when
for
COL
we
get
So there
applicants
to
to
Bellefonte
Next item, reactor coolant pump flywheel
9
10
that
we
had
quite
11
morning.
12
pump from Rev 15 to Rev 16.
13
reactor coolant pump was changed from a very specific
14
design, using depleted uranium, to a more generic
15
reactor
16
inserts.
bit
of
discussion
on
this
The major change was to the reactor coolant
coolant
The
17
a
At that time, the
pump
design,
using
staff
pursued
some
the
tungsten
questions
with
18
Westinghouse about the use of a generic pump.
As Ed
19
Cummins mentioned, they are now specifying a more
20
specific reactor coolant pump, canned pump.
21
The change from the depleted uranium to
22
metal tungsten resulted in the need to revise the
23
AP1000 flywheel analysis.
24
staff did review that revised flywheel analysis and
Then that was done.
The
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
207
1
found the changes acceptable on the basis that the
2
revised
3
postulating
4
flywheel will not penetrate the reactor coolant pump
5
casing.
flywheel
a
analysis
flywheel
demonstrated
failure,
that,
in
of
the
pieces
Also, the staff found that the revised
6
7
materials
were
compatible
8
coolant chemistry.
with
the
PWR
reactor
9
At that point, the staff still identified
10
a need for Westinghouse to include in its DCD the new
11
flywheel material, the tungsten inserts.
12
made the change, they deleted the old material, but
13
didn't replace it with a new material.
14
is being tracked as an open item.
CHAIR RAY:
15
Since they
So that what
David, could you reconcile
16
what you just said with what I thought we heard from
17
the applicants, that they have not yet submitted the
18
missile analysis?
MR. TERAO:
19
Yes, and I'm getting to that,
20
but what has happened since then -- in fact, this is
21
probably in the last month or so -- Westinghouse has
22
again proposed to revise the material used in the
23
flywheel outer hub.
I think, what was the --
CHAIR RAY:
24
Okay.
All right, 16 to 17,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
208
1
in other words.
MR. TERAO:
2
3
Right.
The retaining ring,
as Westinghouse called it.
4
So we were still reviewing the impact of
5
that change to flywheel analysis as we came to ACRS,
6
but now we heard that, yes, indeed, Westinghouse is
7
revising its flywheel analysis with this new material
8
for the outer hub, but we have not seen it yet.
So we kind of jumped around.
9
10
you knew at what time.
11
CHAIR RAY:
12
MR. TERAO:
13
It is what
Okay.
I was trying to just put it
in perspective.
14
CHAIR RAY:
That's fine.
15
MR. TERAO:
All right.
16
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
But in going from
17
15 to 16 to 17, the inertia of the flywheel has
18
increased
19
depleted uranium to tungsten.
20
of a change in the minimum DMVR that resulted in for
21
the total loss of flow?
22
MR. TERAO:
23
significantly,
at
least
in
going
from
Do you know how much
I would not know.
Probably
that would be reactor systems, but -MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
24
I mean that is in
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
209
1
the conservative direction, I understand, but I just
2
want to get a feel for how much of a change that was.
MR. SISK:
3
4
available today.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
5
6
CHAIR
I
thought
CONSULTANT KRESS:
they
said
the
Would that be part of
Chapter 15, Said?
CHAIR RAY:
11
12
RAY:
inertia went down?
9
10
Would that be part of
Chapter 15 --
7
8
We will have those values
You are relating 16 to 17
from 15 to 17.
MS. McKENNA:
13
Why don't we get back to
14
you on that rather than trying to answer that on the
15
fly?
16
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
17
MR. TERAO:
18
I
19
20
will
let
Okay.
Gene
All right, next slide.
Hsii
talk
about
the
reactor coolant external heat exchanger design.
MR. HSII:
My name is Gene Hsii.
CHAIR RAY:
21
You had better hold on.
22
we move the microphone over?
23
MR.
24
Thank you.
HSII:
In
the
DCD,
the
Can
reactor
coolant pump motor's cooling was achieved by means of
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
210
1
an internal heating coil near the thermal barrier,
2
and the heat exchanger around the outside of the
3
motor stator.
In
4
Revision
17,
they
5
change.
6
using
7
exchangers also have the pump.
8
pump frange.
made
a
design
They removed the internal cooling coil and
a
conventional
heat
exchanger.
The
heat
It is not only the
There is a stick of cable on the bottom
9
10
of
the
pump
shock,
11
circulating
12
cavity and through the side of the heat exchanger,
13
and comes back.
14
exchanger was provided by the component cooling water
15
to provide a heat sink.
the
and
primary
that
force
provides
through
force,
the
motor
In the other side of the heat
The removal of internal cooling coil in
16
17
the
pump
design
and
also
use
this
external
heat
18
exchanger provided capability to easily design the
19
heat exchanger to meet the cooling requirement.
Since this is outside of the pump, so the
20
21
external
piping
22
exchanger,
23
boundary.
24
code 16.3, Class A, requirement.
they
and
are
the
the
cubes
inside
reactor
cooling
the
heat
pressure
So they must meet the requirement of ASME
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
211
1
Westinghouse has developed a generic heat
2
exchanger design specification that identified the
3
thermal and mechanical design bases and requirement.
4
That serves as the basis for the final design of the
5
heat exchanger.
6
The staff had looked at that -- they have
7
not submitted, but we did a quick look at the report,
8
and we have not identified any technical issue.
9
But since Westinghouse has not submitted
10
the report on the target, all reference in the DCD,
11
so we make it an open item.
12
not identified any technical issue here.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
13
14
cooling
15
external water?
in
the
heat
16
MR. HSII:
17
CONSULTANT
18
But, basically, we have
exchanger
itself?
Is
that
Component cooling water.
KRESS:
Component
cooling
water?
19
MR. HSII:
20
CONSULTANT KRESS:
21
What is the source of
Yes.
Does that penetrate
the containment?
MR. HSII:
22
23
the
system
24
containment --
is
Yes.
outside
Component cooling water,
and
penetrates
the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
212
CONSULTANT
1
KRESS:
The
2
itself is inside the containment?
3
MR. HSII:
4
CONSULTANT KRESS:
5
Oh, yes.
MR. HSII:
of the pump flange.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
9
MR. HSII:
Oh, yes.
Yes.
MEMBER BROWN:
10
You said something about
its being pumped?
12
MR. HSII:
13
MEMBER BROWN:
14
And there is a pump
The heat exchanger is on top
8
11
Yes.
there was a pump included.
MR. HSII:
15
I thought I heard you say
Is that wrong?
There is a heat impellor on
16
the bottom of the construct inside the pump.
17
provides circulation force.
18
MEMBER BROWN:
19
MR. HSII:
20
MEMBER
21
exchanger
associated with it?
6
7
heat
So that
All right.
Okay, a negative --
BROWN:
Inside
the
pressure
boundary?
CHAIR RAY:
22
Yes, I mean one issue in my
23
mind at the moment would be whether this missile
24
analysis can in any way threaten the practical and
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
213
1
pressure boundary coils he was just referring to that
2
are part of this external heat exchange.
3
is not a question to be answered here, but I'm just
4
saying the reactor coolant that keeps the motor cool,
5
that is part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary
6
coils he was just referring to that are part of this,
7
and
8
That=s not a question to be answered here, I=m just
9
saying.
it
goes
out
to
the
external
I know that
heat
exchange.
The cooled reactor coolant that keeps the
10
motor
cool,
11
pressure
12
heater.
that=s
part
boundary.
It
of
the
reactor
goes
out
to
the
coolant
external
That's all straightforward.
13
The only question is, is there any threat
14
to that extension of the reactor coolant pressure
15
boundary outside the shell that we saw in the picture
16
up there?
MR.
17
HSII:
Well,
the
external
18
exchanger outside the pump is stationary.
19
no moving parts there.
20
CHAIR RAY:
21
Oh, I know.
heat
There is
Well, it is an
extension of the pressure boundary is the point.
22
MR. HSII:
23
CHAIR RAY:
24
MR. HSII:
Yes.
It is just a little -So that is why, because it is
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
214
1
outside of the heat exchanger.
The outside of the
2
pump and it is part of the reactor coolant pressure
3
boundary.
That is why we have to meet the ASME -CHAIR RAY:
4
I understand all of that.
5
I'm just saying that it is likely that there is no
6
threat to it.
7
that you are extending the reactor coolant pressure
8
boundary now outside the big forging that is the
9
motor casing.
I am just saying that at some point
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
10
Now the pressure
11
boundary, the reactor coolant pressure boundary is
12
the tube side of that heat exchanger?
13
CHAIR RAY: yes-hum.
14
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
15
CHAIR RAY:
16
Yes.
Okay.
It was inside; now it
is outside.
17
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
Now it is outside.
18
CONSULTANT
If
KRESS:
19
cooling, does the pump stop pumping?
20
overheat?
MR. HSII:
21
Eventually.
you
lose
that
Does the motor
The pump, you
22
know, you might have a -- if the pump stops pumping,
23
it becomes -CONSULTANT KRESS:
24
The pressure valve is
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
215
1
the secondary inside the heat valve.
2
if that was one of the initiating events in loss of
3
flow.
4
MR.
HSII:
It's
5
becomes a loss of blockage.
6
CONSULTANT KRESS:
7
MR. HSII:
8
CONSULTANT KRESS:
9
I just wondered
initiating
when
it
Yes.
So it is covered by Chapter -It's covered in the
PRA, you think?
10
The reason I ask is because it wasn't,
11
that system wasn't part of the PRA before, I don't
12
think.
13
CHAIR RAY:
Loss of CCW?
14
CONSULTANT KRESS:
We had loss of flow in
15
there, but this is another initiating event for it,
16
in my mind.
CHAIR RAY:
17
Well, I just think, John,
18
that moving the heat exchanger from inside to outside
19
didn't change what the initiating events are.
20
pump,
CONSULTANT KRESS:
Yes, except you put
external
an
21
more
22
system to this heat exchanger, which -CHAIR RAY:
23
24
pump
and
external
cooling
Well, but you always had
that.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
216
MS. McKENNA:
1
2
our presentation on Chapter 19, coming tomorrow.
3
CHAIR RAY:
4
MS. McKENNA:
5
This actually is a topic in
Okay.
So maybe we can come back
to it at that point.
6
CHAIR RAY:
Fine.
7
MR. BUCKBERG:
Good.
If there's no additional
8
questions on the DCD portion of the presentation, I
9
will turn it over to Ravi Joshi to present the COL
10
side.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
11
12
I have one question on
that.
13
CHAIR RAY:
Please, go ahead.
14
CONSULTANT KRESS:
You didn't stress the
15
change in the insulation.
16
to accommodate the external cooling of the pressure
17
vessel by flooding it?
MS.
18
I gathered that change was
McKENNA:
Actually,
the
reactor
19
vessel insulation I think you are talking about is a
20
severe accident feature.
21
CONSULTANT KRESS:
22
MS. McKENNA:
23
It will bottom, right?
Yes, that we will again get
into tomorrow in Chapter 19.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
24
You will get into that
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
217
1
tomorrow?
2
MS. McKENNA:
3
CONSULTANT KRESS:
4
Yes.
Okay, I will save my
place.
5
(Laughter.)
6
MR. JOSHI:
7
Ravi Joshi.
8
Bellefonte FSAR.
Good afternoon.
My name is
I'm a Project Manager for Chapter 5, the
9
The Bellefonte FSAR Chapter 5 actually
10
incorporates the reference by EPRI, EPRI 1000, DCD
11
Chapter 5.
12
5 also describes how they provide information on the
13
standard COL item as a last supplement of items also.
14
Basically, the entire chapter is really a
15
standard content, and the slide that=s in front of me
16
actually provides the items that are described in the
17
Bellefonte FSAR, and the highlighted items that we
18
will describe and discuss by data.
19
MR. TERAO:
In addition also, Bellefonte FSAR Chapter
Actually, before I explain,
20
go to my first topic, I wanted to explain a little
21
bit
22
opposed COL supplement items.
why
we
In
23
24
are
significant.
discussing
our
view,
standard
the
COL
COL
items
items
are
as
more
The reason is that, if you think about
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
218
1
the overall Part 52 process, the DCD, 10 CFR 5247
2
says
3
complete design.
4
design that are not complete that are now left up to
5
a COL applicant to address.
6
say, design that is not complete is related to as-
7
built information.
that
a
DCD
should
provide
an
essentially
But there are some aspects of that
A lot of that, I will
8
So the COL items, the standard COL items
9
that we are going to discuss today, a lot of them
10
have to do with how the COL applicant is proposing to
11
complete the design.
12
think it is very important.
So, from that standpoint, we
13
The overall staff guidance is that the
14
staff needs to make a safety finding before issuing a
15
COL license.
16
cannot defer completion of the design after a COL is
17
issued.
We cannot defer our safety finding.
We
18
If there are some things that need to be
19
completed after a COL is issued, then staff is either
20
going to make it a license condition or an ITAAC or
21
possibly a licensing commitment.
I think we had that
22
discussion earlier this morning.
We are still trying
23
to decide at what level is it a license condition, at
24
what level might it be a licensing commitment.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
219
So the other items that are listed are
1
2
standard supplementary information.
In general, this
3
supplementary information is, I would characterize it
4
as clarifications or perhaps additional detail, more
5
detail.
6
conflict with the design, but it might help clarify
7
and provide more details about what was discussed in
8
the DCD.
It doesn't change the design and it doesn't
So,
9
from
that
standpoint,
we
are
not
10
going to discuss any of those standard supplement
11
items,
unless
12
them.
So, with that, I will start with the first
13
item,
which
14
inspection program.
you
is
had
any
the
particular
question
plant-specific
on
in-service
The AP1000 DCD has an action for COL
15
16
applicant
to
provide
17
inspection and in-service inspection program, and it
18
also has the COL applicant address the NRC's first
19
revise order, EA-03-009.
That is the order that
20
required
to
21
vessel for boric acid corrosion.
operating
The
22
23
program,
24
during
that
plant
plant-specific
plants
ISI
is,
a
a
inspect
program
is
program
that
operation.
It
the
an
is
pre-service
reactor
operational
is
implemented
discussed
in
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
220
1
SECY-05-0197.
The COL applicant should provide in
2
its FSAR a fully-described program, meaning a program
3
description and its implementation.
So for Bellefonte to address this COL
4
5
information
6
program, and each of these operational programs are a
7
little different.
8
AP1000 Design Center, the Bellefonte COLA, together
9
with
the
item,
what
happens
is,
for
the
ISI
For the ISI program, and for the
AP1000
DCD,
provides
10
program.
11
implementation of that program.
a
fully-described
The Bellefonte COLA describes more of the
12
So, from that standpoint, we found that
13
the AP1000 DCD, together with the Bellefonte FSAR,
14
provide, adequately address SECY-05-0197 in providing
15
a fully-described program.
16
With respect to the NRC's first revised
17
order, TVA will revise its FSAR to meet the final
18
amended rule to 5055(a).
19
the time the final rule had not been issued in The
20
Federal Register.
21
proposed rule.
22
2008, the NRC issued the final rule in The Federal
23
Register
24
inspections be conducted in accordance with the ASME
that
Currently, I think it is at
At that time, it was only the
But, since then, on September 10th,
requires
reactor
vessel
head
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
221
1
code case and 729-1, as modified in 5055(a).
2
agreed
3
reference this and the final rule.
that
they
will
now
change
the
So TVA
FSAR
to
Milestones for PSI and ISI are specified
4
5
in the ASME code.
6
license conditions for when TVA should commence its
7
PSI or ISI program.
As
8
9
providing
So we didn't need any specific
far
as
milestones
meeting
to
the
SECY-05-0197
staff
on
on
program
10
implementation, TVA proposed the license condition 6
11
in Part 10 of the Bellefonte COL application, again,
12
consistent with SECY-05-0197.
13
From that standpoint, we found that there
14
were no open items with respect to the in-service
15
inspection and pre-service inspection program.
CHAIR RAY:
16
David, as we go along here, a
17
number of these conclude that there's no open items.
18
I would just ask you to try to focus on things that
19
may be of relatively more interest to us in terms of
20
them being issues as opposed to --
21
MR. TERAO:
would
be
All right.
interesting
Well, I thought
22
this
because
it
was
an
23
operational program and it is something relatively
24
new to COL applications.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
222
1
CHAIR RAY:
Okay, that's fair.
2
MR. TERAO:
The next one is P-T limit
3
curve.
Again, there's no open items here, but I just
4
wanted to follow on and maybe we could do this one
5
quickly.
6
Bellefonte committed to use the updated
7
P-T limits, using the PTLR and using plant-specific
8
material
9
condition.
properties,
CHAIR
10
and
they
RAY:
proposed
We
have
license
this
little
11
explanation
of
these
12
approval.
It
is
13
regulatory process, I guess.
14
now, that is like something that took place in a
15
closet somewhere, I'm not sure where, and we will
16
assume it is okay, but it doesn't have the same
17
transparency,
18
addressed in an SER the way the curves themselves
19
would have been, had they been included.
I'll
technical
a
an
letters
interesting
say,
and
feature
their
of
the
Because, as we sit here
as
something
that
is
In other words, it is a protocol for
20
21
determining a requirement.
It is not a requirement
22
itself.
23
exist for including the curves specifically.
24
trying to figure out how it fits in the spectrum of
It's approved and has the status that would
I am
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
223
1
regulatory
processes
2
transparency.
from
MR. TERAO:
3
a
standpoint
of
But the overall process we
4
used for approving the PTLR via the letter and all of
5
this is documented.
6
process the NRC staff uses for operating plants to
7
approve PTLRs.
8
have
9
Certification, but certainly our approval process via
10
letter, and putting those letters on the docket, is
11
consistent
12
plants.
an
It is no different than the
It is just that in this case we don't
operating
with
plant;
our
process
CHAIR RAY:
13
Yes.
we
have
used
a
for
Design
operating
I'm just wondering,
14
well, okay, what limits the scope of what you are
15
going to do that way?
16
side trails that we can get off on here.
17
better go ahead.
But, again, there's too many
MR. TERAO:
18
area
where
we
So you had
For our Branch, this is the
19
only
have
20
letter, and only because we wanted to be consistent
21
with operating plants.
MEMBER BROWN:
22
not
knowing
what
approved
an
item
via
a
Can I ask one question?
23
PTLRs,
people
are
doing
with
24
pressure temperature limit curves, do they just do
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
224
1
whatever they want to do, and you've got to take what
2
they do, as long as they follow the methodology?
3
I guess my question is related to, does
4
the methodology establish some principles relative to
5
margins to material characteristics or does it leave
6
those up in the air, to be determined by the licensee
7
at the time he follows the method?
8
do you put in some prescribed limits within which
9
they have to operate when they do -- or does the
10
methodology lay out a set of prescribed margins and
11
limits within which they have to operate, or does the
12
methodology just say you establish some margins and
13
limits, and then they can just do whatever they want
14
to do after that?
In other words,
15
Was I clear in my question?
16
MR. TERAO:
17
matter expert on this.
Yes.
So Neil will answer that.
18
MR. NEIL RAY:
19
Let
20
me
Neil is the subject
try
This Neil Ray.
to
address
everybody's
questions in a broad fashion.
21
First of all, pressure temperature limits
22
is required for the entire Class 1 pressure boundary
23
to make sure under any conditions there should not be
24
any fracture of any Class 1 pressure boundary.
It
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
225
1
does not include only the outer vessel.
2
the entire pressure boundary.
The
3
second
thing
is
P-T
It includes
limits
are
4
deemed, they were logged, probably the last 40 years
5
or
6
methodology prescribed in 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, and
7
in Section 11, Appendix G.
8
to it.
so
under
this
similar
or
exact
identical
So there is nothing new
9
Now, to address your question, specific
10
question, about PTLR, back in 1996, the NRC decided
11
to allow the applicants, licensees, to take out their
12
P-T limits outside the tech specs because, once it is
13
in the tech spec, every time there is any new P-T
14
limits, they have to get NRC's approval and tech spec
15
amendments, which is a pretty expensive process.
As
16
you
know,
in
a
particular
reactor
17
vessel, the only thing that changes with time is the
18
radiation
19
constant,
20
thickness, cooling temperature, heat-up rate, cool-
21
down rate.
22
thing that changes is your radiation embrittlement.
embrittlement.
including
your
Everything
reactor
vessel
Everything remains constant.
remains
a
diameter,
The only
23
So, back in 1996, there was a generic
24
letter in 1996-03, where the NRC allowed licensees to
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
226
1
take out the P-T limits outside the tech spec and
2
being in the administrative control.
When
3
NRC
did
it,
we
have,
as
I
said
4
before, we have seven criteria to make sure that
5
licensees will use the same procedure over and over
6
again,
7
includes
8
fracture mechanics calculation.
9
sort of risk calculation data, pullout and subsequent
anytime
risk
they
change
the
calculation.
procedure.
That
That
includes
your
That includes any
10
treatment of the data.
Anything changes, the whole
11
process will start all over again.
So the PTLR is applicable only when your
12
13
methodology
remains
14
remains constant.
15
the
16
RTndt.
radiation
constant.
Your
methodology
The only thing you are changing is
embrittlement
or,
in
other
words,
That is precisely the process.
17
CHAIR RAY:
Thank you.
18
MR. TERAO:
All right, the next slide is
19
on the reactor vessel surveillance program.
20
this has no open items.
21
very quickly that this is another operational program
22
that was fully described in the Bellefonte COLA and
23
the
24
SECY-05-0197.
AP1000
DCD
Again,
So I just want to point out
together,
as
discussed
in
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
227
The
1
Bellefonte
two
COL
requisite
application
license
also
2
provided
the
3
proposed
license
4
standpoint, we found the reactor vessel surveillance
5
program, the operational program to be acceptable.
conditions.
So,
conditions,
from
that
6
Next slide.
7
The next slide is on the reactor vessel
8
material properties verification.
9
with the pressurized thermal shock issue.
Just
10
real
quickly,
This issue deals
as
part
of
the
11
Certified Design, Westinghouse described its bounding
12
PTS evaluation, and so nothing changed there.
13
only thing that is happening here with the Bellefonte
14
COLA is that the Bellefonte, TVA committed to provide
15
the NRC with the plant-specific beltline material
16
properties prior to fuel load, and that they will
17
provide a pressurized thermal shock evaluation using
18
these plant-specific materials to the staff at least
19
18 months prior to fuel load, to give the staff ample
20
time
21
actually captured as proposed licensed conditions.
to
review
it.
These
MEMBER BANERJEE:
22
two
commitments
The
were
Do you need the sort of
23
flaw distribution to be able to do an evaluation of
24
the PTS?
There is some sort of flaw distribution,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
228
1
isn't there?
CONSULTANT KRESS:
2
3
They have to have a
flaw distribution --
4
MEMBER BANERJEE:
Yes.
5
CONSULTANT KRESS:
6
MEMBER
BANERJEE:
7
generic thing, I guess.
8
plant, right?
So
that
not
a
No, they use the old
10
data off of the old reactor vessels.
11
one source of data.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
12
is
It is specific to each
CONSULTANT KRESS:
9
-- number and size.
Right.
They only have
That's for the
13
rule, but I'm saying for any new vessel, does there
14
need to be a determination of this?
15
CONSULTANT
16
I
think
they
just
assume the loading.
MEMBER
17
18
KRESS:
BANERJEE:
Can
you
guide
me
through this, please?
19
MR. NEIL RAY:
Yes, let me address that.
20
As you are well aware of, pressurized
21
thermal shock issue was first addressed back in 1986
22
or so.
23
in the 10 CFR 5061, is based on at least some 2,000
24
transients with flaw distribution as bursts of energy
Since that time, original PTS rule, which is
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
229
1
in the original PTS rule, 10 CFR 5061.
2
What we did, industry, along with the
3
NRC, is for going through each and every vessel and
4
going through the flaw distribution is so extensive
5
and expensive, it really doesn't make much sense.
6
we made it a rule-of-thumb kind of a rule and what we
7
call a PTS screening criteria, which in a nutshell is
8
270
9
blades.
degrees
Fahrenheit
for
longitudinal
weld
So
for
For circumferential weld, the criteria is
10
300
degrees
Fahrenheit.
These
two
criteria,
11
screening criteria, is based on lots and lots of
12
studies, including flaw distribution and transients
13
temperature, LOCA analysis, all those things you can
14
think of.
So, based on that, the current reactors,
15
16
current
PWRs,
all
of
them
have
to
follow
these
17
guidelines and they have to maintain their vessel
18
below this screen criteria.
19
Now coming to new reactors like AP1000,
20
the AP1000 also following the same criteria of PTS
21
270 and 300 degree with the similar understanding and
22
similar assumption of what I just described, on top
23
of it, for everybody's good feeling, I would say that
24
the AP1000 vessel, as they pointed out, copper and
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
230
1
nickle content will be much, much lower than what we
2
have seen in the current reactors.
3
activity also will be very, very low.
Also, the initial
So they are proposing much, much better
4
5
materials
6
vessel.
7
as per Westinghouse's calculation, up to 60 years,
8
the number is something like 136 degrees Fahrenheit,
9
instead of 270.
10
in
the
beltline
region
of
the
AP1000
Hereby, if I remember the number correctly,
So there is virtually no concern
whatsoever for PTS.
11
MEMBER BANERJEE:
12
MR. TERAO:
Okay.
Thank you.
The next, last item is
13
on the steam generator tube surveillance program.
14
This item is related to the in-service inspection
15
program.
16
generator tubes.
Of course, it is specifically for steam
Again, this item, it is an operational
17
18
program.
The TVA provided a description in its FSAR
19
of
Bellefonte
20
surveillance program.
21
because it is based on the standard tech specs for
22
Westinghouse plants.
23
steam generator program guidelines, and it is also
24
based on EPRI steam generator guidelines, which is
the
steam
generator
tube
and
The staff found it acceptable
It is based on NEI 97-06 on
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
231
1
consistent with industry practice.
So, from that standpoint, the staff found
2
3
it acceptable with no open items.
4
And that concludes my presentation.
5
CHAIR RAY:
Okay, thank you very much,
7
MS. COFFIN:
Mr. Ray?
8
CHAIR RAY:
9
MS. COFFIN:
10
CHAIR RAY:
11
MS. COFFIN:
6
David.
Yes?
I would like to comment?
Go ahead, Stephanie.
There are two comments I
12
heard from you and Dr. Brown that I wanted to not
13
let -- Mr. Brown?
Sorry.
I'll exault you.
14
MEMBER BROWN:
15
appreciate the increase in my degrees.
MS. COFFIN:
16
17
I plead guilty on -- I
There were comments that you
made that I would like to address for the record.
18
One,
19
transparency in our process.
20
in the PTLR approach is not transparent, we need to
21
address
22
rigorously
23
Evaluation Report that is publicly available, and
24
will be very clear in the DCD and the FSAR what
that,
you
but
we
reviewed,
expressed
concerns
about
If you think something
believe
the
documented
methodology
in
a
was
Safety
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
232
1
methodology and the approach we are taking.
2
there's any remaining concerns, please let me know.
CHAIR RAY:
3
So, if
Stop right there because you
4
said some keywords, which were it will be documented
5
in the SER?
6
MS. COFFIN:
7
MEMBER BROWN:
8
MS.
9
It is.
SER or FSAR?
COFFIN:
There
was
a
Safety
Evaluation Report approving the PTLR methodology.
CHAIR
10
11
Yes.
RAY:
Okay,
that
is
what
I'm
searching for.
MS. COFFIN:
12
Then in the DCD, we have
13
asked Westinghouse to point to that, so it is very
14
clear what they are doing.
15
any applicant that chooses to use that approach, it
16
is going to be very clear in their licensing basis
17
how they approaching this.
CHAIR
18
RAY:
In turn, Bellefonte, or
Does
that
process
come
19
through here at all, that exists with the SER for the
20
PTLR?
MS. COFFIN:
21
to
the
staff
We have an obligation to
22
bring
23
reports that we think you have not seen.
CHAIR RAY:
24
any
kind
of
generic
topical
This seemed like an exception
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
233
1
to that.
That is why I am asking.
MS. COFFIN:
2
And if you have concerns
3
with it, we will come and present it to you, but I
4
think, from our perspective, this PTLR approach is in
5
such common usage now that we didn't think it rose to
6
the level of bringing it here for review and approval
7
prior to issuance.
CHAIR
8
RAY:
Well,
but
that
is
the
9
question, and you have given me your judgment about
10
that, and I don't have any reason to disagree with
11
it.
12
transparency.
It is just that that is what I meant what I said
13
MS. COFFIN:
14
CHAIR RAY:
15
Okay.
I didn't understand.
It
seemed like an exception to the normal process.
MR. JOSHI:
16
Can I make a suggestion?
17
There is an SER page 5-26, the last paragraph, which
18
actually references what staff did in terms of the
19
PTLR and where it was approved and what date -CHAIR RAY:
20
Well, I did read that, and
21
that is what I'm still pursuing here.
22
maybe I'm spending more time on it than I should.
MS. COFFIN:
23
24
It seems like
But I think it is fair that
your observation that it is somewhat unique, whereas
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
234
1
other Design Certification documents that reference
2
topical reports, you would actually see the meat and
3
the basis for our acceptance of those topical and
4
technical reports.
5
regard.
6
it.
This one was an exception in that
So I understand why you were puzzled about
7
CHAIR RAY:
8
MR.
9
Right.
TERAO:
Okay.
If
I
may
add,
the
Westinghouse -- the AP1000 Design Center is setting
10
the
precedent
11
reactors.
12
getting requests to use PTLRs and ESBWR and some of
13
the
14
setting the precedent.
15
CHAIR RAY:
other
for
the
use
of
the
PTLR
for
new
I'm sure Neil can attest that we are now
Design
Centers
as
well.
But
this
is
Well, I would like, Mike, to
16
figure out a way to capture this process that we are
17
just
18
Committee is aware of it.
19
again
take
20
bunny
trail
21
something that we should take note of and make sure
22
that everybody is comfortable with it.
23
MR. NEIL RAY:
24
If I may add something to what Stephanie
now
discussing
everybody's
here
in
and
make
sure
Okay?
time
entire
I don't want to
trying
detail,
the
but
to
it
pursue
seems
the
like
Again, this is Neil Ray.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
235
1
and Dave told, in the DCD, in our safety evaluation,
2
you
3
methodology, quite in detail.
4
subject can evaluate the P-T limits based on that
5
methodology.
will
see
that
we
discussed
the
process,
the
Anybody who knows the
We discussed how did we arrive at those
6
7
numbers.
8
two equals three, we didn't go into that detail, but
9
other than that, you will get everything.
One thing you will not get is we did not
10
11
What it does not say, showing if one plus
show the P-T limit cuts.
CHAIR RAY:
12
I understand that you are
13
saying the stuff that we are not getting.
14
all of us would agree we don't need to get.
No doubt,
15
But I'm still not clear enough, and I
16
don't want to pursue it any further here, on whether,
17
if anybody had any concern about it, they would ever
18
have a chance to recognize what had happened.
MS. McKENNA:
19
Okay.
Okay?
It is the reference
20
to the PTLR and the staff safety evaluation of it is
21
referenced in the FSER for the Design Certification
22
Document.
23
where that information exists.
So, to that extent, there is a trail of
CHAIR RAY:
24
Eileen, I admit to coming
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
236
1
into this process at this point in time, and there's
2
a lot of history that I'm not familiar with.
3
once again, I just want to, for purposes of the
4
Committee, make sure, if there is a question here,
5
that we understand what the question is.
6
MS. McKENNA:
7
CHAIR RAY:
8
Absolutely.
Then we can discuss it among
ourselves.
MS. McKENNA:
9
CHAIR
10
11
But,
Yes.
RAY:
But
I
don't
want
to
mischaracterize it, either.
MEMBER BROWN:
12
I would like to make sure
13
that the answer he gave to me, when I asked the
14
question,
15
boundaries in terms of the flexibility, and was there
16
some
17
licensee's ability to go change or use new ones --
in
specific
my
limited
procedures
knowledge,
and
things
18
MR. NEIL RAY:
19
MEMBER BROWN:
20
where you have a more structured and --
21
MR. NEIL RAY:
22
MEMBER BROWN:
put
some
outside
the
That is correct.
-- without coming back,
Yes.
-- evaluation of them.
23
That is what I was looking for, something that puts
24
some boundaries.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
237
1
MR. NEIL RAY:
Yes.
2
MEMBER BROWN:
So it is just not all over
3
the place, and you pick and choose --
4
MR. NEIL RAY:
5
MEMBER BROWN:
6
-- what analyses or what
techniques or what --
7
MR. NEIL RAY:
8
MEMBER BROWN:
9
Exactly.
Yes, yes.
So, if I could include
that or get that from him, and put it in the -MR. LEE:
10
Yes.
What I will do is I will
11
work with Stephanie and Eileen to kind of work up
12
that history and put something together and get it to
13
the Committee, so that they can understand it.
CHAIR RAY:
14
no
15
is
16
application.
17
and how flexible it might become.
for
concern
on
this
particular
I'm trying to understand the process
MR. GRANT:
18
19
reason
I will stipulate that there
Can I offer up two points on
that that might help?
20
Eddie Grant with NuStart.
21
The pressure temperature limits report,
22
the methodology, and specific reference to the WCAP
23
that was used by Westinghouse is specified in the
24
technical specifications.
So, if they want to use
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
238
1
any other methodology except that one, they have to
2
go,
3
specification
4
opportunity to re-review that methodology.
5
covered there.
6
It
we
would
to
have
to
go
change,
is
look
and
also
at
back
give
your
that,
for
a
the
technical
staff
So it is
opportunity,
through
the
an
if
7
wanted
8
specifications, you would have an opportunity.
you
technical
9
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
10
MR. GRANT:
The second point I would like
11
to make, if I could, is that it is not -- while it is
12
unique,
13
temperature limits report, it is not particularly
14
unique because we do the same thing with the core
15
operating
16
limits report also in the technical specifications,
17
where we pull those particular items out of the tech
18
specs
19
piece of information outside of the tech specs.
and
and
the
limits,
control
first
and
there
those
CHAIR RAY:
20
time
for
is
under
a
a
All right.
the
core
pressure
operating
methodology
WCAP
Well, that may be
21
a good illustration of what I am saying.
22
that has been accepted for as long as I have been
23
around now is being applied to something else.
MR. GRANT:
24
Something
Correct.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
239
CHAIR RAY:
1
And the question is, well,
2
that seems like it worked that time.
Why don't we
3
just do it on a lot of other things?
What are the
4
limits that exist for expanding the process to other
5
stuff that we might think this would be a swell way
6
to speed up the process?
7
getting at.
And I really don't want to spend any more
8
9
That is what I am really
time on it now.
Okay?
Okay, where the heck am I?
10
It is time
11
for -- let's see, it's 2:20.
12
break at 2:35, but we would like to get in Chapter
13
10.
Chapter 10 is going to be a long chapter,
14
15
I've got a feeling, review.
MR. LEE:
16
17
We were going to have a
Do you want to take a break
now?
CHAIR
18
RAY:
Well,
I'm
thinking
about
19
that, but, honestly, I am concerned about where we
20
are timewise.
21
Rob, you're going to start?
22
MR. SISK:
Yes, sir.
If we could, Mr.
23
Chairman, I would like to see if we can get the phone
24
on our subject matter experts that would be available
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
240
1
to address the discussion.
CHAIR RAY:
2
3
All right.
That does it,
gets a break.
4
(Laughter.)
5
(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off
6
the record at 2:22 p.m. and went back on the record
7
at 2:32 p.m.)
8
CHAIR RAY:
Let's come back to order.
9
May I ask the people on the telephone
10
line to put their speaker phones on mute?
11
distracting here in the meeting room.
So we are ready to resume.
12
13
It's quite
Chapter 10,
and beginning with, Rob, I guess you would start.
14
MR. SISK:
15
Online we do have some subject matter
Keith
Yes, sir.
16
experts:
17
Vanderhurst, Doug Shala, and Bill Pantis.
18
be available to address some of the more in-depth
19
questions you may have.
In
20
Schwab,
Thank you.
Chapter
10,
Dan
this
McDaniel,
John
They will
chapter
really
21
discusses the steam and power conversion portion of
22
the plant, if you will.
We have only identified three changes in
23
24
that area of interest.
We provided the interval of
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
241
1
turbine
2
driving?
valve
testing --
I'm
sorry,
is
someone
3
(Laughter.)
4
Thank you.
5
We identified or we revised the interval
6
of the turbine valve testing from a three-month to a
7
six-month
8
operating experience.
interval,
We
9
really
revised
kind
the
of
based
turbine
on
the
layout
to
10
accommodate Toshiba turbine design.
11
it briefly this morning, the switchout from MHI to a
12
Toshiba turbine.
In
13
the
switchout
of
We talked about
the
turbine,
we
14
incorporated the Ovation turbine control system for
15
turbine control.
CHAIR
16
RAY:
So,
in
looking
at
your
17
presentation here, I notice you've only got one more
18
slide which goes to the open items, the confirmatory
19
items.
These are major changes, as you say.
20
I
21
guess I would say to you that, from my standpoint
22
anyway, turbine generator overspeed is one of the
23
biggest threats that exists, particularly in a multi-
24
unit plant like this, like Bellefonte, I should say.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
242
1
I
realize
the
DCD
deals
with
one
single
unit.
2
Nevertheless, we can't ignore the fact that we are
3
imminently
4
turbine missiles are a huge threat.
looking
at
a
multi-unit
plant
where
5
So I read at least what the staff had to
6
say about your change in the turbine intercept valve
7
testing frequency, for example.
8
you I'm not persuaded by the argument that at least
9
they summarize.
I guess I will tell
I haven't studied your argument yet,
10
but just from what you said, for example, tell me
11
again why you think that it is a good idea to change
12
the test frequency from three months to six months.
MR. SISK:
13
14
Well, let me turn that over to
-- Keith, are you online?
15
MR. SCHWAB:
16
MR.
17
changeover
18
testing?
or
SISK:
the
And
interval
MR. SCHWAB:
19
Yes, I'm here.
Yes.
can
for
you
the
discuss
turbine
the
valve
Again, it is part of
20
the probabilistic missile evaluation input.
It is a
21
look at operating history of existing turbine valves
22
and the potential of their failure to not close.
23
When we did the WCAP report for valve
24
testing, we saw that we could meet a six-month test
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
243
1
interval with the analysis in hand.
2
fact that today's operating units typically use a
3
six-month test is we proposed the change from three
4
months to six months.
CHAIR
5
RAY:
don't
to
the
have
7
statistics prove that this is an okay thing to do.
8
But I will say I ran a machine like this for many
9
years,
them,
actually,
at
San
idea
any
immediately
of
rebuttal
I
6
two
available
Well,
Coupled with the
that
Onofre,
a
10
single-shaft machine with an MSR and low-pressure
11
turbines that have these big intercept valves that
12
can
13
doesn't close.
very
easily
overspeed
if
the
intercept
We learned a lot about it.
14
and
this
is
now.
So
I
am
valve
Now that was
15
then,
not
trying
to
16
transfer that experience glibly.
17
I will say one more time that the issue of overspeed,
18
and particularly if a single low-pressure turbine
19
intercept valve doesn't close, you are in a world of
20
hurt when it comes to overspeeding the turbine and a
21
loss of load.
But, nevertheless,
So I would just say that this warrants
22
23
some careful review.
24
shown to be okay.
It is not that it can't be
I don't mean that.
But I just
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
244
1
don't think it can be brushed off as -- and I'm not
2
saying you are trying to brush off, either, but the
3
point is it is an important issue to me.
4
overspeed missiles are a real hazard.
MR.
5
6
certainly
7
overspeed.
recognize
I
the
appreciate
that,
importance
of
and
turbine
Would you like more of a discussion of
8
9
SISK:
Turbine
it?
CHAIR RAY:
10
Well, I think the thing to do
11
will be to explore the conclusions the staff has
12
reached, when it is their turn.
13
MR. SISK:
14
CHAIR
RAY:
from
is
matter
17
using is truly applicable to the -- for one thing,
18
for example, is the PRA analysis that you would be
19
doing really only applicable to a single-unit site
20
where turbine missiles are not a significant issue,
21
as they are in a dual-unit site?
Well,
basis
they
did
of
of
conclusions is and whether the data that you are
SISK:
the
a
16
MR.
what
more
finding
22
you
It
15
23
out
Okay.
do
your
the
probability on the missile analysis for turbine.
CHAIR RAY:
24
I know, but for a single-unit
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
245
1
site it is not a --
2
MR. SISK:
3
favorable/unfavorable orientation.
4
CHAIR RAY:
Yes.
5
MR. SISK:
And we meet the requirements
6
for an unfavorable orientation.
CHAIR RAY:
7
8
Well, the criteria is for
On a single-unit site, you
do, that's right.
9
MR. SISK:
Correct, I guess.
10
CHAIR RAY:
And I'm saying, therefore, my
11
concern probably is for a dual-unit site, not for the
12
DCD
and
the
13
question
is,
14
favorable
15
unfavorable orientation, for example.
16
MR. CUMMINS:
17
I think what Rob is trying to suggest,
we
single-unit
well,
every
orientation,
actually
design.
had
six
but
18
that
19
orientation for the single unit.
20
CHAIR RAY:
21
MR.
22
an
months
not
Yes.
So
so
maybe
the
okay
for
is
okay
for
an
This is Ed Cummins.
AP1000
have
a
favorable
That's right.
CUMMINS:
But
we
might
have
an
unfavorable orientation for the neighboring unit.
23
CHAIR RAY:
That's correct.
24
MR. CUMMINS:
So we use an unfavorable
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
246
1
orientation criteria to assess the probability for
2
the second unit.
CHAIR RAY:
3
4
misunderstood
5
concluding
6
orientation?
--
that
is
six
MR. SISK:
7
Okay, and was that -- maybe I
that
what
you
months
was
okay,
assumed
in
unfavorable
Yes, we have an assumption
8
that the unfavorable orientation is the assumption we
9
are using.
10
CHAIR RAY:
11
MR. SISK:
I see.
I misunderstood.
So, before I go into the open
12
items, you're right, we don't have a lot of slides
13
here because I really wanted to kind of be prepared
14
to address your questions and concerns, but I will
15
move into the open items at this time then and just
16
describe
17
system, meeting single failure criteria, an ITAAC
18
confirming diversity between overspeed.
19
there's a lot of importance to overspeed protection.
20
the
open
items:
Backup turbine speed sensors.
missiles,
and
overspeed
protection
Obviously,
We talked about low-
21
trajectory
clarifying
22
that was found in the missile analysis.
a
discrepancy
23
Clearly, I mean you hit on an area that
24
is an area that we are also paying a lot of attention
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
247
1
to, the staff is paying a lot of attention to, and we
2
are working with the staff to make sure we have that
3
adequately covered.
MEMBER BROWN:
4
Did you want to talk about
5
these systems here or do you want to wait until
6
the -CHAIR RAY:
7
Yes.
No, no.
This is the
8
time, Charlie, I think, when we can do that.
9
expert is right here.
10
So our
But I think what we are
focusing on is the open items.
11
Let me just introduce it, Charlie, by
12
saying, as I read this, basically, it becomes DAC.
13
There
14
overspeed system design.
is
a
for
the
No, sir, I don't believe we
CHAIR RAY:
Well, okay.
Then perhaps I
will have to take a minute.
MEMBER BROWN:
19
20
criteria
have a DAC in this area.
17
18
acceptance
MR. SISK:
15
16
design
I had the same impression
you did, Harold.
CHAIR RAY:
21
design
acceptance
"Tests analyses to confirm
22
the
23
hardware,
24
overspeed trips are met."
firmware,
criteria
and
requiring
software
between
diverse
the
two
This appears on page 10-7
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
248
1
in the second paragraph.
2
What?
3
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
4
CHAIR
RAY:
I
It's an ITAAC.
know,
but
a
subset
of
5
ITAAC.
I assume we're talking about DAC here because
6
it
7
criteria requiring diverse", blah, blah, blah, "are
8
met."
says,
"to
confirm
that
MS. McKENNA:
9
the
design
acceptance
I think, unfortunately, the
10
use of design acceptance criteria has come up in a
11
couple of different contexts and it gets confused in
12
terms of criteria that the design has to meet.
13
is what we are talking about here.
When
14
we
have
used
the
term
That
"design
15
acceptance criteria" as DAC, it is those portions of
16
the design where in the DCD review we established
17
assumptions, criteria, methods by which that design
18
would be finished.
That is what we refer to as DAC.
CHAIR RAY:
19
Well, but, Eileen, it says
20
right here the design isn't yet done.
21
we're into sophistry here.
22
MS. McKENNA:
23
CHAIR RAY:
24
I mean I think
Maybe.
The design isn't done.
have established design acceptance criteria.
We
You can
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
249
1
call them whatever you want to, but I think that's
2
what we -- I just wanted to say that that's I read
3
this anyway.
If there is a difference between this and
4
5
other things that are called DAC, okay, fine.
6
will get the lawyers in to debate that.
We
But the point is you say the design isn't
7
8
yet done.
9
the design acceptance criteria requiring diversity
10
We've established ITAAC to confirm that
are met.
MR. REDDY:
11
But, Mr. Chairman -- Devender
12
Reddy -- actually, when we wrote the SER, I mean
13
after we wrote the SER, the applicant provided a
14
response
15
actually a couple of open items will be closed, but
16
we also confirm that this ITAAC one will be still
17
open.
these
questions,
CHAIR RAY:
18
19
to
and
we
reveal
that
Okay, but I don't know that
you have changed anything I said.
MR. REDDY:
20
is,
when
we
Well, what I am trying to
21
explain
mention
in
here
in
this
22
paragraph, it will be revised, based on the response
23
that we are believing currently.
24
on July 7th in a letter dated June 12th.
The response came
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
250
1
Let me discuss that later on.
2
CHAIR RAY:
Well, I don't know.
If it is
3
more appropriate later on, we certainly should do it
4
then.
5
I'm just trying to read the plain English
6
in the SER here, and it is applicable in this chapter
7
and talking about the fact that we haven't designed
8
this thing yet, but we promise that there will be
9
diverse hardware, firmware, and software.
10
So the question, well, let's get on with
11
the question and quit debating about whether it is
12
DAC or not.
13
resolve this in this meeting, diversity in hardware,
14
firmware,
15
trips?
16
going to be done?
The real issue is, how are we going to
and
software
the
two
How is that going to be done?
MR. SISK:
17
between
overspeed
When is it
Part of that discussion will
18
be later, when we do talk Chapter 7, the I&C control
19
systems, and, yes, there are portions of DAC that are
20
associated with that.
With
21
regard
to
the
turbine
overspeed
22
trip, I don't think there -- in this section, I
23
think, as indicated, we have a response such that
24
this is not where the design acceptance criteria is,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
251
1
as much as completing the I&C system, which we will
2
talk about in Chapter 7.
CHAIR RAY:
3
4
in Chapter 10 now.
5
MR. SISK:
6
CHAIR RAY:
7
Well, that may be, but we are
Yes, sir.
So tell me how this is going
to get resolved, what I just referred to.
8
MR. SISK:
9
Bill, are you online?
Okay.
10
MR. PANTIS:
11
MR. SISK:
12
I believe Mr. Pantis --
Yes, we are.
Can we talk a bit about how we
are resolving the overspeed trip for the turbine?
MR. PANTIS:
13
What we wrote in the RAI is
14
basically to provide diverse hardware, software, and
15
firmware that is not Ovation-based.
16
performing an evaluation and have narrowed it down to
17
three
18
communication to coordinate a meeting.
19
as
vendors
early
and
as
are
middle
to
get
of
20
recommendation
21
technical management group.
We are currently
awaiting
August
further
some
to
internal
We are hoping
provide
direction
from
our
the
22
We would have a solution to which we can
23
better provide a description as to vendor and how
24
this would work.
Again, it will not be an Ovation-
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
252
1
based hardware, software, firmware system.
CHAIR RAY:
2
That's good, but I mean,
3
still and all, it is a question, if you don't want to
4
call it DAC, don't call it DAC.
5
resolved, is the question on the table.
6
heard a little bit here.
MR. SISK:
7
But how is it to get
We have
I think the issue from our
8
perspective is, and is identified in the open items
9
as an item that we are working with the staff to get
10
an agreed-to position that would allow us to close it
11
out, close out that open item in this review.
12
not quite there on closing the issue out with the
13
staff yet, but we are working to get it to that
14
point.
We are
15
Unlike what I think introducing a new
16
DAC, which would be something that we would be doing
17
much later into the future, we believe we can close
18
this out from an open item perspective.
CHAIR RAY:
19
Okay.
Well, as I say, we
20
will pursue this maybe a little bit more, and Eileen
21
can explain it to us further later.
22
to -MR.
23
24
CUMMINS:
So
this
So I don't want
is
Ed
Cummins
again.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
253
1
I believe what we're trying to say is
2
that you can purchase these overspeed trip devices
3
from various vendors, and we are trying to select a
4
vendor.
5
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the staff that it
6
is
7
devices, which are Ovation.
When
diverse
from
select
the
understand
that
a
vendor,
original
CHAIR RAY:
8
9
we
overspeed
I know.
that's
what
then
we
must
limiting
I can read that.
is
happening.
I
That
10
doesn't, though, tell me, Ed, what the process will
11
be
12
visibility on how that is resolved.
that
are
engaged
in
today
for
us
having
I think if I turn to Eileen, I can get an
13
14
we
answer.
15
MS. McKENNA:
16
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
In the six-step process, this
17
thing is going to be closed when we come back here
18
with the final?
19
MS. McKENNA:
20
CHAIR RAY:
21
And you will tell us how it
was done?
22
MS. McKENNA:
23
CHAIR RAY:
24
Yes.
isn't stated here.
Yes.
Okay.
Yes.
Because that, you see,
What is stated here -- and again,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
254
1
I'm
not
talking
about
what
you
guys
2
talking about what staff wrote -- is:
3
read it.
wrote;
I'm
just let me
"The staff finds this acceptable", what
4
5
you have said.
6
Westinghouse should update Tier 1 and 2 sections of
7
the DCD with ITAAC to confirm the design acceptance
8
criteria regarding diverse hardware, firmware, and
9
software between the two overspeed trips are met."
10
"However, the staff's position is
Identify this as an OI.
Okay.
11
What I heard earlier today was
12
that all of the OIs would be closed at the time the
13
final SER comes forward, and we will be told how it
14
is closed at that time.
15
MS. McKENNA:
16
CHAIR RAY:
Correct.
So this isn't going to be an
17
ITAAC that goes off into the post --
18
MS. McKENNA:
Well, I mean, if there is
19
an ITAAC, it would be an ITAAC that is an ITAAC, if
20
you will, something that has to be verified through
21
specific acceptance criteria that would be stated -CHAIR RAY:
22
23
All right, but it is not
going to be a DAC.
MS. McKENNA:
24
No.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
255
CHAIR
1
2
understand,
3
criteria" --
5
because
MS.
4
confusion.
RAY:
All
the
McKENNA:
words
right.
But
"design
Yes,
I
you
acceptance
understand
the
Yes, I do.
CHAIR RAY:
6
-- were used here, that that
7
is what it sounded like?
8
MS. McKENNA:
9
CHAIR RAY:
MEMBER
10
It does.
I agree.
Okay, Charlie?
BROWN:
Well,
there
were
some
11
comments in the DCD part of this where they referred
12
to including it, that they had included something in
13
Tier 1.
14
considered there's a table, table 2.4.2-2, and they
15
added the emergency electrical overspeed trip device
16
in the turbine-building for that table, and that is
17
the ITAAC section for the main turbine system.
So I went off and found Tier 1, and they
If you look at the ITAAC for the main
18
19
turbine system, it is virtually non-existent.
20
just says we'll run the thing up and it will trip the
21
thing,
22
diversity or independence criteria or anything else.
it
doesn't
confirm
any
other
either
I just had a couple of questions I wanted
23
24
but
It
to ask, if I could, of the Westinghouse people --
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
256
1
CHAIR RAY:
2
MEMBER
Go ahead.
BROWN:
--
3
independence.
4
DCD presentation that you gave.
to
the
And I'm going to be talking from the
It
5
relative
appeared
to
me --
and
put
aside
6
triplicate redundant processors and all that kind of
7
stuff; I'm not focusing on that -- but it appears
8
that
9
functions, run through the Ovation system, are all in
your
speed
control
processor.
They
and
are
overspeed
all
protection
10
that
software-based,
11
including, the way it is written, what is called the
12
electrical overspeed trip.
13
are running through the same system.
It sounds like they all
14
So I agree with the staff, whatever they
15
are doing relative to you've got to have something
16
that
17
independent
18
independent.
independent.
from
They
the
So it is good.
19
don't
speed
appear
control,
to
be
totally
I like the diversity, put
20
something that has no connection to that system in
21
for an overspeed trip device.
22
So is my conclusion correct?
The way I
23
read this is that speed control -- this is what you
24
stated in the DCD -- and your overspeed protection
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
257
1
functions, both the 110 and the 111 -- it says that
2
right in paragraph 10.2.2.4.1 -- are all part of this
3
master controller.
4
5
So is that a correct conclusion?
Or is that that they are not truly independent in
that circumstance?
MR.
6
7
comment
on
8
protection?
the
SISK:
Bill,
independencies
MR. PANTIS:
9
of
you
our
like
to
overspeed
It is independent.
MEMBER BROWN:
10
would
How?
There is no figures
11
that show that I've got an overspeed function with no
12
connection to the speed control.
13
of words.
14
MR. PANTIS:
15
MEMBER BROWN:
It is just a bunch
Controllers.
Plural?
A word is plural,
16
and I am supposed to walk away happy with that,
17
right?
18
MR. SISK:
Say more.
19
MR. PANTIS:
The VCB wasn't supposed to
20
go into separate controllers and separate functions.
21
We weren't even supposed to use the word "Ovation-
22
based".
MEMBER BROWN:
23
24
And that is repeated in a
couple of the other places as well.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
www.nealrgross.com
PARTICIPANT:
1
2
That is the problem right
there.
This
3
is
Bill.
I'm
the
Engineering
4
Manager for the product line over at turbine control.
5
Going through the DCD, and we're looking
6
at Section 10.2-4 of Rev 17.
7
let me just ask you -- are you referring to Rev 17 of
8
that chapter or Rev 7?
MEMBER BROWN:
9
10
PARTICIPANT:
Okay.
We are looking at
10.2.2.4.1, which is titled, "Speed Control".
MEMBER BROWN:
13
14
Yes, I've got Rev 17, and
I'm in Section 10.2.2.4.5 and 10.2.2.4.1.
11
12
Are you referring to --
Yes.
Those sentences says
they are all developed from the same controller.
PARTICIPANT:
15
Yes,
and
that
is
a
16
misstatement there.
17
controllers.
18
one of the overspeed functions is implemented in what
19
we call the OA drop or the OA controller, as it is
20
referenced in this particular paragraph.
The two overspeed functions, we do have
The
21
There is actually independent
other
111
percent
overspeed
trip
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
function is implemented in a separate controller that
2
we call the emergency trip system.
3
have what's written up in here, actually, references
4
two independent overspeed trip functions that are
5
implemented in separate hardware and software.
MEMBER
6
7
BROWN:
Do
So we actually
they
have
separate
sensors as well?
MR.
8
9
overspeed.
10
correctly.
I
PANTIS:
assume
PARTICIPANT:
11
It
this
causes
110
percent
was
written
paragraph
Yes.
The sentence right
12
there, if you look at that, the one we are looking
13
at, it says -- and I will read the sentence -- "The
14
operator
15
control function and also contains the redundant 110
16
percent and the 111 percent overspeed trips."
controller
provides
the
speed
That and the 111 percent overspeed trip
17
18
automatic
is a misstatement.
19
MR. CUMMINS:
20
I think we are best to take this offline
21
This is Ed Cummins.
and get a straight answer back to --
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
MEMBER BROWN:
1
2
choice.
Yes.
I will cut to the
Okay?
You could simplify this process.
3
Nobody
4
seems to have heard anymore, when they write up these
5
descriptions,
6
with some specificity in them to show how you do a
7
few things with here's my speed control, here's my
8
overspeed, and you see no -- there's just like walls
9
between them, and you show that you've got separate
that
some
functional
block
diagrams
10
power supplies.
They may be redundant, whatever you
11
want
you
12
independent.
to
do,
That
13
know,
resolves
redundant,
it,
and
for
each
therefore,
you
14
don't need 5,267.3 words, and we end up with the same
15
confusion.
My
16
major
relative
to
concern
here
speed
control.
is
just
17
independence
I'm
not
18
worried about how you do the thing, but if you don't
19
have the independence with the software, you're kind
20
of toast; you can't prove anything.
So that is fundamentally, that is easily
21
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
resolved with two or three figures that give a block
2
diagram
3
pretty critical functions, because you don't want to
4
kill anybody.
5
comfort on that.
representation
of
these
particular
fairly
And we've got to walk away with some
6
So I can stop there.
7
MR. SISK:
But it is a very good point,
8
and I have to agree.
We will be talking more about
9
this
Chapter
10
as
we
to
7.
I
think
that
independency is -MEMBER BROWN:
11
12
go
Well, you're going to hear
this again --
13
MR. SISK:
Yes, we understand.
14
MEMBER BROWN:
-- when we get to Chapter
15
7, the lack of any way to determine if your systems,
16
channel-to-channel,
17
always scanned quickly Chapter 7, just to see how
18
lacking
19
independence, in addition to the redundancy, which
20
you state you have, as well as the diversity.
21
the DAS system also.
in
division-to-division --
figures
it
was
to
try
to
I've
show
the
I see
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
So, anyway, the figures somehow to come
2
across and show us this, as opposed to trying to
3
figure it out with words.
4
trying to draw little diagrams from the words, and it
5
just fell apart after a number of inconsistencies.
I mean I spent a day
6
So I can stop now and we will go on.
7
MR. SISK:
8
MEMBER BROWN:
9
MR. MOTT:
We will take that -I am done with my sermon.
Mr. Chairman and Dr. Brown,
10
this came up and they=re working on the I&C portion
11
of this.
12
the RAI and they=ve since updated the revision.
13
to your point that we are all in the same place, if
14
you kill it one place, you kill all the protection
15
that you have in the different cabinets.
16
out,
17
evaluating the ITAAC itself.
18
The
it
My only concern was the initial response in
is
still
an
open
information
item.
that
We
was
And
To point
are
placed
still
in
a
19
response, this information should be placed in the
20
FSAR, and still say what should be here and why
21
should it be put here.
So a review is not complete.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
But
1
to
your
point,
one
of
them
is
2
incorrect, they should not be in the same place, and
3
they never envisioned -- they have changed it to
4
where
5
physical location, to demonstrate independency.
they
have
moved
them
MEMBER BROWN:
6
in
a
separate
place,
Don't get me wrong.
I'm
7
not a big fan of the old mechanical weights flying
8
out and doing it.
9
them, and they are hard to test.
They work, but there was one of
So there's a lot of
10
advantages to doing this.
11
area, I've already had one problem where we almost
12
destroyed a machine at a hundred and -- by the way,
13
what is the design speed for the overspeed for this
14
before
15
turbine generator set?
flies
apart,
MR. REDDY:
16
17
it
for
this
generator,
the
Is it 130, 120, 150?
Actually, the number, it is
120.
18
MEMBER BROWN:
19
MR. REDDY:
20
It is just the electrical
A hundred and twenty?
But, actually, what we have
done, what is mentioned is 112, 111 and 112.
MEMBER BROWN:
21
Right.
So you've got an 8
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
percent margin before the design of the machine will
2
theoretically fall apart?
3
MR. REDDY:
Yes.
4
MEMBER BROWN:
5
MR. SISK:
That's enough.
And we will take the action
6
that, just in general, the next time we get together
7
on I&C, we will have some good background for you.
MEMBER BROWN:
8
9
Okay, and on the ITAACs.
One of the points on ITAAC for this type of stuff, I
10
mean that's like an inspection.
11
resolve this, like you said, at the design stage when
12
we get the final FSER or SER, the final FSER, I
13
guess.
MR. MOTT:
14
You really need to
Just some background of the
15
history of this, the staff -- it's pretty unique to
16
me where SRP -- generally, I'm Chapter 7 myself, INC.
17
We tell the applicant or the vendor that, if you
18
have
a
software,
digital-based
primary
detection
19
system, then you need to have a diverse system.
20
need to have a lower diversity shown in both of the
21
systems, not come with the same common-cause failure.
You
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
We don't tell them how to implement it.
2
say
make
3
analog.
this
software,
MEMBER BROWN:
that.
make
this
one
pure
We give a document --
4
5
one
We don't
I have no problem with
I'm not angry about that.
MR. MOTT:
6
It's kind of odd with the SRP
7
for Chapter 10 -- like I say, I'm a Chapter 7 guy --
8
we explain to the applicant what we expect.
9
them that I think it's 110 percent, 109 percent, and
10
one will be mechanical, and 111 percent, the other
11
percent, one will be electrical.
12
an option.
MEMBER BROWN:
13
14
We tell
We don't give them
It becomes an exception,
is what you are saying?
MR. MOTT:
15
Exactly.
So, under Rev 15,
16
and that one doesn't require an ITAAC; anyone can go
17
see
18
cabinet, electrical block, and, hey, that is diverse.
19
the
mechanical
system
and
see
the
electrical
That is sufficient, inheriting it that way.
20
When they made the change in Rev 17, Rev
21
16 to 17, to go electrical-electrical, that brings
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
2
the entire analysis of Chapter 10 that wasn't there.
We followed the SRP guidance.
One is mechanical;
3
one is electrical.
4
system or anything from that one.
5
it is because, due to the inherent diversity, we were
6
happy with that.
Now
7
They didn't state the Ovation
they
9
segregated system such that it would have the same
level
diversity
11
system would have.
So
12
part
we
that
of
bring
a
our
in
electrical-
electrical.
10
can
bringing
8
of
What
are
It is just is as
to
this
non-
mechanical-electrical
review
is
what
the
13
criterion states that we are going to hold them to,
14
and what is, to your point, you bring up some very
15
great points here.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
16
As
pointed
17
question.
18
acknowledged by your experts, there are factually
19
incorrect statements in Rev 17.
20
for correcting that material?
MR. SISK:
21
out
I have a process
by
Charlie,
and
What is the process
With regard to the DCD, we
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
continue to look to see if there are -- as you know,
2
we caught up this morning on the slides, looked at
3
inconsistencies or any errors in the DCD.
4
continue to try to incorporate or address them.
We will
5
We will bring, if there are substantive
6
errors that need to be corrected that fundamentally
7
this may be one that is a change, we will either
8
correct them through the RAIs as they are identified,
9
through
the
evaluation
process,
or
we
may
self-
10
identify those and correct those in a revision to the
11
DCD, as we are doing.
12
these up and correcting them through the RAI process.
But, mostly, we are picking
13
MR. CUMMINS:
14
We still have an RAI for an open item
15
that says we have to demonstrate that we have a
16
diverse overspeed.
17
MR. SISK:
18
MR.
19
This is Ed Cummins.
Right.
CUMMINS:
So,
when
we
make
our
arguments there, we need to fix the other things.
20
MR. SISK:
21
MEMBER
Which is what happened with --
BROWN:
Let
me
make
one
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
observation on diversity, if I can, Harold, if you
2
don't mind.
3
overspeed.
And it doesn't necessarily apply to the
4
When you look at the diverse actuating
5
systems in the I&C reactor protection and safeguards
6
world,
7
conservative analysis for the diverse system.
8
a best estimate, as opposed to a worst case, or
9
whatever the new definitions are.
you
normally
do
what
I
call
a
less
It is
10
So, when somebody tells me that, oh, gee,
11
we've got a diverse system over here; therefore, it
12
doesn't
13
protection system, that doesn't walk down the aisle
14
very well.
15
have the same level of protection for the plant on
16
the
17
Therefore,
18
complicated with a less complicated analysis, and all
19
that, to show that it works.
20
I have no problem with that.
matter
diverse
what
we
do
over
in
the
full-bore
That doesn't make sense because you don't
system.
you
are
It
is
there
allowed
to
as
make
a
backup.
it
less
Perfectly acceptable.
It is just that the No. 1 protection
21
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
system in both the safeguards and the reactor world
2
have to be armor-plated.
3
guess, the importance of the independence factor when
4
you are looking at those reactor protection systems
5
and safeguard systems.
That is the reason for, I
In this system, 120 percent overspeed is
6
7
120.
I don't think you change your design criteria
8
when you set your setpoint for the diverse system.
9
mean you just put one a little bit above the other
10
ones, and you say, okay, that's okay.
11
really apples and apples.
I
So it is not
12
Anyway, I just wanted to make that point.
13
There is a little difference there, but I wanted to
14
make the point relative to the other systems on the
15
diversity side of it.
16
MR. SISK:
17
CHAIR RAY:
Thank you.
This is all important and
18
necessary, and it is the reason we take the time to
19
come here, is to have this kind of discussion.
But I do need to give everybody a time
20
21
check.
Now we are running about an hour and a half
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
behind.
Because
2
of
tomorrow's
agenda
and
the
3
constraints on tomorrow, we are going to try to press
4
through and finish the agenda here, so that people
5
aren't traveling in anticipation of meetings and have
6
them not take place.
7
those that have been here now will be here until well
8
after the time set on the agenda.
9
speed up.
Nevertheless,
10
11
So fair warning that it seems
this
Who knows, it may
is,
as
I
say,
important --
12
MEMBER BROWN:
13
CHAIR RAY:
I will restrain myself.
-- important discussion.
Of
14
course, all of us, as members of the Subcommittee,
15
speak for ourselves individually at this point, and
16
our inputs are to the full Committee, who will wind
17
up with whatever opinions result.
18
So, with that in mind, I would say to you
19
guys and to the staff that this is an area in which,
20
obviously, it's a work-in-progress.
21
resolved wasn't totally clear to us coming into this
How it was to be
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
meeting.
We understand we will have a chance to see
2
the resolution before the final signoff on the DCD
3
revision or Design Certification, I should say.
Okay.
4
With that, then, let's see if
5
there's more on Chapter 10 that we want to direct to
6
the applicant.
MR. SPINK:
7
I'm
the
Good afternoon.
8
Spink.
9
Bellefonte 3 and 4 from TVA.
On
10
Licensing
the
phone
Project
I
11
individuals:
12
Navin Shah, if the need arises.
should
I'm Tom
Manager
have
for
three
Frank Kenny, Pat Garnier-Davis, and
The content of Chapter 10 is the usual
13
14
content:
10.1,
a
summary
15
turbine
generator;
16
system, and then 10.4, other features of the steam
17
and power conversion system.
18
guess, most of this is IBR.
10.3,
description;
the
main
10.2,
steam
the
supply
As you can probably
We are required to address some items,
19
20
the
COL
21
corrosion
items.
The
monitoring
first
one
system.
is
erosion
Despite
the
and
best
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
efforts by Westinghouse to eliminate flow-accelerated
2
corrosion as a factor, you just can't take it at
3
that.
4
plant.
You have to reassess based on the actual
We
5
have
provided
information
on
the
6
erosion/corrosion monitoring program.
7
considers
8
NSAC-202L-R3 guidance, industry operating experience,
9
and we will use CHECKWORKS as the analytical tool to
10
Generic
Letter
89-08.
The program
The
EPRI
address that.
We have another COL item, 10.2.1, and
11
12
notice these are standard.
13
all the COLs, dealing with a turbine maintenance and
14
inspection
15
proposed a license condition to provide that program
16
prior to fuel load.
17
as-built rotor, and so that is why it is provided
18
later on.
program.
We,
They are the same across
in
this
regard,
have
It has to be based on the actual
We also have a COL item, 10.4.2, dealing
19
20
with
condensate
feedwater
21
chemistry control.
auxiliary
steam
system
We describe the approach that we
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
are taking, the program that we are putting in place.
2
Essentially, we are adopting the NEI-97-06 steam
3
generator
program
guidelines
and
4
secondary water chemistry guidelines.
the
EPRI
PWR
We also have a COL item to address the
5
6
potable water system.
7
are using the Scottsboro Municipal Water Supply, and
8
we describe that.
9
Other
10
In the case of Bellefonte, we
issues
that
we
have
addressed
through supplements to Chapter 10:
We have talked about the turbine missile
11
12
generation for dual units.
13
just have a pointer to Section 3.5.1.3, where we
14
address that analysis.
15
CHAIR RAY:
What is that section?
16
MR. SPINK:
3.5.1.3.
17
CHAIR RAY:
Which is?
18
MR.
19
SPINK:
In Chapter 10, we really
It's
basically
a
turbine
general missile.
20
CHAIR RAY:
What's Chapter 3?
21
MR. GRANT:
3.5, in general, is external
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
hazards.
2
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
3
MR. GRANT:
And turbine missiles are one
4
of those external hazards.
CHAIR RAY:
5
All right.
Thank you.
I
6
don't have it memorized, but I like to understand why
7
it is over there instead of here.
MR. SPINK:
8
9
It is where all those are
evaluated.
10
CHAIR RAY:
Yes, all right.
11
MR. SPINK:
We also provide a description
12
of
testing
operation
13
These procedures are designed from an O&M standpoint
14
to
15
pitting,
16
fatigue, and erosion corrosion in the turbine.
mitigate
potential
stress
we
the
maintenance
degradation
corrosion
Also,
17
and
and
have
mechanisms
cracking,
provided
inspection
procedures.
corrosion
a
supplement
on
19
assurance
that
20
incorporates the ISI schedule requirements, per ASME
21
Section 11.
flaws
are
to
standard
18
rotor
program,
for
detected,
provide
and
it
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
In the main steam system, in 10.3, we
2
provide standard supplements to address operations
3
and maintenance procedure.
4
1.8, we talked about interface requirements.
5
an interface requirement where we are providing these
6
procedures to address prevention of water hammer.
7
it is an interface with the system design that the
8
applicant has to meet.
9
where
we
have
an
design
Now earlier, in Section
This is
So
So that is an example of
interface
10
standard
and
an
11
complementing the design.
requirement
operational
with
the
program
We also describe the chemical addition
12
13
program.
It is how we are going to control the main
14
steam
15
alkaline chemistry that supports maintaining iodine
16
in a non-volatile form.
chemistry.
Primarily,
we
are
providing
an
I think this may be our first exposure to
17
18
CDI.
The DCD addresses a circulating water system
19
design in a very generic fashion with brackets for
20
site-specific.
21
cooling water sources.
Obviously, every site has different
In the case of Bellefonte, we
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
are utilizing the existing cooling towers on the site
2
and the existing intake channel.
3
those brackets to provide the details of the design
4
for our circulating water system.
We
5
have
also
procedures
So we filled in
provided
6
maintenance
7
systems.
8
minimizes the potential for water hammer.
to
address
and
those
Again, it is an interface requirement that
And
9
program
operating
we
also
address
the
chemical
10
additional program for the circulating water system.
11
We have a water treatment skid out by the cooling
12
towers to provide that chemistry control.
Finally,
13
have
one
flow-accelerated
open
item
corrosion
that
14
addresses
15
implementation schedule.
16
the Vogtle docket a submittal to address that open
17
item, where we are proposing a licensing condition to
18
identify the schedule for the implementation of that
19
flow-accelerated corrosion program.
20
CHAIR RAY:
21
a
we
program
We submitted last week on
Okay.
Back on 10.2, I'm
still mulling over where I would look for the delta
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
risk associated with the longer intervals in valve
2
testing on the turbine valves.
3
would go to this section in 3.5 where the missile
4
generation data appears, and I understand that it is
5
DCD assumes
6
if I understood what Rob said correctly.
lower units or unfavorable orientation,
7
MR. SISK:
8
CHAIR RAY:
9
10
I'm sorry?
I said, if I understood what
you said correctly, the missile generation assumes
unfavorable.
MR. SISK:
11
12
I would gather that I
It assumes unfavorable.
It is
a single unit, but it assumes unfavorable.
CHAIR RAY:
13
14
would
have
15
unfavorable?
to
do
So there is nothing that TVA
because
16
MR. SISK:
17
CHAIR RAY:
they're
not
worse
than
Right.
And it also has the three-
18
month to six-month -- or it has the six-month testing
19
assumption in it.
MR. SPINK:
20
21
We have incorporated that by
reference.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
CHAIR RAY:
1
Yes.
Do you guys have any
2
input to that at all?
In other words, I realize you
3
can test it more often if you wish.
4
assume you would say, well, that's just fine with us.
MR. SPINK:
5
So I would
In the Design Center Working
6
Group, we have an engineering team that works hand in
7
hand with Westinghouse, looking at all their changes
8
and aspects of the design and interface with the
9
operation.
So we work together with Westinghouse to
10
come up with a solution that we're all happy with,
11
and it also helps us achieve standardization across
12
the board.
So,
13
as
I
noted,
these
standard
14
supplements on maintenance and operating procedures
15
are all standard.
16
together to make sure that all of us are doing the
17
same things in the same manner.
We are working very, very hard
18
CHAIR RAY:
Okay, thank you.
19
Anything else?
20
(No response.)
21
All right, to the staff.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
MR. REDDY:
1
2
Reddy.
I believe that most of the chapter 10
3
4
sections of the -MR. BUCKBERG:
5
6
7
My name is Perry Buckberg.
To my left is Devender Reddy, one of the staff
members, who will talk shortly.
I begin the Chapter 10 presentation of
8
9
Yes, my name is Devender
the staff's AP1000 DCA review.
10
Joining me, to present the Bellefonte COL
11
portion, is Sujata Goetz, the PM, and technical staff
12
members are, to my left again, Devender, Greg Makar,
13
and Ken Mott.
You will hear from them shortly.
Chapter
SER
includes
15
evaluations of most Revision 17 changes.
There is
16
one exception to that, one small section where it's
17
only as far as 16.
14
10
of
the
18
Review of the four Chapter 10 sections
19
resulted in five DCA open items and one COL open
20
item, as listed.
The
21
changes
the
staff
considers
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
significant are listed by section again.
2
changes will be presented in the following slides,
3
but the staff is prepared to discuss any questions
4
you may have of changes evaluated in the SER.
And let me turn it over to Devender for
5
6
Highlighted
the first technical slide.
MR. REDDY:
7
All right.
We already talked
8
a bit about the overspeed protection system, and we
9
are going to add some other to clear up or to respond
10
in full and complete to what you have questions.
Just to give you some background about
11
12
this,
the
NRC
staff
evaluation
of
AP1000
DCD,
13
Revision 15, is in NUREG-1793.
14
Safety Evaluation Report for AP1000 standard design.
That is the Final
15
And in Revision 17, what we call 17, of
16
the DCD, it still was proposed a new standard design
17
for
18
Certification.
the
turbine
generation
system
for
Design
19
And the item from the previous design was
20
Rev 15, and the changes, the staff looked at those
21
changes and evaluated only those changes.
That means
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
we evaluated -- in the evaluation, we look at the
2
changes in Rev 16 and 17.
3
And
there
One
is
two
that
5
system, and the other one is the turbine broader
6
design issues.
I'm going to talk, myself and Kenneth
7
Mott,
going
8
controls and -- he will present to you the turbine
9
broader design.
to
CHAIR RAY:
10
talk
overspeed
we
reviewed.
are
turbine
areas
4
we
the
major
about
the
control
overspeed
Devender, I didn't understand
11
you to say that you just looked at the differences
12
between 16 and 17, did I?
13
MS. McKENNA:
Between 15 and 17.
14
MR. REDDY:
Well, actually, there are
15
modifications, changes of Rev 16 and 17, but right
16
now I think I heard you earlier say that -CHAIR RAY:
17
18
So I just wanted to verify
the difference between 15 and 16 -- 17.
19
(Laughter.)
20
If there's no difference between 15 and
21
16, or no difference between 16 and 17, I don't care.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
I just want the difference between 15 and 17.
MR.
2
REDDY:
I
appreciate
that,
and,
3
actually, yes, those were the changes we focused on
4
are in Revision 17 which are different from 15.
5
CHAIR RAY:
Correct.
6
MR. REDDY:
And there are two major areas
7
for us in terms of Section 10.2, for the turbine
8
system.
9
is the rotor issues.
One is the overspeed control.
The other one
10
Ken and I, we are going to talk about
11
overspeed control and what we did, how we evaluated,
12
how we wrote the SER.
13
talk about.
That is what we are going to
Regarding the turbine control system, the
14
15
staff
based
its
16
criteria, such as General Design Criteria, GDC-4.
17
GDC-4
18
structures,
19
important to safety, and the effects of the turbine
20
missiles, the turbines, the Reactor Protection System
21
should
requires
evaluation
that,
systems,
provide
for
and
suitable
on
the
the
regulatory
protection
components
redundancy,
that
and
of
are
diverse
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
devices.
That's what we are talking about.
It does have to minimize the probability
2
3
of the turbine missiles.
4
is we look at the SRP guidance.
5
provides
6
redundancy requirements are met.
no
details
on
Also, the staff, what we do
how
The SRP guidance
these
diverse
and
The SRP 10.2 section, it identified --
7
8
actually,
it
9
mechanical device to protect the turbines overspeed
reaching
recommended
111%,
and
that
also
there
there
should
should
be
be
a
10
from
a
11
redundant and diverse electrical overspeed control
12
device.
13
at; this is what we have been discussing.
So these are the two we have been looking
14
So in the process of actually evaluating
15
whether or not the applicant provided in Revision 17,
16
we looked at the GDC-4 criteria and then we looked at
17
the SRP Section 10.2 for details, and we have been
18
issuing RAIs to the plant, just like what you have
19
been asking, and then we were provided the responses.
20
21
We evaluated.
We went back and forth.
Finally, we
concluded that the system is acceptable, pending one
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
open item.
That is what we discussed with ITAAC.
At this point, I would like to turn to
2
3
Ken to discuss a little bit ITAAC.
4
MR. MOTT:
Yes.
As already stated, the
5
guidance of 10.2 is that, from the staff and the SRP,
6
is
7
mechanical and one of the overprotection trips will
8
be electrical, and the entire analysis for diversity
9
between the two systems is removed from the staff in
10
that
one
of
the
overprotection
trips
will
be
that section, if you follow the guidance of the SRP.
11
A problem with the SRP is that it does
12
not point you to or provide any guidance for making
13
an analysis for sufficiency of diversity.
14
documents do we bring in to look at this that are
15
appropriate and meet the guidance for the regulatory
16
criterion of what we are looking at?
So what
17
However, the ITAAC, I definitely wanted
18
that there, and it was an ITAAC requirement because,
19
like
20
mechanical system and the computer box cabinet, you
21
can
I
say,
inherently
upon
see
the
as
visual
diverse,
inspection
but
once
of
you
the
are
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
sitting there looking at two computer cabinets, at
2
two computer boxes, two laptops, whatever you want to
3
look at it, there's no way to confirm the components,
4
modules, chips, processors, buses inside, to ensure
5
that one cannot be failed by the other, by the same
6
common-cause failure.
So
7
the
ITAAC
would
be
the
visual
8
inspection that would exist if you had a mechanical
9
system and an electrical system.
So the ITAAC now,
10
because once you have a cabinet or a box filled with
11
electrical components, you are not going to rip it
12
open to make sure that one of the computer chips says
13
Intel and the other chip says AMD.
14
will
15
diversity.
have
to
exist
to
ensure
So only a report
sufficiency
So we have several RAIs.
16
of
a
One of the RAIs
17
was submitted and it wasn't sufficient, and they made
18
it a revision, an update to the RAI.
19
proposed markups at this point of review were not
20
sufficient.
21
be placed into the FSAR.
However, their
A lot of description in the RAI should
To your point, you're
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
reading, and if you've got holes and gaps in your
2
analysis, and that is where we are sitting at now,
3
what
4
sufficiency for the two electrical overspeed trips?
5
Obviously, it is not going to be the same as a
6
primary protection system and an I&C system.
7
at some level reduced, that we would provide only
8
DAS, diversity actuated system, since it is an non-
9
safety system that we are going to bring to this?
10
is
the
appropriate
level
of
diversity
and
Is it
What is the sufficiency of the level of the ITAAC?
11
Mr. Chairman, you are exactly correct.
12
As it looks right now, this doesn't look like a DAC.
13
But what we approved in the Revision 15, we approved
14
a mechanical system and we approved an electrical
15
system
16
electrical system would consist of, of anything, but
17
simply because it was diverse here.
with
Now
18
19
indication
we
are
of
anything,
saying
two
an
what
the
electrical
systems -CHAIR RAY:
20
21
no
I understand.
this is a little odd, as you say.
Okay.
Well,
It presents a
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
challenge.
2
I suppose one could have said, well, just
3
this is just a DAC; we'll solve it before fuel load.
4
But I realize there's an open item in here asking
5
for a date by when this will be resolved, right?
6
MR. MOTT:
That is not correct.
7
CHAIR RAY:
What is --
8
MR. MOTT:
We don't request a date.
We
9
are looking for sufficiency and diversity, that is
10
requested and required of them, and comparison from
11
Rev 15 to Rev 17.
12
as well.
13
will have another vendor selected.
14
they have a vendor selected and they have the design
15
ready for us to review, then there will be no use to
16
having a DAC item included.
Hopefully, we are going to go back
Westinghouse has stated that in August they
CHAIR RAY:
17
So, therefore, if
Right, but I did think there
18
was a request for a date in here.
19
provide
20
identified this as open item SRP-10-22, umpty-scotch.
21
All right, now we're separating single
a
date
for
the
Westinghouse is to
completed
design.
Staff
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
failure from diversity.
2
person like me, single failure and diversity, I don't
3
parse it that finely.
for whatever the hell it is talking about.
6
MR. MOTT:
7
CHAIR RAY:
8
MR. REDDY:
9
Now, for a simple
So there is an open item here on the date
4
5
Okay.
You're correct.
Okay.
Normally, we don't ask for,
we don't put any date in that, actually, but, yes -CHAIR RAY:
10
Well, I know, and that's what
11
I found very confusing by this whole thing, is that
12
it just seemed to say this is all fine, but please
13
give us a date when you will be done.
14
tell from that anything more, like, well, when is it
15
going to be done, and are we going to be able to look
16
at it, or do you just go out there and inspect it,
17
and tell them they can load fuel, or what?
18
is what I think I'm getting a better understanding of
19
here.
20
Okay, we should proceed.
21
MR. REDDY:
But I couldn't
So that
I think he is done, actually,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
other
than
2
system.
the
open
item
MEMBER BROWN:
3
4
the belts.
5
their discussion.
on
the
turbine
control
I do have one question on
There's something I didn't understand in
When
6
you
said
you
eliminated
the
110
7
percent trip, this is discussed in the SAR on page
8
10-8.
9
justification for eliminating the 103 percent, the
You
ask
them
to
describe
why
it
was
a
10
overspeed trip.
And they answered that the valves
11
were not designed to close at 103, but they would
12
close at 105 or 107 percent.
13
I'm not a valve guy, but it just seems to
14
me, if a valve would close at 105 or 107 percent, it
15
would close at 103.
16
for the statement was.
17
you all.
18
That is BPA-03.
Now I don't know what the basis
That is the answer they gave
That is the answer to your RAI SRP 10.2.
So I didn't know if that was relevant.
19
I
20
just bring that up.
I don't know if it is relevant
21
to anything that is in here other than the control
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
issue.
CHAIR RAY:
2
the
described
What did they say, also, was
3
that
4
control mode of the turbine -MEMBER BROWN:
5
6
condition
was
for
the
speed
Yes, but they said it
wouldn't close.
CHAIR RAY:
7
Well, actually, they said --
8
did I read it wrong?
9
Toshiba turbine valves and hydraulic system are not
10
designed to close at 103 percent, instead it is 105
11
percent.
I read it as saying this is a control
12
13
Well, it just said, because the
function --
14
MEMBER BROWN:
Okay.
15
CHAIR
--
16
rather
than
a
trip
function.
MEMBER
17
18
fine.
19
distinction.
That's
BROWN:
fine.
Oh,
I
all
missed
right,
that
that's
very
I told you I wasn't a valve guy.
fine
Okay?
There's no problem of eliminating; I just
20
21
RAY:
didn't understand the issue on the valves.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
MR. REDDY: The staff, you know, we felt
1
2
that was their design.
3
MEMBER BROWN:
4
MR.
5
Okay, that's fine.
REDDY:
It
is
an
engineering
judgment.
6
MEMBER BROWN:
I'm happy now.
7
MR. REDDY:
All right.
8
CHAIR RAY:
All right.
9
MR. REDDY:
That, actually, if you don't
10
have anything on the turbine controls, we are done
11
with that open item.
12
now Greg Makar will be talking about further issues.
We have been discussing, and
MR. MAKAR:
13
14
Division
15
Performance and Testing.
16
17
of
I am Greg Makar from the
Engineering,
Component
Integrity
MS. GOETZ:
Excuse me.
Yes, I think I'm
MR. MAKAR:
I want to address some topics
up.
18
19
on the turbine rotor integrity.
These are going to
20
be changes going from -- that are in Rev 17 compared
21
to the Certified Design in 15.
In particular, there
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
was,
as
we
2
turbine
3
interval.
discussed,
type
and
also
the
change
change
in
to
a
the
different
valve
test
4
I think it is also worth pointing out
5
that some of the key parameters in our turbine rotor
6
integrity considerations did not change, such as the
7
materials
8
requirements.
selection
Other
9
and
the
changes
are
fracture
related
toughness
to
the
10
maintenance and inspection program, and including the
11
time when that would be submitted to us.
12
these
13
support these changes, which includes a report on
14
valve test frequency and on the missile probability
15
report.
changes,
we
reviewed
material
To support
provided
to
16
These reports are done.
17
used was the same as in the Certified Design.
18
other words, for example, in the missile probability
19
analysis,
20
failure mechanisms.
they
are
looking
Now I apologize.
21
at
the
The methodology
same
types
In
of
This slide does not say
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
what we mean, which is in the first part of the
2
evaluation, which is the bounding analyses together
3
with the operational experience and the fact that we
4
need -- and you will see this turbine maintenance and
5
inspection program that gives us confidence that they
6
can meet the GDC-4 requirements.
7
The delay or the change in the time when
8
we see the maintenance and inspection program, which
9
is now prior to fuel load, is acceptable because, as
10
important as these bounding analyses are, really the
11
key is the maintenance and inspection program that is
12
based on the as-built rotors, so when they look at
13
the material properties of the real machine as built.
14
So, therefore, changing the time when that is due;
15
it is before fuel load, and that is acceptable for
16
us.
17
There were open items related to each of
18
those two parts, the valve test frequency and the
19
turbine missile analysis.
20
frequency report.
21
there was an error in the part that justified the
One is the valve test
When we looked at those numbers,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
six-month valve test frequency, and it turned out to
2
be just a typo.
3
that is why it rose to the level of an open item,
4
because if the number as printed was correct, it
5
would not have supported the six-month frequency.
But it was a significant typo, and
6
The open item on the turbine missiles is
7
-- you've heard there's Chapter 3 involved, there's
8
Chapter 10 involved; there's favorable, unfavorable;
9
there's low trajectory, high trajectory.
For the
10
DCD, after reviewing the turbine missile analysis, at
11
some point it became unclear whether this addressed
12
both
13
missiles for favorable and unfavorable orientations.
14
That was the nature of this open item, which is
15
low
trajectory
missiles
and
high
trajectory
still open.
The second open item would be we received
16
17
a new copy of that valve test report.
18
item is still open, and we need to interact still
19
with the applicant to determine how they plan to
20
address that.
CHAIR RAY:
21
Okay.
But that first
Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
Anything else?
2
Any questions at all on the DCD side?
3
(No response.)
4
MR. BUCKBERG:
5
We will turn to Sujata
Goetz for the COL side presentation.
MS. GOETZ:
6
Yes.
I'm Sujata Goetz.
I'm
7
the Project Manager for the Bellefonte COL Chapter
8
10.
This
9
slide
shows
the
summary
of
10
departures and supplements for Chapter 10.
11
going to be speaking on the highlighted sections,
12
but, of course, we can talk about anything that you
13
are interested in.
With that, I will turn it over to Greg,
14
15
We are
who will talk about flow-acceleration corrosion.
MR. MAKAR:
16
address
like
18
accelerated corrosion program because it is a COL
19
item, and also there is an open item related to it.
The
20
for
The first topic I would
17
21
to
Yes.
Bellefonte
applicant's
standard COL information.
is
proposed
the
flow-
program
is
So this is something that
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
will be followed by other applicants.
2
Our review focuses on whether their flow-
3
accelerated corrosion program -- I will say sometimes
4
flow-accelerated
erosion
5
interchangeably.
They are not the same, but when you
6
see in this presentation you see erosion/corrosion,
7
flow-accelerated corrosion we're talking about the
8
same thing.
We
9
are
and
looking
corrosion
at
if
are
their
used
program
10
addresses the concerns in Generic Letter 8908, which
11
has to do with a monitoring program, the design, and
12
considering
13
containing water or water/steam mixtures.
operating
experience
for
steel
pipes
The current industry -- and this is met
14
15
by
the operating plants with the guidelines of EPRI
16
called NSAC 202L, and this program, it describes in
17
general what is required for an effective program.
18
It also gets into details on things like design and
19
how to perform susceptibility analyses and how to
20
analyze inspection.
The program submitted by the applicant
21
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
does
use
the
EPRI
guidance,
2
additional description of that program in the FSAR.
3
And we will also be using for their analysis tool,
4
their
5
program, which also comes from EPRI and is used by, I
6
believe, all of the operating plants now.
7
predictive
8
capability for inspection data.
computer-based
capability
analysis
as
and
they
tool
well
the
as
an
have
some
CHECKWORKS
This has a
analysis
9
I also want to point out that the first
10
line of defense against flow-accelerated corrosion is
11
the plant design.
12
layout, piping, the components, water chemistry, and
13
some other things.
So that focuses on materials, the
14
But this program will be very important
15
if, as the applicant said, they will do an analysis
16
and
17
something may still be susceptible.
18
not to have a lot of things that require a lot of
19
inspection
20
recognizing that that may happen, this program will
21
be put in place.
they
may
for
find
that
something
flow-accelerated
was
changed,
So the intent is
corrosion,
but
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
The open item is related to the timing of
1
2
that,
what
is
3
construction phase and when the program will be in
4
place.
5
response, but we have asked for that to be in the
6
application.
They
going
have
to
be
provided
done
an
during
acceptable
the
RAI
7
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
8
MR. MAKAR:
The next topic for Bellefonte
9
I did note that.
is their maintenance and inspection program.
MEMBER
10
BANERJEE:
Are
there
materials
11
being used extensively here that are not used in the
12
current generation of LWRs?
13
MR.
MAKAR:
The
steam
and
feedwater
14
system it uses primarily, and the piping where that
15
is a concern is primarily done in chromium-containing
16
steels.
17
think it's an 1.5 percent chromium will reduce the
18
corrosion rate by 65 times, or something, compared to
19
steel.
20
resistant --
21
increment.
That should not have, you may recall, I
So
it
and
is
done
that
primarily
is
DCD.
with
corrosion-
That
is
design
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
Their maintenance and inspection program,
1
2
this is a COL item again.
So it is required to be
3
provided by the COL applicant.
It is going to be addressed, as I said,
4
5
prior to fuel load.
6
a
7
inspection
8
earlier with the DCD, based on the as-built turbine
9
and then we would be looking at whether it is still
10
consistent with the more detailed description that is
11
already in the DCD.
12
provides a plan for how that will be inspected and
13
maintained.
license
In this case, the applicant has
condition.
When
program
available,
is
that
maintenance
as
I
and
described
That is the more important.
DCD
14
The real one that we will be receiving
15
for review comes later on after the turbine has been
16
built.
17
CHAIR RAY:
Understood.
18
MR. MAKAR:
And with that, I will turn it
19
back
over
to
20
water system.
Devender
MR. REDDY:
21
to
discuss
All right.
Okay.
the
circulating
We are going to
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
speak to the circulating water system.
2
said earlier, in the AP1000 DCD, portions of the
3
system
4
information.
5
it.
are
identified
as
That is a CDI.
As previously
conceptual
design
That is what we call
6
Also, there is one similar information
7
item regarding the water quality of the maintenance
8
of
9
quality, and also a COL information item, design data
10
the
chemical
balance,
maintaining
the
water
for the circulating water system.
The
11
NRC
staff,
we
reviewed
the
12
development application only is limited the CDI and
13
the COL information item.
Regarding
14
the
design,
CDI,
TVA
including
provided
the
the
15
plant-specific
component
16
description, instrumentation, rod protection, and the
17
chemical injection.
18
To give more details, some brief details,
19
the system has about three equal-capacity pumps and
20
one type of natural turbine cooling tower and piping
21
and valves.
And the cooling tower is the heat sink
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
for the system, for the BOP system.
And the staff evaluated the circ water
2
3
system.
As I said, it is limited for the specific
4
information
5
staff's evaluation is based on Commission regulation,
6
which in this case is GDC-4 again.
7
case, the GDC-4 requirements are stipulated to be SRP
8
Section 10.4.5.
provided
in
the
application,
but
the
But, in this
9
The focus of the staff evaluation with
10
regard to circ water system is about the flood water,
11
for flood prediction.
There could be a failure of
12
the
maybe
13
system,
14
related equipment or systems and/or components.
cooling
and
tower
that
or
could
pipe
flood
and
failure
effect
in
the
safety-
15
From that point of view, the application
16
by NRC staff -- we delivered the staff what they
17
provided, and we found that the cooling tower is
18
located over 2,400 feet away from the plant.
19
the site grading, we looked at the site grading.
20
if there is a failure of the cooling tower, first of
21
all, the water will flow away from the plant.
Also,
So,
The
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
second
thing
is
there
2
components that below grade.
are
no
safety-related
Also, we looked at the freeze-protection
3
4
part of it.
5
call it?
6
a system which bypasses the circ water system also.
7
So in case to protect from the freezing, to protect
8
the system from freezing, it can bypass.
9
cooling tower bypass system, I think they have in
10
Bellefonte, they have -- what do you
It is a turbine building.
I think there is
There is a
their design.
11
So, based on the design features and also
12
on the GDC-4 requirement and the SRP guidance, we
13
concluded that the system is safe and it meets the
14
requirements.
15
The system is consistent with the DCD.
CHAIR RAY:
16
17
Also, it is consistent with the DCD.
Where does the blowdown go
to?
18
MR. REDDY:
Pardon me?
19
CHAIR RAY:
Where does the blowdown go to
20
from the cooling tower?
MR. SPINK:
21
The blowdown goes out to the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
river.
CHAIR RAY:
2
3
blowdown discharges to the river.
MR. REDDY:
4
5
So it goes to the river?
The
Okay.
And they have a make-up water
system for the operation --
6
CHAIR RAY:
Yes, yes.
7
MR. REDDY:
Also, we believe the article
8
is a COL action item, information item, with regard
9
to
10
the
water
chemistry,
and
we
found
that
is
acceptable and it is consistent with the DCD.
CHAIR
11
RAY:
So,
if
you
have
a
steam
12
generator tube leak and a condenser leak, you've got
13
monitoring on a blowdown, I assume?
14
MR. SPINK:
15
CHAIR RAY: You don't have an unmonitored
16
release path?
Yes.
Okay.
17
Anything else on Chapter 10?
18
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
19
I have a question.
A seven-stage feedwater heater was added.
20
MR. REDDY:
21
MEMBER
Right.
ABDEL-KHALIK:
Now
what
other
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
parts
of
the
DCD
have
been
touched
by
that
one
2
change?
3
applicant has addressed all those potential impacts?
And how did you convince yourself that the
MR. REDDY:
4
Can you elaborate on the
5
question, please?
I know they added a seven-stage
6
feedwater heater.
I thought that this is for the
7
turbine cycle efficiency.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
8
9
But that may have
impacts on many other parts of the DCD.
The question
10
is, what other parts of the DCD may potentially be
11
impacted by that change, and how did you convince
12
yourself that the applicant has addressed all those
13
potential impacts?
MS. McKENNA:
14
Let me give it a try first.
15
I think, from the applicant point of view, and Rob
16
can speak to this, I mean it is their responsibility
17
to identify if it is a result of the change to the
18
seven-stage heater; there's a change in Chapter 3 or
19
there's a change in Chapter 14 on test program, or
20
something else that needs to be revised.
21
first
look
to
them
to
look
for
those
So we would
conforming
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
changes and point to them.
2
Then, I think from the staff point of
3
view, depending on the nature of the change and what
4
we think it might affect, that's when it would kind
5
of trigger our thought process by saying, well, if
6
you're changing the heaters, is that going to change
7
the feedwater flows or temperature?
8
that through.
9
the staff would go through in terms of whether there
10
is need to probe beyond what changes were identified
11
as
12
generally.
being
addressed
by
that
change
Jim, did you want to add anything to
that?
MR. TATUM:
15
16
That is, I think, the thought process
specifically
13
14
Kind of trace
Yes, Jim Tatum, from the
Balance of Plant Branch.
Basically, we focus our review on any
17
18
safety-type
considerations
that
the
change
may
19
impact.
20
additional feedwater heater will affect efficiencies,
21
and
While the change or the addition of the
whatnot,
in
a
secondary
plant
operation,
it
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
really doesn't impact much with respect to safety.
The
2
other
thing
we
look
at
is
the
3
applicant's evaluation of that change and whether
4
they
5
approval.
6
reports, and whatnot, these sorts of changes do not.
7
determine
if
it
requires
NRC
review
and
Typically, when we look at the departure
It is a 5059 process.
They do not require NRC
8
review and approval, and we consider, based on our
9
knowledge of the systems and what we would expect the
10
impact
to
be,
whether
we
would
agree
with
that
11
evaluation or whether we would think that there may
12
be change, and then we would pursue it.
In this case, we did not see a need to
13
14
pursue the change.
It appeared to us that it really
15
did not require an NRC review and approval, and it
16
would not affect a safety consideration from our SRP
17
evaluations.
MEMBER
18
ABDEL-KHALIK:
So
if
this,
I
19
assume, was primarily added to increase secondary
20
site
21
feedwater temperature.
efficiency,
I
assume
it
had
an
impact
on
Was that change in feedwater
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
temperature carried out throughout the process to
2
figure out what the impact of that will be?
MR. SISK:
3
Let me answer the question on
4
one part, and then I can turn it over to Ed or to
5
Keith to get into more detail.
6
I kind of want to start where Eileen was.
7
Changes that come through, we have a change control
8
process where we do take a look at the impact of that
9
change, not just change out the turbine, but whether
10
it
is
PRA
safety,
impacts
on
11
water.
12
system where we identify that.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
14
MR. SISK:
Now are you asking with regard
Right.
Just to
test your process.
MR. SISK:
And, Keith, are you on-line?
Keith?
MR. SCHWAB:
20
21
I understand.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
18
19
know,
to that one specific change?
16
17
you
So there is a complete process within the
13
15
cooling,
One thing, when we went from
six stages of feedwater heating to seven stages, in
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
the previous design with the other turbine vendor,
2
the six-stage feedwater heater was very, very large.
3
We ended up maintaining the same final feedwater
4
temperature when we took the six-stage and broke it
5
into
6
efficiency,
7
change the final feedwater temperature.
8
temperature
9
arrangements.
two
stages
but
of
we
heating.
did
feedwater
(Laughter.)
13
MR. SISK:
my
the
gain
some
recollection,
So flow and
same
with
both
I guess I picked a
But, from a process viewpoint,
it is a very important aspect.
MS.
15
16
was
to
did
bad example.
12
14
not,
We
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
10
11
of
McKENNA:
It
is
a
good
process
question, though, yes.
MR.
17
SCHWAB:
Well,
the
process
is
18
important because when we make a change, you know, we
19
evaluate that change from all disciplines, so that
20
each
21
impacted, looks at whether or not that change has an
one
of
those
disciplines,
if
potentially
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
impact on their portion of the DCD, so that it gets a
2
broad,
3
process is very well-controlled and configured.
disciplined
review,
MR. SISK:
4
and
the
whole
change
And just to wrap that comment
5
up, as we do that, exactly as Eileen indicates, we
6
try to -- I would like to say 100 percent, but never
7
100 percent -- capture all those changes' impacts on
8
the DCD and let the staff know where those impacts
9
are,
so
they
10
identify
11
evaluations.
can
whether
evaluate
we
MR. REDDY:
12
have
and
been
either
concur
thorough
in
or
our
Yes, I would like to say,
13
actually, that is a very interesting question you
14
ask, but I think with those changes, whether they
15
have been made to the prevent cycle, first, they are
16
to go to the heat balance.
17
the heat balance or the heat rates, and all that, we
18
would catch it at that point.
I think if it impacting
19
But as far as the NRC is concerned, like
20
Gene said, we don't look only from a safety point of
21
view and the non-safety system.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
I may not have not the right answer, but
2
actually what Gene said is we did look into those
3
things.
I think they have answered that part of it.
4
CHAIR RAY:
5
MR. CUMMINS:
6
Thank you.
So just another comment.
This is Ed Cummins.
We evaluate in a safety analysis loss of
7
8
All right.
feedwater heaters.
They act like cold-water events.
9
Usually, we look at all of them, and then we find
10
some bounding one, and we do all the analysis for the
11
bounding one.
12
I don't know what happened in this case,
13
but I suspect that we said, generally, the more you
14
have, the less impact any one has.
15
one still was bounding and we were okay.
And the bounding
But the thought process is what you go
16
17
through;
you
can
18
secondary, and if you lose feedwater heaters, it is
19
equivalent to changing the temperature down.
20
get reactivity insertion.
CHAIR
21
affect
RAY:
the
Okay.
primary
Anything
with
the
So you
else
on
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
Chapter 10?
MEMBER BANERJEE:
2
I thought that shock
3
you had in the beginning, that there were three or
4
four yellow things, I had a question about the item
5
preceding the control steam hammer.
6
That is standard.
7
what it was in the original design, right?
MR. SPINK:
8
9
as
opposed
to
a
Is that different from
It is an operational program
design
feature.
So,
from
an
10
operational standpoint, we, as the applicant, respond
11
to that.
12
MEMBER BANERJEE:
13
MR. SPINK:
I see.
Okay.
So it is the operational
14
procedures, things such as prevention of rapid valve
15
motion,
16
voids into the water, et cetera, et cetera; those all
17
go
18
potential for water hammer.
into
process
the
for
operating
MEMBER
19
20
the
avoiding
introduction
procedures
BANERJEE:
That
of
to
mitigate
is
why
you
addressed it?
MR. SPINK:
21
That is why we addressed it.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
MEMBER BANERJEE:
2
MR. REDDY:
3
Okay.
Actually, we issued an RAI,
and we are responsible for all of that information.
MEMBER
4
BANERJEE:
Are
there
any
5
particular problems with water hammer here compared
6
to other plants?
MR. REDDY: Let me take this one.
7
This is
8
a question we looked at for every project, every
9
plant.
So
we
have
to
review
the
10
applications.
11
But basic analysis for the procedures.
and
COL
We always look for that information.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
12
DCDs
But is there something
13
for this design which is particular compared to, say,
14
a current LWR?
15
MR. REDDY:
16
MEMBER BANERJEE:
17
MEMBER
I
asked
I don't think so.
There is nothing there?
ABDEL-KHALIK:
earlier
about
Back
the
design
to
the
18
question
change
19
process and how it impacts other parts of the system,
20
I understand that you have a formal process by which
21
the owners of different parts of the system evaluate
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
whether or not that particular change would have any
2
impact on their part of the system.
3
The question is, from your response, the
4
staff's response, it seems like your process is far
5
more ad hoc.
6
you actually evaluate and/or determine whether or not
7
the applicant's conclusions with regard to the impact
8
of
9
whatever they have identified?
that
Do you have a formal process by which
particular
design
MS. McKENNA:
10
different
limited
to
I don't know that this is
any
12
environment, where if they come in for whatever kind
13
of change in their FSAR or their tech specs, that the
14
staff
15
applicable things that might be affected by whatever
16
scope of change is being asked for.
17
the answer does take you back to the standard review
18
plans, which guide us in terms of, well, what are the
19
things,
20
sections in terms of, what are the systems that are
21
covered by those standard review plans?
the
have
it
is
11
would
than
change
to
standard
is
in
consider
review
an
operating
whether
plan,
all
plant
of
the
Again, I think
the
different
Could they
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
have been changed by whatever this change was?
2
think there's sometimes lead and secondary branches
3
that talk to each other in terms of, well, here's
4
this, like you saw with the vendor and Ken where
5
there is an issue on the turbine side, but involves
6
the
7
together to see how those issues work together.
electrical
So
they
kind
of
come
So I think that it is embedded in our
8
9
controls.
I
overall review process.
I don't know as there's a
10
formal mechanism that says how we, beyond the kind of
11
stuff I'm describing -- you know, if anybody else
12
wants to come rescue me --
13
(Laughter.)
14
MR. CUMMINS:
15
Well, I have a comment.
Ed
Cummins again.
When the NRC comes and audits us, I think
16
17
the No. 1 primary audit topic was change control.
18
lots of review of our process and our procedures and
19
how many open items we have, and the consequences of
20
the
21
reviewed.
change
control
process
were
commented
on
So
and
So at least they inspect into us this is a
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
requirement or we do this ourselves, but they are
2
certainly verifying that we are doing it ourselves.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
3
4
that, yes.
5
your process is.
Well, I understand
If you have a process, you can check what
6
MR. CUMMINS:
7
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
But the question
8
is, how adequate is the process?
How corrupt is the
9
outcome of your process?
10
MR. CUMMINS:
11
Right.
That is part of the audit.
I mean we have measures.
You know, there's nothing
12
that is foolproof, but there's all kinds of measures
13
on how the process proceeds and there's audits you
14
can do -- in fact, they did do -- to see if the
15
design change got into the technical documents.
16
they take a random technical document and they are
17
trying
18
technical
19
deficiency.
to
find
where
document,
and
that
if
change
it
got
didn't,
into
that's
So
the
a
20
We have a tracking mechanism that says
21
here's some changes we haven't implemented into the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
technical document yet.
2
our to-do list.
3
process.
4
a considerable degree.
5
CHAIR RAY:
6
MR. TATUM:
So we are okay if it is on
We are not okay if we lost it in our
So those kinds of things were looked at to
Anything else on Chapter 10?
If I could, before you move
7
on, on your question -- Jim Tatum again, Balance of
8
Plant Branch.
9
Our typical review process, first of all,
10
before you get to the change, the application comes
11
in and we are reviewing the application.
12
review is compartmentalized in a way in that it is
13
really managed by the SRP.
Well, the
14
Now each technical area is reviewed by
15
different experts and staff, but we quite often find
16
that
17
review area may be not addressed adequately for some
18
other area.
19
discipline, I guess if you will, is to make sure that
20
we do our review, but we also identify anything in
21
that section that may have some impact or may be
a
particular
design
element
that
is
in
one
So we work together as a staff, and our
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
likely to fall through the cracks and not be reviewed
2
by someone else, that we point that out.
3
What you see here with the vendor and the
4
I&C staff, that was something where we recognized
5
that there was something that someone else had to be
6
involved, and we initiated that process.
Now, when you follow on to a change, it
7
8
is quite the same sort of concept.
We get a change
9
in, but it is just like if you got the application in
10
from the beginning.
11
design, albeit a change, but our discipline is we
12
look at that change, and if we think that there is
13
something that needs to be reviewed by someone else,
14
just like we would in the original application, we
15
flag that for them and we make sure that, well,
16
because we are not the experts in all facets of the
17
change, we have to get the electrical, the I&C, maybe
18
materials people involved.
19
recognize
20
specific area of expertise limitations are.
when
they
I mean we are looking at a
have
It is up to the staff to
to
do
and
what
their
So that is kind of how we manage that
21
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
process.
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
2
3
heart of my concern.
The process is ad hoc.
MR. TATUM:
4
But that is the
Well, that is all review.
I
5
mean, if you look at just the review that we do, it
6
is managed by the SRP.
7
changes.
8
with the SRP, and it is up to the staff engineering,
9
and we have pretty knowledgeable staff, to know when
It is the same way with the
We do the change in a review in accordance
10
the change involves other disciplines.
11
those other disciplines when we recognize the need to
12
do that.
13
MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK:
14
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
We engage
Thank you.
Well, I think I don't
15
want to belabor this any further, but it is a fact
16
that when you are dealing with a virtual plant as
17
opposed to a real plant, the process that you follow
18
for a real plant to review a change may not be
19
adequate to a virtual plant, particularly when there
20
are so many changes going on and when there's so many
21
things that are still not fully resolved the first
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
time through.
When you come through time after time
2
after time, the possibility of some oversight I think
3
is what Said is concerned about because we don't have
4
any way of -- we don't have a real plant.
5
keep making changes to a virtual plant.
We just
Well, that being said, we are just an
6
7
hour from our scheduled end of the day.
8
two chapters to go, Chapter 11 and 12.
We've got
9
I mentioned, and I will mention again,
10
that Dr. Mark Ryan is a member of the Subcommittee,
11
not here today, but with special expertise in the
12
areas of radioactive waste management.
13
looking at this material as well, but just not have
14
the benefit of our meeting here today.
15
who
16
everything is okay.
are
here
will
have
to
persuade
He will be
Those of us
him
that
17
(Laughter.)
18
So, anyway, with that being said, let's
19
press on with Chapter 11.
MR. SISK:
20
21
I want to introduce Tom Ray to
lead us through Chapter 11.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
CHAIR RAY:
1
Do you realize there are
2
three Rays in the room?
3
event.
That is a very seminal
4
(Laughter.)
5
All right, let's have order here.
6
Who is going to start?
7
MR. TOM RAY:
8
I am going to start for
Westinghouse.
CHAIR RAY:
9
All right.
MR. TOM RAY:
10
If you are ready, I will
11
introduce myself again.
My name is Tom Ray.
12
AP1000 Licensing Engineer for Chapter 11.
I am
13
Can we go to the next slide?
14
Just to give you an overview of Chapter
15
11, Chapter 11 is the radioactive waste management
16
system.
17
liquid
18
waste, and your radiation monitoring.
Parts of that chapter are source terms:
waste
system,
gaseous
waste
system,
the
solid
19
Next slide, please.
20
We talk about the changes from DCD Rev 15
21
to DCD Rev 17, and talk about the major changes.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
The first one, of course, is the increase
2
in the overall liquid waste total capacity and the
3
improved operational flexibility.
4
additional
5
design.
6
were in the original DCD Rev 15 design.
7
auxiliary building, we just added three more there
8
now, and also in the rad waste building.
waste
CHAIR RAY:
to
the
In the
release or what?
MR. TOM RAY:
12
MR. MENEELEY:
Tim?
The question was --
The DCD does not assume
release.
CHAIR
14
15
tanks
Does the DCD assume zero
11
13
monitoring
These tanks are identical to the three that
9
10
liquid
We added three
RAY:
So
you
have
a
monitored
release assumed?
16
MR. MENEELEY:
17
MR.
TOM
RAY:
That's correct.
The
next
change
was
18
clarified compliance with 10 CFR 20.1406.
19
10 CFR 20.1406 requires that you design and your
20
design will minimize contamination and generation of
21
waste
throughout
the
process
and,
in
Basically,
the
end,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
actually,
back-driven,
2
decommission,
3
generation.
4
DCD Rev 17.
you
to
lower
make
that
sure
when
amount
of
you
waste
So we have clarified that compliance in
The next part is we updated some DCD
5
6
section
for
closure
7
identification
8
dilution and control of boric acid discharge, and
9
identification of absorbent material.
of
The
10
of
COL
unexchanged
changes
items
related
absorbent
primarily
take
to
material,
it
from
a
11
requirement to actually include the material into
12
more of an operational standpoint, so that it is
13
known that the media may change the operation of the
14
plant.
15
In our next bullet, we talked about, we
16
clarified our compliance with Reg Guide 1.43 and 10
17
CFR 71.
18
new radwaste tanks into the radwaste building, that
19
they may be higher levels -- it's alpha 1, alpha 2
20
for 10 CFR 71.
21
materials
There were some concerns with putting the
in
Basically, we clarified that, no, the
those
radwaste
tanks
are
lower
than
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
those levels, so committed to have them in a non-
2
seismic building, the radwaste building.
3
And the last one was there were some
4
inconsistencies in DCD Rev 15 with our compliance
5
with 10 CFR 50, Appendix India, and 10 CFR 20.1401.
6
There were times when we referenced one and left out
7
the other one.
8
through and cleaned up those inconsistencies.
So, basically, through RAIs, we went
The next slide, please.
9
CHAIR RAY:
10
Okay, so you don't list as a
11
major item, then, this reduction in the charcoal bed
12
hold-up time?
MR. TOM RAY:
13
14
minor design change that we went through.
Tim, if you can talk a little bit to the
15
16
No, that was considered a
reduction in charcoal -MR. MENEELEY:
17
was
a
change
of
The change in the charcoal
18
bed
the
assumed
19
coefficient, not of the bed volume.
20
remained the same.
absorption
The bed volumes
When we searched the literature, we found
21
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
there
were
conflicting
2
coefficient, and we had used the most conservative
3
value that we found for our calculations, but we had
4
listed other values in the DCD.
5
them were less conservative than what we did our
6
calculations.
7
values in order to only publish the most conservative
8
case.
the
absorption
We decided which of
Thank you.
MR. TOM RAY:
10
for
So we took out the less conservative
CHAIR RAY:
9
values
And the one open item for
11
Chapter 11 is needed more information and evaluation,
12
a consequent evaluation of gaseous system leak or
13
failure, and we are working with the staff to resolve
14
that open item.
15
And that is it for --
16
CHAIR RAY:
17
Say some more about the last
open item.
MR. TOM RAY:
18
Basically, the evaluation
19
was not there for the AP1000 for annual airborne
20
releases listed in table 11-33.
21
completed that evaluation now and just working with
So we've actually
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
the staff to get that put into the DCD.
2
Tim?
3
CONSULTANT KRESS:
4
That is not a control
room issue, is it?
MR. TOM RAY:
5
talk
a
little
That question, Tim, you
6
could
bit
7
question was if it was a control room issue.
CONSULTANT
8
more
KRESS:
9
release to the environment?
10
MR.
11
introducing myself before.
12
Westinghouse.
MENEELEY:
to
No,
I
that,
it
and
is
apologize
just
for
a
not
I'm Tim Meneeley from
No, this not a controlled release.
13
the
This
14
is the case of, if a system ruptures following a
15
seismic event, something like that.
16
CHAIR RAY:
17
But the question was, does
the affect the control room habitability?
18
No,
MR. MENEELEY:
Oh, I beg your pardon.
and,
the
19
No.
in
fact,
conclusion
of
the
20
evaluation was to use the most limiting, that is, the
21
most conservative design for the delay beds.
So we
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
have the best delay beds that would be required by
2
Reg Guide 1143 in the design.
3
affect control room habitability.
4
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
5
MR. TOM RAY:
6
CHAIR RAY:
7
MR. LEE:
But, no, it does not
Anything else?
No.
All right.
Sanders?
One question.
Back on slide
8
17, you say you have three additional liquid waste
9
monitor tanks.
What does that mean in terms of
10
capacity?
11
increased it by 10 percent?
you
doubled
your
capacity
or
What does that mean?
MR. MENEELEY:
12
13
Have
I am Tim Meneeley from
Westinghouse.
For the monitor tanks, we doubled the
14
15
capacity.
We went from three 15,000-gallon tanks to
16
six 15,000-gallon tanks.
MR. LEE:
17
Okay.
Is there a corresponding
18
analysis, consequence analysis, now to evaluate the
19
impact of that additional capacity?
MR. MENEELEY:
20
21
The monitor tanks were not
-- do you mean for waste processing or --
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
MR.
1
LEE:
Is
it
appropriate?
Is
it
2
appropriate to do a consequence analysis in case one
3
of these tanks breaks or leaks?
MR. MENEELEY:
4
Oh, we did a consequence
5
analysis.
That was the Part 71 analysis, was the
6
content of radioactive material.
7
MR. LEE:
Right.
So there is analysis to
8
correspond to the doubling of the capacity, I guess,
9
is what is meant?
MR. MENEELEY:
10
Yes.
It really had to do
11
with putting them into a new building.
12
quite straightforward as doubling, but it covered
13
that.
MR. SCHAFFER:
14
15
So it wasn't
This is Steve Schaffer
from the NRC.
Part of the consequence analysis is to
16
17
find the tank that has the greatest source term.
18
once you go through the whole radwaste system and
19
find the tank that has the greatest term and assume
20
the release, it covers all the other releases.
MR. LEE:
21
So,
You've got it bounded?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
MR. SCHAFFER:
2
MR. LEE:
3
MS. AUGHTMAN:
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
Good afternoon.
My name
4
is Amy Aughtman, and I'm a Licensing Engineer with
5
Southern
6
presenting the COLA discussions for Chapter 11 and 12
7
today.
Nuclear
Operating
Company.
I
will
be
8
With me at the side table is William
9
Smith, our Radiation Protection Consultant, and on
10
the phone we should have Rick Ely, Jared Monroe, and
11
Marvin Morris from Enercon Services.
We
12
have
the
same
organization
and
13
content, or structure rather, as the DCD does for
14
Chapter 11.
15
management systems; followed by 11.3 is the gaseous;
16
11.4, solid waste management, and 11.5, radiation
17
monitoring.
11.1 is source terms; 11.2, liquid waste
18
I would like to point out that Section
19
11.1 is entirely incorporated by reference of the
20
DCD.
21
information, nor were there any information items
There
is
no
additional
supplemental
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
that needed to be addressed.
MEMBER BROWN:
2
So hold it.
3
is completely by reference?
4
said?
5
MS. AUGHTMAN:
6
MEMBER
7
reference?
9
CHAIR RAY:
It's
incorporated
by
Yes.
Source terms.
MEMBER BROWN:
source terms.
Source terms?
Oh, okay,
All right, thank you.
12
MS. AUGHTMAN:
13
MEMBER BROWN:
14
Correct.
So the whole thing?
MS. AUGHTMAN:
11
Is that what you just
BROWN:
8
10
That means it
Section 11.1.
Yes, I had no idea what
11.1 means.
15
(Laughter.)
16
That's why I asked.
17
MS.
AUGHTMAN:
20
item.
21
processing by mobile equipment.
with
the
to
zero
11.2-1, we dispositioned as a standard information
do
needed
few
19
to
we
a
information
has
that
had
18
It
items
We
address,
liquid
and
radwaste
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
We provided the mobile equipment design
1
2
features
and
3
commitment that they will be designed in accordance
4
with Reg Guide 1.143; specifically, the codes and
5
standards for those systems and structures that are
6
listed in table 1 of that Reg Guide.
On
7
ensured
11.2-2
that
is
--
the
or
provided
liquid
the
cost/benefit
8
analysis of population doses, and item 11.3-1 is the
9
gaseous cost/benefit analysis of population doses.
10
For both of those, those had a standard aspect to
11
them as well as a site-specific aspect.
12
aspect is that we all used a similar methodology
13
across the DCWG and the other utilities to address
14
the
15
aspect
16
inputs and results.
cost/benefit
that
each
site
but
their
site-specific
own
specific
Is this an analysis
that uses a thousand dollars per dose --
19
MS. AUGHTMAN:
20
CONSULTANT KRESS:
21
the
has
CONSULTANT KRESS:
17
18
is
analysis,
The standard
Yes, sir.
Which was a simple
development from 1975?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
MS. AUGHTMAN:
1
2
1976, but it is in 1975 dollars.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
3
4
The Reg Guide is dated
dollars.
Both things are in '75
Your cost is in '75 dollars.
5
MS. AUGHTMAN:
6
MR. SMITH:
7
CONSULTANT KRESS:
8
together anytime or are they independent?
Yes.
MS. AUGHTMAN:
9
If I remember correctly --
Do those things change
I'm not sure I --
10
MR. SMITH:
My name is --
11
CONSULTANT KRESS:
The cost of this stuff
12
may change one way while the dose rems may go up for
13
neighbors.
MS. AUGHTMAN:
14
15
that question.
MR. SMITH:
16
17
I will let William address
My name is William Smith.
I'm with Southern Nuclear Company, contractor.
18
Reg Guide 1.110 specified that you use
19
1975 dollars in your calculations related to that.
20
So we followed the Reg Guide in the use of the
21
dollars and the values for the other items within
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
that.
CONSULTANT
2
3
KRESS:
(Laughter.)
5
MEMBER BANERJEE:
CONSULTANT KRESS:
8
(Laughter.)
9
MR. SMITH:
(Laughter.)
12
CHAIR
RAY:
Were you on the ACRS in
Yes.
It was a very good document,
You
de-escalate
current
prices back to '75 using some kind of --
14
MR. LEE:
15
CHAIR RAY:
Index,
but
Wholesale Price Index.
some
Well, no, not a Wholesale
16
Price
17
material that you are talking about.
applicable
CONSULTANT
KRESS:
20
CHAIR RAY:
Huh?
21
CONSULTANT KRESS:
18
19
to
I might add.
11
13
agree
'75?
7
10
ACRS
this?
4
6
Did
index
Two
and
for
the
a
half
percent?
Two and a half percent
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
yearly?
CHAIR RAY:
2
No, it wouldn't be that.
I'm
3
just saying the way to do it is to take the current
4
cost of the equipment back to '75 and see what it is
5
in
6
appropriate for whatever the hardware is.
those
dollars,
using
MS. AUGHTMAN:
7
a
de-escalator
that
is
Okay.
Then the next item we
8
addressed was 11.4-1 on the solid waste management
9
system
process
to
control
use
an
program.
We
approved
provide
NEI
a
10
commitment
template,
11
07-10-alpha, which is the process control program
12
description, within our FSAR.
13
does satisfy the requirement to provide a program
14
description for the process control program.
So that NEI template
The next item was 11.5-1, which is on the
15
16
plant
offsite
dose
17
another NEI template which we are adopting, rather,
18
and it has been reviewed and approved by the staff.
19
That is also the way we fulfilled the requirement to
20
provide the program description for the ODCM.
11.5-2
21
calculation
is
manual.
effluent
Again,
monitoring
and
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
sampling.
Again, this has a standard aspect to it as
2
well as a site-specific aspect.
3
is where we describe the program on items such as
4
data collection and storage, daily checks of effluent
5
monitoring, calibration of equipment.
6
specific aspect addresses the fact that TVA is going
7
to extend their existing Quality Assurance Program
8
for
9
Monitoring, as based on Reg Guide 4.15, Revision 1.
10
It is the program that will be used for Bellefonte
11
Units 3 and 4.
Radiological
Effluent
The standard aspect
And the site-
and
Environmental
Then the last information item is on 10
12
13
CFR 50, Appendix I.
14
estimated doses to both liquid and gaseous effluents.
15
Those
doses
are
That is where we describe the
actually
provided
in
Sections
16
11.2.3.5 and 11.3.3.4 of the FSAR.
Those both play
17
into
that
18
discussed.
the
cost/benefit
Okay.
19
analysis
we
just
In addition to information items,
20
we had some supplemental information.
The items for
21
Sections 11.2, .3, and .4 both deal with providing
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
quality
2
standards
3
again.
control
provisions
specified
in
Reg
for
the
Guide
codes
1.143,
and
table
1
The last supplemental information that we
4
5
provided
was
in
Section
6
procedures related to process control.
7
for
8
controlling
9
disposal, and other maintenance activities.
procedures,
through
And
10
for
last,
11.4,
items
where
that
procedures,
we
have
one
we
describe
Some examples
we
are
open
would
be
shipping,
item
in
11
Chapter 11, and it is on low-level radwaste storage.
12
The staff has requested that we address long-term
13
storage capabilities, and we are in the process of
14
resolving that item.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
15
16
to send that stuff?
They closed down Savannah River.
MS. AUGHTMAN:
17
The Barnwell site, which
18
is located in South Carolina.
19
CONSULTANT KRESS:
20
Is there a place now
I thought they closed
that.
MS. AUGHTMAN:
21
That is closed.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
MR.
1
2
LEE:
It
closed;
it
had
Compact
Right.
There is one; I
generators.
MS. AUGHTMAN:
3
4
think it is the Atlantic Compact, that we still ship
5
there.
6
CHAIR RAY:
7
Any questions, more questions, for Amy?
8
(No response.)
9
Okay.
10
MS. SANDERS:
CHAIR RAY:
think,
Serita,
try
I think you all know me
One second.
We've got to get
your slides up.
It's all right.
15
16
I
now.
13
14
Finally,
again.
11
12
Thank you, Amy.
Go ahead.
We've got it
in front of us.
MS. SANDERS:
17
Okay.
I'm the Project
18
Manager for Chapter 11 of the Design Certification
19
Amendment.
I would like to take this opportunity to
20
21
acknowledge the staff review of Chapter 11.
For the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
technical side, we have Steven Schaffer, who was our
2
lead on the review, and other reviewers were Joshua
3
Wilson, Douglas Dodson.
4
5
I'm the Project Manager for
the DCD, and Ravi is the Project Manager for the
Bellefonte COL.
This
6
slide
illustrates
the
scope
of
7
review of the staff and also gives you an overview of
8
the open items.
9
the DCA and one for the COL.
As you can see, there was one for
10
Next slide.
11
This slide summarizes the changes to the
12
DCD
for
this
chapter.
As
you
can
see
in
the
13
highlighted portions, the reviewer has chosen these
14
items of interest to discuss in detail.
15
turn it over for the DCD to Steve.
16
fact, he reviewed both the DCD and the COL, and he
17
will start off with the DCD, and then he will turn it
18
over to Ravi for the COL.
So I will
As a matter of
Of course, you can ask questions outside
19
20
of these, if you like.
21
CHAIR RAY:
Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
MR. SCHAFFER:
1
2
afternoon, and we are talking radwaste.
CHAIR RAY:
3
4
I know it is late in the
No, we're doing pretty good.
We're trying to catch up.
5
(Laughter.)
6
MR. SCHAFFER:
7
I have to say, though, that these are the
that
The back-end of the plant.
8
systems
radioactivities
9
environment are a certainty.
10
(Laughter.)
11
To
the
next
released
to
the
So take that, you PRA.
slide,
I
want
to
talk
a
12
little bit about our review of the change in the
13
three monitoring tanks.
14
clear was there are three radwaste monitoring tanks,
15
15 gallons each, in the aux building right now -- oh,
16
15,000 gallons each.
They
17
Maybe what didn't become
decided
to
add,
for
their
18
flexibility, three more.
But instead of putting it
19
in the aux building, there was no more room, they had
20
to extend the radwaste building.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
21
So how big are these? I
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
mean I know 15,000 gallons, but in sort of physical
2
size?
MR. MENEELEY:
3
4
Westinghouse.
They are about 12 feet in diameter and 18
5
6
feet tall.
Not exactly, but about.
MEMBER BANERJEE:
7
8
This is Tim Meneeley from
That's 15,000 gallons?
That's 15,000?
9
MR. MENEELEY:
10
MR. SCHAFFER:
That's correct.
So, as described before,
11
one of our issues was that, because it is now in a
12
radwaste building which is not seismically-qualified,
13
is
there
any
sort
or
radioactive
concentration
14
limits that might be exceeded that would require them
15
to actually be in a much more qualified building?
They
16
provided
analysis
which
used
the
17
GALE code, which is one of our standard accepted
18
codes,
19
streams, from these waste streams, that would go into
20
these monitoring tanks, using this code, would show
21
that the concentrations would never exceed any of the
to
show
that
the
inputs
to
these
waste
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
limits that are in Reg Guide 1.143, so they could put
2
it in the radwaste building.
3
Another part of our review, which Ed will
4
cover actually, is now that they have had these three
5
large tanks that are sitting in a radwaste building
6
that
7
classification for that building, we wanted to look
8
at the doses that would occur, the exposures that
9
would occur to workers within that area.
10
might
not
have
the
right
rad
protection
Ed will
cover that review.
One
11
of
the
other
things
that
I
just
12
wanted to mention, they had mentioned in Chapter 14,
13
which is their pre-operational program, that they
14
would do some pre-operational testings on the resins
15
in
16
demineralizers in the liquid radwaste system.
the
demineralizer
vessels.
There's
four
When you went to Chapter 11 in their pre-
17
18
operational
section
and
described
19
operational
testing,
there
20
resins.
21
actually confirmed that the right amount of the right
was
their
nothing
pre-
about
the
So we asked them to put some testing in that
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
resins would be in the demineralizers.
Those
2
issues
were
all
addressed.
So
3
there are no open items in Section 11-2, which is the
4
liquid radwaste system.
5
Going on to the next slide --
6
MR. LEE:
7
is
that
the
8
qualified?
tanks
I guess what you're just saying
won't
MR. SCHAFFER:
9
MR. LEE:
10
need
to
be
seismically-
That's correct, yes.
Okay.
So you could have a
11
spill due to a seismic event, and it still would fall
12
within the limits?
13
MR. SCHAFFER:
14
MR. LEE:
15
MR. SCHAFFER:
16
On the gaseous waste management system
17
Yes.
Okay.
That is Reg Guide 1.145.
side -CHAIR RAY:
18
By the way, I'm sorry, when
19
you talked earlier, you talked about the tank was the
20
largest source, and assumed it failed and checked the
21
consequences.
But if you've got three tanks in a
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
building that is not seismically-qualified, you have
2
to assume all three tanks fail, I assume?
3
MR. SCHAFFER:
4
(Laughter.)
5
CHAIR RAY:
6
MR.
Well, yes and no.
Tell me about the no.
SCHAFFER:
Position,
11-6,
We
which
have
sort
our
7
Advanced
8
gives us the instructions on how to do that, but to
9
me that is no answer because that is just following
10
Technical
Okay.
of
the cookbook.
But the real answer is we are actually
11
12
searching for the largest source term.
13
up to be it is the hold-up tank before the stuff gets
14
into the radwaste system that is the source term.
CHAIR RAY:
15
whatever
So it winds
Of course it would be, but,
16
nevertheless,
the
17
assuming -- tell me if I'm wrong -- oh, who do I say
18
this?
19
that you designate as the highest source term isn't
20
less than all three tanks --
are,
I'm
You at least check to make sure that that tank
MR. SCHAFFER:
21
consequences
Oh, yes.
Yes, that's part
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
of it.
You also have to realize the other aspect
2
3
of
it
is
that
the
reason
we
are
doing
this
4
consequence analysis isn't like what is in Chapter
5
15.
6
plants were starting to operate.
7
"oops", where people put wrong valve connections in,
8
and the like, and they managed to discharge almost
9
full contents of tanks.
It is really for when the first generation of
There were a lot of
10
So this Advanced Technical Position was
11
really to cover that "oops", and they looked at it
12
as, well, as long as we assume a failure, we will be
13
able to duplicate or simulate the resulting releases
14
that
15
difficulties that they had in the beginning.
happen
through
CHAIR RAY:
16
all
these
operational
All right, but still, if the
17
three tanks together was more than the one tank that
18
you've identified, I would want to argue with you
19
about whether you had the right -MR. SCHAFFER:
20
21
The likelihood that those
three tanks would have -- see, the tank that has the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
collection before the radwaste system is assumed to
2
have primary coolant in it, and the monitoring tanks
3
have already had the processed waste.
4
CHAIR RAY:
I stand on what I said.
5
MR. SCHAFFER:
6
(Laughter.)
7
CHAIR RAY:
Okay.
Which is, you put three tanks
8
in a building that isn't seismically-qualified, we
9
need to talk about it if you don't think all three of
10
them will fail in seismic event.
11
MR. LEE:
One of the reasons I broached
12
the questions is, in your earlier figure, you showed
13
this site, the Bellefonte site, as being essentially
14
on a peninsula, surrounded on the water by at least
15
two sides, maybe even three.
16
tells me that the water table is relatively shallow
17
there.
18
would be to those water bodies.
So my hydrology sense
I don't know how quickly the travel times
MR.
19
SCHAFFER:
20
estimate.
21
you hear about Chapter 2.
That
was
a
bounding
You will probably hear more about it when
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
MR. LEE:
2
CHAIR RAY:
3
MR. SCHAFFER:
4
MR. MENEELEY:
what
Okay.
Go ahead, Steve.
Steven
Okay.
May I interject, just to
5
supplement
had
6
Meneeley from Westinghouse.
said?
This
is
Tim
7
In our evaluation, we showed that the
8
contents of any one tank for isotopes other than
9
tritium are less than a tenth of a percent of the
10
(a)(2) values, and for tritium it is about 6 percent
11
of the (a)(2) values.
12
are still very far below the (a)(2) values.
So the three tanks together
13
CHAIR RAY:
14
MR. SCHAFFER:
our
eye
with
Okay.
the
Fine.
Thank you.
One of the changes that
15
caught
gaseous
waste
management
16
system was, although they didn't change the design of
17
the delay beds, it is still the same size with the
18
same amount of charcoal, they reduced its capacity.
19
They said that each of the delay beds could handle
20
100 percent of the capacity, and now they came back
21
and said it was 50 percent.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
So we said, what's that?
1
2
Tell us more
about that.
And they did an analysis, again, using
3
4
the GALE code.
Because we were concerned that if you
5
could only deal with 50 percent capacity, and one of
6
the delay beds were out, would you have a problem
7
with your releases?
8
So they did an analysis with the GALE
9
code with only one delay bed and showed that the
10
releases and, obviously, the resulting doses wouldn't
11
be increased significantly.
12
So we reviewed that analysis.
We checked
13
all the inputs to the GALE code and verified that,
14
yes, indeed, the results were correct.
15
issue to bed.
We put that
16
The one issue that is still open really
17
was that the consequence analysis for the gaseous
18
side was missing.
19
never made it into the FSAR.
20
response to that RAI now, and we are reviewing it.
21
So it is still an open item.
It was actually performed, but
We have received the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
CONSULTANT
1
2
charcoal beds?
3
Several tons?
KRESS:
How
big
are
these
That's a lot of charcoal, isn't it?
4
MR. SCHAFFER:
Yes, it's like 2,000 --
5
MR. MENEELEY:
I think the total is 5400
6
pounds of charcoal.
CONSULTANT KRESS:
7
8
9
How do you assure that
the flow is distributed well through a bed that big?
I
mean,
are
there
diffusers
on
the
front
end,
10
channels to flow into, so that you can be sure all of
11
the charcoal is active?
12
designer.
MR.
13
14
MENEELEY:
I'm not a charcoal bed
Tim
Meneeley
from
Westinghouse.
15
There are correlations both in NUREG-0017
16
and in other places of the literature which give,
17
similar to an ion exchange vessel, the flow areas one
18
needs to look at, the ratio of flow diameter to
19
length.
20
in a serpentine configuration to ensure that you have
21
a small play area and a very long configuration.
Our beds are designed as a fairly small pipe
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
CHAIR RAY:
Very good.
2
MR. MENEELEY:
3
MR. SCHAFFER:
Okay.
Okay.
We are actually
4
going to skip 11.4.
Really, the only change was an
5
improvement on a materials-handling pump.
6
positive displacement pump.
So it is a
So we are going to go on to 11.5, which
7
8
is the radiation monitoring system.
We noticed that
9
the system, the standard, the ANSI standard that they
10
were going to design the system to was the 1969 ANSI
11
standard for sampling of a gaseous or duct system,
12
event system.
13
radioactivity.
This is sampling for measurement of
The '69 standard has been withdrawn and
14
15
replaced by the '99 standard.
16
has been withdrawn is because it is shown to have not
17
been 100 percent reliable on systems designed that
18
way,
19
stream for analysis.
getting
representative
sample
of
the
gas
So that is the reason why they changed,
20
21
a
Part of the reason it
withdrew that standard, changed it to the '99.
The
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
'99 standard is very less prescriptive than the 1969
2
standard.
It is performance-based.
So we questioned Westinghouse on the use
3
4
of this standard.
Their concern was that there is a
5
bias to the 1999 standard towards a single-nozzle
6
collection system.
7
just design to single-nozzle.
8
use arrays, sampling arrays, and the like.
They wanted more flexibility than
They wanted to maybe
9
From my point of view, the staff's point
10
of view, it was, well, we wouldn't care how you
11
situate the arrays or whether you use arrays or a
12
single-nozzle as long as you can prove to us that you
13
took a representative sample.
14
So what we did was is we gave them the
15
flexibility to design it according to this '69, which
16
could have multiple arrays, but they would meet the
17
performance
18
performance criteria.
19
performance criteria in the FSAR and they are going
20
to meet that for their initial testing.
standards
of
the
'99
standard,
the
They listed all the relevant
We closed that item, so there are no more
21
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
open items on 11.5.
2
With that, we have finished the DCD.
3
MS. SANDERS:
4
(No response.)
5
We will turn it over to Ravi for the COL
6
Do you have any questions?
presentation.
MR. JOSHI:
7
Okay.
I will not take much
8
more time.
9
that we have provided actually describes the efficacy
10
I just want to mention that the table
of Bellefonte.
Steven
11
is
going
to
talk
about
the
12
highlighted items, which are of the most interest to
13
him at least.
MR. SCHAFFER:
14
15
We will go to the next
slide.
16
Now we are talking about the effluent
17
doses to the general public both through the liquid
18
and the gaseous systems.
19
gaseous systems, this slide lists the activities that
20
we
21
Appendix I.
did
to
convince
For both the liquid and
ourselves
that
they
do
meet
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
We
1
confirmed
the
liquid
and
gaseous
2
effluent releases.
We made sure that they used the
3
right ones that were from the DCD.
4
appropriate exposure pathways.
5
of the dilution and the atmospheric dispersion.
CHAIR RAY:
6
We confirmed the
We confirmed the use
Steven, I'm going to ask you
7
if you can focus on the things that you think are
8
problematic here, in the interest of time.
9
10
11
Okay.
CHAIR
We
RAY:
need
to
get
through
Chapter 12 as well.
MR. SCHAFFER:
12
13
MR. SCHAFFER:
In the interest of time,
let's go to the next slide.
14
(Laughter.)
15
CHAIR RAY:
16
(Laughter.)
17
MR. SCHAFFER:
Okay.
That's fair.
But the bottom line is our
18
analysis actually showed higher doses -- I'm sorry --
19
lower doses than the applicant, and you can see that
20
in the table.
21
criteria for liquid, gaseous iodines and particulates
You can see the Appendix I dose
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
and for the 40 CFR 190.
2
that has to look at the entire site.
3
have to look at their two units.
4
individual dose results.
The
5
reasons
That is the EPA standard
we
are
So they would
Those are the
different
in
the
6
liquid systems, our dilution was actually a little
7
less conservative from theirs.
8
different
9
locations that we chose to do the individual dose
than
10
calculations
11
applicant's.
the
were
gaseous
not
as
side
The reason we are
was
some
conservative
of
as
our
the
12
Now to address the other part -- the next
13
slide -- to address the other part of Appendix I, we
14
have to look at the cost/benefit analysis.
15
add, augment any component to the liquid system or
16
the gaseous system, could they do it in less than
17
$1,000 per person rem?
18
they can't.
If you
Our analysis showed that, no,
19
You can see for the liquid systems our
20
results showed that it would cost them $33,000 to
21
$40,000.
The reason there's two numbers is the first
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
number is for the thyroid dose, and the other number
2
is for the total body dose.
3
Going to the next slide for 11.4 and
4
11.5, we have to describe the operational programs
5
for
6
management, the solid waste management system.
7
have to describe the operational programs that the
8
licensee will actually do to make sure that they can
9
control effluent releases, and once they release it,
10
the
process
control
program
for
the
waste
We
that their doses are below Appendix I.
11
So these two templates were developed by
12
NEI and reviewed by the NRC, and SERs are written on
13
them.
14
real program comes.
These templates are placeholders until the
15
You will see, when you look at Chapter 13
16
for the table, where it shows that they have to have
17
these programs in place, inspected before fuel load.
And the only other issue, again, is the
18
19
onsite storage of low-level waste.
We asked them to
20
address it since they don't have a place to put low-
21
level waste, and we are waiting on the response.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
And that's really it.
2
CHAIR RAY:
3
4
So we will see what the response is to your open
item, I guess.
What do we know about the open item in
5
6
terms of when it is likely to be addressed?
MS. AUGHTMAN:
7
8
That seems appropriate to do.
This is Amy Aughtman from
Southern.
9
We expect to provide a response probably
10
within the next couple of weeks, but we have 45 days
11
from the date the SER is issued.
CHAIR RAY:
12
13
All right.
the year?
14
MS. AUGHTMAN:
15
CHAIR RAY:
16
It's not years in
No.
Okay.
All right.
Anything
more on Chapter 11 then?
17
(No response.)
18
Chapter 12?
We're not doing that bad,
19
but members need to have a few minutes for discussion
20
before we adjourn.
21
please.
So let's proceed with Chapter 12,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
MR. TOM RAY:
1
2
Do you want me to
wait?
3
CHAIR RAY:
4
MR. TOM RAY:
5
Okay.
One second.
Again, my name is Tom Ray,
AP1000 Licensing Engineer for Chapter 12.
Again, I failed to introduce him last
6
7
time; I will introduce him for Chapter 12.
Our
8
technical lead will be Tim Meneeley, who will be
9
helping out with questions.
10
Next slide, please.
11
A little bit about what Chapter 12 is.
12
Chapter 12 is the radiation protection chapter, which
13
has sections in it that cover ALARA, your radiation
14
sources, your radiation protection design features,
15
dose
16
design.
assessment,
and
health
physics
facilities
17
Next slide.
18
The major change is from Rev 15, the DCD,
19
to Rev 17 for Chapter 12, again, similar to Chapter
20
11.
We clarify compliance with 10 CFR 20.1406.
Chapter 12, in and of itself, didn't have
21
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
design
2
throughout
3
effects.
4
monitoring tanks, increased spent fuel pool capacity,
5
fuel-handling area shielding design, integrated head
6
package, and there was actually an evaluation change
7
for the concrete density in the spent fuel transfer
8
canal and tube channeling.
the
but
due
to
DCD,
we
had
other
to
design
revise
changes
radiation
Those design changes were the new radwaste
Next slide, please.
9
For Chapter 12, there are five open items
10
11
changes,
related to the DCD.
12
The first one is --
13
CHAIR RAY:
You get the prize, I think,
14
for the most open items.
15
MR. TOM RAY:
What was that?
16
CHAIR RAY:
You get the prize for the
17
most open items, I think.
18
(Laughter.)
19
MR. TOM RAY:
20
(Laughter.)
21
Is that tomorrow?
Is that today?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
CHAIR RAY:
We'll see tomorrow.
2
(Laughter.)
3
MR. TOM RAY:
4
And I will give you a sense.
All right.
Most of
5
these open items, actually, we are working closely
6
with the staff to resolve, and we are in the process
7
now of review or close to sending a letter to them.
For
8
the
first
one,
there
was
more
9
information required on design features for the HVAC
10
system to prevent or minimize contamination of the
11
environment.
12
clarifying information for 10 CFR 20.1406 for the
13
HVAC system.
Again,
that
goes
back
to
providing
14
There was a question of more detail with
15
airborne radioactivity due to the expanded fuel pool
16
capacity.
17
Dose during refueling, due to the change
18
in minimal allowable water depth above active fuel.
19
That had to do with, again, it talked about the
20
design changes for the fuel-handling system.
12.3-01 was more detail to determine if
21
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
the containment area radiation zones are affected by
2
the integrated head package design.
That had to do
3
with
doses
4
actual design itself and then specifically for this.
5
both
increase
or
decrease
in
for
the
This was during outage, refueling dose.
The last one is density change in spent
6
7
fuel transfer canal and tube shielding.
8
change in the evaluation impacts on the occupational
9
exposure for that.
So those are the open items for Chapter
10
11
12.
Questions on those?
CHAIR RAY:
12
13
This actual
I'm just reading, trying to
figure out what the last one is here.
MR. ROACH:
14
Actually, the density of the
15
concrete use, the calculations went from 147 pounds
16
per cubic foot to 140.
17
latest Reg Guide.
CHAIR RAY:
18
19
It is within the scope of the
Okay.
I see.
All right.
Thank you.
20
Thank you.
21
MS. AUGHTMAN:
Ready for the COLA?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
CHAIR RAY:
Yes.
2
MS. AUGHTMAN:
Okay.
I'm Amy Aughtman,
3
and, again, to the side is William Smith, and on the
4
phone are, I believe, three individuals from Enercon
5
Services.
6
The only additional section that related
7
to things that were outlined in the DCD is Appendix
8
12-alpha-alpha,
9
Program.
which
is
the
Radiation
Protection
The first COL information item that we
10
11
addressed is on ALARA and operational policies.
12
did
13
template on ALARA, which is NEI-708.
14
NEI template that we incorporate by reference that we
15
are still waiting on the approved template to come
16
out for us to incorporate.
that
by
incorporating
by
the
NEI
That is the one
12.2-1 is additional contained radiation
17
18
sources.
19
we have in place for the sources.
This is where we describe the controls that
One example of that is field monitoring
20
21
reference
We
equipment.
The
controls
are
implemented
through
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
written procedures.
They are developed in accordance
2
with the Radiation Protection Program.
12.3-1
3
is
administrative
Those
radiological
5
Appendix
6
essentially an incorporation by reference of another
7
NEI template, 07-03.
12-alpha-alpha,
And
which
in
12-alpha-alpha
is
the
criterion methods for radiological protection.
We
the
criterion
on
described
on
8
information
are
for
4
9
protection.
controls
12.3-2
methods
for
is
10
describe
attaining
11
representative measurement of radiological conditions
12
through the use of procedures, and that includes the
13
surveillance requirement.
Item 12.3-3 and 12.3-4 are both described
14
15
in Appendix 12-alpha-alpha.
16
groundwater
monitoring,
17
record
operational
18
decommissioning.
19
yet another NEI template, which is on the elimination
20
of contamination.
of
and
The first one is on
the
events
second
of
is
on
interest
the
for
Both of those refer to NEI 08-08,
The last item is 12.5-1, the radiological
21
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
protection
2
organization and procedures are described in Appendix
3
12-alpha-alpha, again, through the incorporation of
4
the NEI template 07-03.
5
CHAIR RAY:
in
organization
accordance
and
procedures.
The
Amy, if the plant had been
6
built
with
Rev
15,
just
take
the
7
groundwater monitoring program, what would have been
8
done?
9
of this standard 12.3-3 provides?
Or what is the difference that the inclusion
10
MS. AUGHTMAN:
11
MS. McKENNA:
Can you tell me?
I don't know if -Well, let me start one
12
thing.
I think the groundwater monitoring would be
13
outside of the scope of the DCD because it would
14
really depend on some site --
15
MS. AUGHTMAN:
It is an information item.
16
MS. McKENNA:
So it really needed to be
17
something that is addressed on the COL side.
CHAIR RAY:
18
19
Yes.
So, okay, that is fair.
I guess I am thinking this is the first time, then,
20
groundwater monitoring gets addressed.
21
in the mode of thinking about changes --
Yes.
I was
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
MS. McKENNA:
Right.
2
CHAIR RAY:
-- because that's what we
3
have been talking about.
4
thought, what the heck are the changes that are being
5
made?
6
here; this is just a commitment by the COL, is that
7
right?
You are saying that there isn't any change
Or am I wrong?
MS.
8
9
So I looked at that and I
AUGHTMAN:
I
am
going
to
ask
either --
10
MR. SMITH:
11
The
NEI
My name is William Smith.
08-08,
groundwater
monitoring,
12
that she is referring to, that is an operational
13
program that will be implemented during operations.
CHAIR RAY:
14
15
I understand, but it is being
addressed here why?
MS. AUGHTMAN:
16
Because I believe -- Tim
17
or Tom, correct me if I'm wrong -- but this is a new
18
information item that either came in with Rev 16 or
19
17, as a result of some conforming changes that had
20
to be made for 20.14-06.
MR. MENEELEY:
21
That is correct.
This is
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
Tim Meneeley from Westinghouse.
2
In the process of preparing Rev 16, we
3
were working in advance of the regulatory guidance on
4
1406,
5
publications.
One
6
indicated
a
7
groundwater
8
commitment in the DCD, so that it would be a standard
9
for all our applicants to have that program.
but
we
was
had
quite
of
a
the
NRC
things
commitment
monitoring
few
to
program.
we
a
So
and
other
thought
was
life-of-plant
we
made
that
10
Now it has since been standardized one
11
more layer by the NEI work, but this is here because
12
we committed in the DCD that our applicants would
13
have a groundwater monitoring program.
CHAIR
14
RAY:
Okay.
So
we
are
not
15
changing, but we are becoming more specific on this
16
point, groundwater monitoring?
17
out what it is that -- it says, program described in
18
Appendix 12, blah, blah, blah.
19
12-alpha-alpha was existent, which I assume is at
20
this point in time, what was it?
MR.
21
ROACH:
I'm trying to figure
Before that Appendix
Actually,
12-alpha-alpha
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
didn't exist until Bellefonte submitted their R-COL
2
application.
3
Design Certification Document for the AP1000 there
4
was no commitment for groundwater monitoring along
5
the lines to meet 20.1406.
6
Revision 16 and, subsequently, 17, and they placed
7
two
8
Bellefonte is the first plant to actually provide how
9
they are meeting those.
10
COL
In the previous version, Rev 15, of the
information
items
That was added with
on
COL
applicants.
That is what the main change
is.
The
11
current
operating
fleet
is
a
12
voluntary compliance with NEI 07-07 for groundwater
13
monitoring.
14
CHAIR RAY:
15
MR. CUMMINS:
16
We did that with the encouragement of the
17
Right, but okay.
This is Ed Cummins.
staff.
18
(Laughter.)
19
CHAIR
RAY:
You
would
have
gotten
20
encouragement from us, if not from the staff.
But,
21
like I say, I'm simply trying to understand what is
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
new information and what is changed information, and
2
if it is changed, what's changed?
MR. GRANT:
3
4
If I might try -- Eddie Grant
with NuStart.
The change information is that there was
5
6
an addition of a COL item to the DCD.
7
information is that, in order to address that COL
8
information,
9
groundwater
10
COL
monitoring
applicant
program
provided
information
this
through
reference to the NEI template.
CHAIR RAY:
11
12
wasn't
13
application?
any
information
MR. GRANT:
14
15
the
Then the new
And prior to this time, there
on
this
topic
in
the
COL
Well, there wasn't a COL
application prior to this time because --
16
CHAIR RAY:
Okay, yes.
17
MR. GRANT:
We referenced Rev 16, and it
18
was in Rev 16.
So it came with our first shot at it.
CHAIR RAY:
19
All right, I'm getting back
20
into history that I probably should not attempt to
21
grapple with at this point in time.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
Okay, where were we?
2
MS. AUGHTMAN:
3
Who's got the ball?
I believe we are ready for
the next slide.
4
CHAIR RAY:
All right.
5
MS. AUGHTMAN:
And we had one piece of
6
supplemental information in Section 12.4, which is on
7
dose to the construction workers.
8
did
9
limits of 10 CFR 20.1301.
confirm
that
the
dose
Our evaluations
estimates
do
meet
the
10
We have one confirmatory item that we
11
wanted to describe here, and I believe Eddie alluded
12
to it earlier in his discussion with Chapter 1.
13
now have an approved template for 07-03, and we have
14
some conforming changes we are going to be providing
15
to our FSAR.
16
couple of weeks for the staff to review.
We
Those should be coming in in the next
There were three open items for Chapter
17
18
12.
The first two were mostly placeholders, until
19
the NRC completes the review of these NEI templates,
20
and
21
program.
the
last
is
on
the
construction
We are addressing that.
worker
dose
That actually did
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
get
submitted
to
the
staff
2
review, and we are essentially indicating that the
3
operating unit program is going to be responsible for
4
conducting radiological surveys.
5
CHAIR RAY:
6
MS. AUGHTMAN:
7
CHAIR RAY:
8
MS. SANDERS:
9
last
week
for
their
That makes sense.
That's it for the COLA.
All right.
Staff?
I am waiting for Ravi to
bring up the presentation.
10
I'm Serita Sanders, the Project Manager
11
for Chapter 12 of the Design Certification Amendment.
12
I will now turn our attention to the
13
staff's
review
for
the
14
Bellefonte application.
DCA
as
well
as
the
COLA
I would like to take this opportunity to
15
16
acknowledge the staff review team for Chapter 12.
We
17
have Edward Roach, who was our lead reviewer, and
18
Steven Schaffer, part of the tech review team, and
19
I'm the DCD Chapter Project Manager, and Ravi Joshi
20
is the Bellefonte COL Chapter PM.
Next slide.
21
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
This
1
slide
illustrates
the
scope
of
2
review for the staff as well as depicts the overall
3
open items for both the DCA and for the Bellefonte
4
COL.
5
This slide summarizes the changes to the
6
DCD for Chapter 12, and it also highlights in yellow
7
the topics of interest that the reviewer decided and
8
determined that would be of interest to you.
As usual, you can ask any questions that
9
10
you want.
After we finish the DCD, Ravi will go
11
12
over the COL.
13
Okay, the floor is yours.
14
MR. ROACH:
15
(Laughter.)
16
As Serita said --
17
CHAIR RAY:
18
(Laughter.)
19
MR. ROACH:
Good evening.
I'll overlook that comment.
So I was responsible for the
20
review of the changes in the DCA AP1000 and also the
21
Bellefonte
Units
3
and
4
Chapter
12,
and
also
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
reviewed the related chapters and tech specs in the
2
course of reviewing the Radiation Protection Program.
Again,
3
branches,
we
worked
including
closely
with
Balance
of
other
4
staff,
Plant,
5
Containment and Ventilation, and Operating Licensing,
6
Unit Performance, and Tech Specs.
The first topic we would like to talk
7
8
about
is
the
9
occupational
topic
of
radiation
ALARA,
exposure
achievable.
low
as
as
11
earlier,
12
demonstrate the AP1000 design complies with 10 CFR
13
20.1406.
incorporate
DCD,
as
reasonably
did
the
is
that
10
they
In
assuring
features
stated
that
The real key item here that we are still
14
15
looking at is using operational experience.
16
were events in the industry that allowed the venting
17
of
18
something in ventilation systems.
19
the applicant to provide us information related to
20
that.
21
major change in that area.
tanks,
resin
transfer
That is an open item.
lines,
to
There
contaminate
So we are asking
That is pretty much the
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
As Steve stated earlier, they did add
2
three waste monitor tanks to the radwaste building.
3
We did model that using a Micro-Shield calculation,
4
Version 5, which is V&V.
5
of which used reactor coolant activity; another used
6
the (a)(2) value or (a)(1) values for activity in one
7
of the tanks to see what the contact dose rate would
8
be and the dose rate on the adjacent space.
9
used a model to try to form three tanks and get the
10
dose rate if it was all the worst-possible condition.
11
The change in response to the RAI to the
12
zone effectively addressed our concerns with having
13
the radiation zone properly characterized as a zone,
14
I believe it is, 3, which is less than 15 millirem
15
per hour, where it was previously identified as less
16
than .25 millirem per hour.
We did several models, one
We also
The second item there was the increased
17
18
capacity of the spent fuel pool.
19
along
20
activity over the spent fuel pool due to off-gassing
21
from the fuel?
the
lines,
does
that
Our questions were
increase
the
airborne
Their analysis concluded that it
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
didn't because they're off-gassing the space doing
2
one full core offload and not the continued off-
3
gassing
4
calculation on that one.
of
many
assemblies.
We
looked
at
the
5
Next slide, please.
6
Chapter 12.3 was the radiation detection
7
design
features.
8
information
9
design-related changes that we highlighted would be
10
the decrease in the minimum water depth over the
11
active portion of the fuel when it was being handled,
12
from 9.5 feet to 8.75 feet, within the refueling pool
13
or the spent fuel pool.
in
That
it
and
generally
the
most
the
changes.
We reviewed the change.
14
had
most
Major
We reviewed the
15
applicant's calculations, as well as the ANS 57.2
16
design objectives for lightwater reactor spent fuel
17
pool facilities at nuclear power stations.
The
18
applicant
described
these
changes
19
initially in a technical report, and subsequently, we
20
have had RAIs and supplemental RAIs to review this.
21
We
have
received
the
final
response
from
them
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
describing
2
incorporated, and that one is under review, but it is
3
still an open item at this point.
MR. ROACH:
10
that
they
have
You said you had checked
On this one, we verified
their calculations.
MEMBER BROWN:
8
9
features
or you did your own calculations?
6
7
ALARA
MEMBER BROWN:
4
5
the
Okay.
Did you verify them
close or were they a third to a half the values that
were shown for the liquid waste?
MR. ROACH:
11
we
12
when
13
conservative.
14
verify the calculations through a computer model.
15
This required a Monte Carlo technology or a discrete
16
ordinate transfer model that we didn't have available
17
at
18
location,
19
supplemental after discussing it with the shielding
20
folks in-house.
this
did
the
Actually, the liquid waste,
calculation,
values
were
On this one, we did not independently
point,
review
but
I
their
MEMBER BROWN:
21
their
did
go
to
assumptions,
Okay.
their
and
offsite
we
have
So it was an audit,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
effectively?
2
MR. ROACH:
3
MEMBER BROWN:
4
MR. ROACH:
right
Okay.
And as I said, their response
5
is
6
features.
7
revising the refueling machine, to add shielding, an
8
intra-steel
9
handling machine to counteract the decrease in water
10
in-house
Yes.
now.
It
describes
the
ALARA
Those ALARA features incorporate, besides
shielding
on
that
spent
fuel
pool
level.
11
They also take credit for use of zinc
12
addition and then water chemistry controls during
13
shutdown,
which
14
refueling
water.
15
response.
The
16
as
to
Those
other
item
talked
minimize
are
activity
discussed
that
I
would
like
to
18
discussed the integrated head package radiological
19
impact
20
radiation zones and the dose for the occupational
21
workers within containment.
and
decrease
the
their
discuss,
increase
earlier,
in
in
17
and
we
helped
to
applicant
verify
the
The integrated package
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
appears
to
be
beneficial
improvement
in
reducing
2
refueling dose, and it wasn't reflected in there, and
3
the analysis didn't conclude that they would reduce
4
their refueling dose.
5
for the staff.
So there are some questions
6
There are three open items.
7
Next slide, please.
8
The dose assessment, again, I said that
9
there is a table that lists all of the refueling
10
dose.
That wasn't updated.
11
the previous topic.
So that is related to
The last item that I talk about is this
12
13
area 12.5.
We worked closely with Balance of Plant,
14
and the originally spent fuel-handling machine used
15
an auxiliary hoist that allowed you to use a tool
16
that didn't have electric interlocks or mechanical
17
interlocks when you were moving spent fuel, which is
18
contrary to the guidance.
An
19
RAI
was
asked,
and
the
applicant
20
responded that they would provide interlock on that
21
equipment to prevent activated fuel from being raised
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
higher than should possibly for personnel safety.
Subsequent to that, they revised their
2
3
spent fuel-handling machine.
So they now have one
4
that doesn't have that hoist.
5
shielding on it.
It has additional
6
Any questions?
7
MR. JOSHI:
Go ahead.
8
MR. ROACH:
Okay.
9
For Bellefonte, the highlighted here are
10
the ones we will talk about.
11
the high points here.
You're doing well.
All right.
I will basically hit
12
We discussed earlier the NEI templates.
13
These are standard programs for licensed operating
14
programs to afford licensing.
15
will
16
requirements of these documents.
develop
a
07-03
17
program
is
the
Then the COL applicant
that
meets
generic
all
the
program
for
18
radiation protection.
We spent a lot of time working
19
on that, the COL application and the DC.
20
has been accepted by the NRC, a Safety Evaluation
21
Report written and issued.
It is in ADAMS.
That one
It is a
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
publicly-held
document.
2
condition with milestones that they will implement at
3
various stages, when they bring their first sources
4
onsites, when they load fuel, and prior to startup.
5
There's various aspects; there's milestones.
The
6
other
It
two
is
also
templates,
a
license
NEI
07-08
7
provides a generic program for ALARA, which includes
8
the
9
compliance, the Regulatory Guide 8.8 and 8.10, and
10
management
policy,
the
commitment,
regulatory
qualification of personnel 1.8.
11
NEI 08-08 is, as we spoke earlier, the
12
generic program for minimization of contamination to
13
meet Regulatory Guide 4.21 or the NRC regulation is
14
10 CFR 20.1406.
MEMBER
15
16
BROWN:
Do
the
generic
guides
require any modification for specific plants?
MR. ROACH:
17
within
that
Actually, in the Bellefonte
18
case,
Appendix
12AA,
they
provided
19
supplemental information.
20
generic organizational structure and maybe some terms
21
and titles of people that is what TVA uses.
The templates provides a
So TVA,
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
in their supplemental, described different basically
2
supplemental information to those templates.
MEMBER
3
4
BROWN:
So
they're
tailored?
While they're generic, they're tailored?
5
MR. ROACH:
Yes.
6
MR. GRANT:
That one is.
7
MR. ROACH:
Okay?
8
CHAIR RAY:
And these last two it appears
9
were affirming things.
If you could just focus on
10
any exceptions you want to bring our attention to?
MR. ROACH:
11
Okay.
I would just go to the
12
radiation protection design features slide, which is
13
this one.
Basically,
14
the
bulk
of
the
COL
15
application for Chapter 12, these are the majority of
16
the COL information items.
17
compliance with NEI 08-08, 20.1406 via the NEI 08-08
18
template, and also NEI 07-03.
19
meet one of their TMI action items, which is 3D33,
20
which is iodine monitoring to a certain level.
21
they
have
those
values
They commit to both the
and
Additionally, they
that
So
information
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
specifically in their COL.
The last item we talked about was we did
2
3
independently
4
estimates.
5
applicant, would receive about .54 millirem per year.
6
The
staff
verify
The
the
average
calculation
construction
worker,
Steve
worker
according
performed
to
using
dose
the
the
7
inputs and assumptions; we came up with about .7
8
millirem
9
individuals, about 7.1 millirem.
per
year;
their
maximally-exposed
10
This dose will primarily come from, once
11
Unit 3 is constructed, if it is constructed, as they
12
build Unit 4, the dose from Unit 3 operating for the
13
construction workers working on Unit 4.
14
other co-located site there to provide a dose.
15
is why the levels are so low.
open items.
MS. SANDERS:
18
19
That
I think that is about it, other than the
16
17
There is no
If you don't have any more
questions, that concludes our presentation.
20
CHAIR RAY:
Thank you very much, Serita.
21
Anything else from the members?
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
(No response.)
2
Okay, well, we didn't do too badly.
3
Five
minutes after 5:00.
4
I'm going to close the record now, close
5
the phone line, adjourn to the next meeting, and ask
6
that the members and consultant and staff member give
7
us just a few minutes after we take a five-minute
8
break because it won't be possible for us to talk
9
after the meeting tomorrow probably.
So we would
10
just like to just talk among ourselves here prior to
11
tomorrow's meeting.
12
So, with that, we are adjourned.
13
(Whereupon, at 5:07 p.m., the proceedings
14
in the above-entitled matter were concluded for the
15
day, to reconvene the following day, Friday, July 24,
16
2009.)
17
18
19
20
21
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
(202) 234-4433
AP1000 Reference
Combined License Application
Presentation to ACRS
Selected Chapters
COL-1
Bellefonte site – Artist’s rendering
COL-2
COLA Team Meeting Participants
Scheduled Presenters:
Jack Bailey – TVA
Andrea Sterdis - TVA
Tom Spink – TVA
Eddie Grant – NuStart
Amy Aughtman – SNC
Peter Hastings – AP1000 DCWG
COL-3
Combined License (COL) Schedule
• 2007 October – Original submittal
• 2008 January – NRC acceptance
• 2009 January – FSAR Revision 1
• 2009 June – SER with Open Items
• 2009 July – ACRS for some chapters
COL-4
Combined License (COL) Application
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cover Letter, Affidavits, etc. (“Part 0”)
Part 1 – General & Financial Information
Part 2 – Final Safety Analysis Report
Part 3 – Environmental Report
Part 4 – Plant Specific Technical Specifications
Part 5 – Emergency Planning Information
Part 6 – Limited Work Authorization Information
Part 7 – Departures & Exemption Requests
Part 8 – Safeguards Information
Part 9 – Withheld Information
Part 10 – Proposed License Conditions, including ITAAC
Part 11 – Enclosures (e.g., QAPD)
COL-5
Bellefonte site – 50 mile radius
COL-6
Bellefonte site – 10 mile radius
COL-7
Bellefonte site – local site area
COL-8
AP1000 Design Control
Document
Amended Design
July 23-24, 2009
Rob Sisk, Manager
AP1000 Licensing and Customer Interface
Westinghouse - Nuclear Power Plants
DCD-1
DCD Amendment Overview
●  Introduction of the WEC AP1000 Team
●  The amended design builds on the NRC AP1000 Certified Design
(Rev 15)
●  Changes were made consistent with regulatory requirements
–  Address COL Information items
–  Address Design Acceptance Criteria
–  Address NRC requirements (i.e., Security)
–  Enhance Standardization
–  Design Maturity (i.e., procurement details; Integrated Head
Package)
–  Address editorial changes and changes for consistency
DCD - 2
DCD Amendment Overview
●  Future changes would be addressed in accordance with the Interim
Staff Guidance (DC/COL-ISG-11)
●  WEC has received 13 SERs on the amended design. 10 SERs will be
discussed today:
–  July 23-24 – Chapters 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 & 19
[Green Rev 17, Yellow Partial Rev 17]
–  October 6& 7 – TBD
–  November 19 &20 –TBD
●  No New Exemptions
●  No New DAC [continue effort resolve Piping, HFE and I&C DAC]
●  38 Open Items identified in 10 SERs
●  31 Confirmatory Items – Mostly involved with confirming proper
incorporation into the final DCD
DCD - 3
AP1000 Design Control
Document
Amended Design
Chapter 1“Introduction and General Discussion”
DCD-4
Tier 2 Chapter 1 - “Introduction and
General Discussion”
●  Chapter Overview
–  Provides a general overview of the Westinghouse AP1000 simplified
passive advanced light water reactor plant; a discussion of the objectives,
design criteria operating characteristics of the AP1000; plant site interface
requirements; the referenced design documents, and the regulatory basis
for the certified design
●  Changes to the certified design are discussed in depth in their appropriate
chapters
–  Extension of Seismic spectra to soil conditions (Chapters 2 & 3, 19)
–  Revision to buildings for enhanced protection (Chapters 3, 19F)
–  Protection System Instrumentation (Chapter 7)
–  Revision to electrical systems (Chapter 8)
–  Turbine Manufacturer (Chapter 10)
DCD - 5
Tier 2 Chapter 1 - “Introduction and
General Discussion”
● Changes continued:
– Sump Screen Design and Analysis (Chapter 6)
– Control Room Ventilation (Chapters 6 & 15)
– Spent Fuel Pool Capacity (Chapters 9 & 12)
– Update Load Handling Capability (Chapter 9)
– Additional Waste-Water Monitoring Tanks (Chapter 11)
– Integrated Head Package (Chapters 3, 9 & 12)
– Revised LOCA Methodology (Chapter 15)
– Reactor Internal Changes (Chapters 3, 4, and 5)
– Pressurizer Shape Change (Chapter 5)
DCD - 6
Tier 2 Chapter 1 –
“Introduction and General Discussion”
●  OI-1.0-NWE2-01
–  Reconciliation of the tables, list of figures and COL Action Items will
be finalized upon completion of the other chapters
●  OI-1.0-NWE2-02
–  Confirmation of the final Reg Guides list and other information as
part of the reconciliation of Chapter 1 with the other chapters
DCD - 7
• Chapter 1
Introduction and General
Description of the Plant
COL-9
R-COLA Chapter 1 – Content
Introduction and General Description of the Plant
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 GENERAL PLANT DESCRIPTION
1.3 COMPARISONS WITH SIMILAR FACILITY DESIGNS
1.4 IDENTIFICATION OF AGENTS AND CONTRACTORS
1.5 REQUIREMENTS FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL INFORMATION
1.6 MATERIAL REFERENCED
1.7 DRAWINGS AND OTHER DETAILED INFORMATION
1.8 INTERFACES FOR STANDARD DESIGN
1.9 COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY CRITERIA
1.10 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS TO BE OPERATED ON MULTIUNIT SITES
COL-10
R-COLA Chapter 1 – 1 COL Item
Construction and Startup Schedule
– schedule information provided
BLN 1.1-1
Regulatory Guide Conformance
– conformance addressed
STD 1.9-1
Bulletins and Generic Letters
– conformance addressed
STD 1.9-2
Unresolved Safety Issues and Generic Safety Issues
– conformance addressed
STD 1.9-3
COL-11
R-COLA Chapter 1 – Other
STD SUP
1.1 Describes formatting of the FSAR and LMAs
e.g., COL SUP DEP CDI
BLN SUP
1.4 ID of agents and contractors
STD SUP
1.6 Incorporated by Reference documents
DCD & NEI 06-13, 07-02, 07-03, 07-08
BLN SUP
1.7 Plant specific systems
BLN SUP
1.8 Interfaces, COL items & Departures
STD SUP
1.9 Regulatory Criteria and Guidance conformance
COL-12
R-COLA Departures (see Part 7)
STD 1.1-1
Organization and Numbering – STD/BLN
ƒ
BLN 8.2-1
Transformer arrangement for Unit 3 - BLN
ƒ
BLN 9.2-1
Moved to avoid crossing lines – Ch. 8
Service water system blowdown flow path – BLN
ƒ
BLN 18.8-1
ƒ
ƒ
BLN 2.3-1
Regulation requires FSAR to follow DCD organization and numbering –
Some additional sections needed – various Ch.
All blowdown to waste water systems, none to CWS – Ch. 9
Relocated TSC and OSC – BLN
Single TSC for both units – Ch. 13
OSC moved to DCD TSC Location – Ch. 13
Exclusion Area Boundary Atmospheric Dispersion Value (χ/Q)
ƒ Plant Specific Analyses – not bounded by DCD
COL-13
R-COLA Chapter 1 – Open Items
OI 1-1
Final DCD Conforming Changes - STD
ƒ
OI 1-2
License Condition Criteria - STD
ƒ
OI 1.4-1
Staff to finalize criteria for license conditions
Interface Content Identification - STD/BLN
ƒ
OI 1.4-2
Applicant to update COLA to incorporate final DCD
Identify where DCD interfaces are addressed
Regulatory Guide Compliance - STD/BLN
ƒ
Address remaining NRC questions
COL-14
R-COLA Chapter 1 – Open Items
OI 1.4-3
Construction Impacts on Operating Units – STD
•
OI 1.4-4
Construction Impacts on Operating Units – STD
•
OI 1.5-1
NRC Staff to complete review and identify any concerns
Provide positive statement of implementation timing
Part 30/40/70 Licenses – STD
•
Licenses to receive, possess, and use source, byproduct,
and special nuclear material – RAI 162 received
COL-15
AP1000 Design Control
Document
Amended Design
Chapter 5
DCD-8
Tier 2 Chapter 5
●  Chapter Overview
–  Reactor Coolant System and Connected Systems
–  Integrity of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary
–  Reactor Vessel
–  Reactor Coolant System Component and Subsystem Design
DCD - 9
Description of Major Changes Post
Revision 15
●  RCS Loop Instrumentation Relocation
–  Loop 1 narrow range and diverse actuation system RTD relocated upstream of the
pressurizer surge nozzle
–  Wide range RTD relocated upstream of the passive residual heat removal nozzle
●  Addition of Applicable Code Cases
●  Incorporation of Changes for Zinc Injection Capability
●  Pressure Boundary Material Changes to Address Material Supply, Fabrication, and
Schedule
●  Surveillance Capsule Lead Factor and Azimuthal Location Confirmation
●  Reactor Coolant Pump Design
–  Revised the heat removal design
–  Flywheel material change
●  Pressurizer Configuration Change
●  Reactor Vessel Changes
–  Addition of flow skirt
–  Reduction of in-core instrumentation head penetrations
●  Normal Residual Heat Removal Low Temperature Relief Valve Size Increase
DCD - 10
SER Open Items (OI)
●  OI-SRP-5.2.1 – EMB-01
–  Addition of Code Cases for ISI (RG 1.147) and O&M (RG 1.192) in
DCD
●  OI-SRP5.2.1-EMB-02
–  Reference to RG 1.84 rather than RG 1.85 in DCD
●  OI-SRP5.4.1-SRSB-01
–  Design specification for RCP heat exchanger
●  OI-SRP5.4.1-CIB1-01
–  Addition of flywheel material specifications to be referenced in DCD
DCD - 11
• Chapter 5
Reactor Coolant System
and Connected Systems
COL-16
R-COLA Chapter 5 – Content
Reactor Coolant System and Connected Systems
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
INTEGRITY OF REACTOR COOLANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY
REACTOR VESSEL
COMPONENT AND SUBSYSTEM DESIGN
COL-17
R-COLA Chapter 5 – COL Items
STD 5.2-1
ASME Code and Addenda – code year identified
Plant Specific Inspection Program
- program described
STD 5.2-2
Reactor Vessel Pressure – Temperature Limit
Curves – post COL item – license condition proposed
STD 5.3-1
Reactor Vessel Materials Surveillance Program
- program described
STD 5.3-2
COL-18
R-COLA Chapter 5 – COL Items
Reactor Vessel Materials Properties Verification
– as-built item – license condition proposed
STD 5.3-4
Steam Generator Tube Integrity
- program described
- NEI 07-06 “Steam Generator Program Guidelines”
and EPRI Steam Generator Management Guidelines
STD 5.4-1
COL-19
R-COLA Chapter 5 – Other
5.2 STD SUP
Reactor coolant chemistry program
5.3 STD SUP
Pressure – temperature control procedures
R-COLA Chapter 5 – Open Items
There are no open items for Chapter 5.
COL-20
AP1000 Design Control
Document
Amended Design
Chapter 10
DCD-12
Tier 2 Chapter 10
●  This Chapter discusses Steam and Power Conversion
●  Major changes:
–  Revised interval of turbine valve testing
–  Revised turbine layout to accommodate Toshiba design
–  Replaced Toshiba Turbine Control System with Ovation
DCD - 13
Tier 2 Chapter 10
●  5 Open Items (OI) and 1 Confirmatory Item (CI)
–  OI-SRP10.2-SBPA-01
–  Overspeed Protection System meets Single-Failure criterion
–  OI-SRP10.2-SBPA-02a
–  ITAAC confirms diversity between overspeed trip systems
–  OI-SRP10.2-SBPA-02b
–  Backup turbine speed sensors are magnetic
–  OI-SRP10.2.3-CIB1-01
–  Low-trajectory turbine missiles are analyzed
–  OI-SRP10.2.3-CIB1-02
–  Clarify discrepancy in turbine missile analysis
DCD - 14
• Chapter 10
Steam and Power Conversion
COL-21
R-COLA Chapter 10 – Content
Steam and Power Conversion
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
TURBINE-GENERATOR
MAIN STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM
OTHER FEATURES OF STEAM AND POWER
CONVERSION SYSTEM
COL-22
R-COLA Chapter 10 – COL Items
Erosion-Corrosion Monitoring
– Program Considers
ƒ Generic Letter 89-08
ƒ EPRI NSAC-202L-R3
ƒ Industry Operating Experience
ƒ CHECWORKS
STD 10.1-1
Turbine Maintenance and Inspection
– post COL item – license condition proposed
STD 10.2-1
BLN 10.4-1
Circulating Water Supply – system described
COL-23
R-COLA Chapter 10 – COL Items
Condensate, Feedwater and Auxiliary Steam
System Chemistry Control – system described
BLN 10.4-2
BLN 10.4-3
Potable Water – system described
COL-24
R-COLA Chapter 10 – Other
10.2
STD SUP
Turbine missile generation for dual units
STD SUP Testing, operations, and maint. procedures
STD SUP Inservice inspection program
10.3
STD SUP
10.4
BLN CDI
Operations and maintenance procedures
STD SUP Chemical addition program
Circulating water design to replace CDI
STD SUP Operations, and maintenance procedures
STD SUP Chemical addition program
COL-25
R-COLA Chapter 10 – 1 Open Item
OI 10.1-1
FAC Program Implementation Schedule - STD
•
Applicant to identify schedule for flow accelerated
corrosion program
COL-26
AP1000 Design Control
Document
Amended Design
Chapter 11
DCD-15
Tier 2 Chapter 11
●  Chapter Overview
–  Radioactive Waste Management
–  Source Terms
–  Liquid Waste Management System
–  Gaseous Waste Management System
–  Solid Waste Management System
–  Radiation Monitoring
DCD - 16
Description of Major Changes Post
Revision 15
●  Increased overall liquid waste holdup capacity and improved operational
flexibility by adding three additional liquid waste monitor tanks to the
Design
●  Clarified compliance with 10 CFR 20.1406 by stating how the design
minimizes contamination and generation of waste
●  Updated DCD Sections for closure of COL items related to Section
11.2.5.3, “Identification of Ion Exchange and Adsorbent Media,”
11.2.5.4, “Dilution and Control of Boric Acid Discharge” and 11.3.5.2,
“Identification of Adsorbent Material”
●  Clarified compliance with RG 1.143 and 10 CFR 71
●  Corrected inconsistencies in compliance with 10 CFR 50 App. I and 10
CFR 20.1301
DCD - 17
SER Open Item
●  OI-SRP11.3-CHPB-01
–  Section 11.3.3 needed consequence evaluation of a gaseous
system leak or failure
DCD - 18
• Chapter 11
Radioactive Waste Management
COL-27
R-COLA Chapter 11 – Content
Radioactive Waste Management
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
SOURCE TERMS
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
GASEOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
RADIATION MONITORING
COL-28
R-COLA Chapter 11 – COL
Items
Liquid Radwaste Processing by Mobile Equipment
– mobile equipment design features provided
STD 11.2-1
Liquid Cost Benefit Analysis of Population Doses
– method utilized is standard
– site specific inputs and results
STD/BLN 11.2-2
Gaseous Cost Benefit Analysis of Population Doses
– method utilized is standard
– site specific inputs and results
STD/BLN 11.3-1
Solid Waste Management System Process Control
Program – commitment to use NEI 07-10A
STD 11.4-1
COL-29
R-COLA Chapter 11 – COL
Items
Plant Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)
– commitment to use NEI 07-09A
STD 11.5-1
Effluent Monitoring and Sampling
– standard program described
– site-specific program for quality assurance of
radiological monitoring programs based on RG 4.15
BLN/STD 11.5-2
10 CFR 50, Appendix I
– described estimated doses due to liquid and
gaseous effluents
BLN 11.5-3
COL-30
R-COLA Chapter 11 – Other
11.2 STD SUP Quality control provisions of the codes and
standards specified in RG 1.143, Table 1
11.3 STD SUP Quality control provisions of the codes and
standards specified in RG 1.143, Table 1
11.4 STD SUP Quality control provisions of the codes and
standards specified in RG 1.143, Table 1
11.4 STD SUP Describes procedures related to process control
R-COLA Chapter 11 – Open Items
•
Low Level Radwaste Storage - STD
•
Address long-term storage capabilities
COL-31
AP1000 Design Control
Document
Amended Design
Chapter 12
DCD-19
Tier 2 Chapter 12
●  Chapter Overview
–  Radiation Protection
–  ALARA
–  Radiation Sources
–  Radiation Protection Design Features
–  Dose Assessment
–  Health Physics Facilities Design
DCD - 20
Description of Major Changes post
Revision 15
●  Clarified compliance with 10 CFR 20.1406 by stating how the design
minimizes contamination and generation of waste
●  Revised Radiation effects due to design changes
–  New Radwaste Monitor Tanks
–  Spent Fuel Pool Capacity
–  Fuel Handling Area Shielding Design
–  Integrated RV Head Package and Quick-Lock Connectors
–  Concrete Density in Spent Fuel Transfer Canal and Tube Shielding
DCD - 21
SER Open Items
●  OI-SRP12.1-CHPB-01
–  Information on design features for HVAC systems to prevent or minimize
contamination of environment
●  OI-SRP-12.2-CHPB-02
–  More detail with airborne radioactivity due to expanded fuel pool capacity
●  OI-SRP12.3-CHPB-02
–  Dose during refueling due to the change in minimum allowable water depth
above active fuel
●  OI-SRP12.3-CHPB-01
–  More detail to determine if the containment area radiation zones are
affected or if the implementation of the Integrated RV Head Package Design
results in an increase or decrease in the refueling dose estimates
●  OI-SRP12.3-CHPB-03
–  Density change in the Spent Fuel Transfer Canal and Tube Shielding and
the impacts on occupational exposure and effect on radiation zoning
DCD - 22
• Chapter 12
Radiation Protection
COL-32
R-COLA Chapter 12 – Content
Radiation Protection
12.1
ASSURING THAT OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURES
ARE AS-LOW-AS-REASONABLY ACHIEVABLE (ALARA)
12.2
RADIATION SOURCES
12.3
RADIATION PROTECTION DESIGN FEATURES
12.4
DOSE ASSESSMENT
12.5
HEALTH PHYSICS FACILITIES DESIGN
APPENDIX 12AA – RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM
COL-33
R-COLA Chapter 12 – COL
Items
ALARA and Operational Policies
– Applicant to incorporate NEI 07-08 template upon approval
STD 12.1-1
Additional Contained Radiation Sources
– source controls described
STD 12.2-1
Administrative Controls for Radiological Protection
– controls described in Appendix 12AA
STD 12.3-1
Criteria and Methods for Radiological Protection
– criteria and methods described
STD 12.3-2
COL-34
R-COLA Chapter 12 – COL Items
Groundwater Monitoring Program
– program described in Appendix 12AA
STD 12.3-3
Record of Operational Events of Interest for
Decommissioning – recordkeeping described in
Appendix 12AA
STD 12.3-4
Radiological Protection Organization and
Procedures – organization and procedures
described
STD 12.5-1
COL-35
R-COLA Chapter 12 – Other
12.4 BLN SUP Dose to Construction Workers
- Dose estimates meet limits of 10 CFR 20.1301
R-COLA Chapter 12 – Confirmatory
CI 12.1-1
–
NEI 07-03 Adoption - STD
Applicant to incorporate approved template
R-COLA Chapter 12 – Open Items
NEI 07-08 Approval - STD
–
Applicant to IBR final approved template
NEI 08-08 Approval - STD
–
NRC Approve and Applicant to adopt final approved template
Construction Worker Dose Program - STD
–
Operating unit program to conduct radiological surveys
COL-36
COL-37
Presentation to the ACRS Subcommittee
Westinghouse Design Certification Amendment
and Bellefonte COL Application Review
Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items
Chapters 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19
Eileen McKenna and Stephanie Coffin
July 23 – 24, 2009
ACRS Subcommittee Presentation
Westinghouse Design Certification Amendment and
Bellefonte COL Application SER/OI
• Westinghouse Design Certification
– Current AP1000 Design Certification - Appendix D to
10 CFR Part 52 (Revision 15 to the AP1000 Design Control
Document (DCD)) – effective 2006
– Safety Evaluation Report – NUREG-1793, “Final Safety
Evaluation Report Related to Certification of the AP1000
Design”
• Westinghouse Design Certification Amendment
– Application of May 26, 2007 based upon Revision 16 to the
AP1000 DCD
– Reference to 10 CFR Part 52, Section 52.63
– Finality of Standard Design Certifications
– Submittal of Revision 17 of the AP1000 DCD September 22,
2008
July 23 - 24, 2009
Overview
2
ACRS Subcommittee Presentation
Westinghouse Design Certification Amendment and
Bellefonte COL Application SER/OI
• Review of the Westinghouse Design Certification
Amendment
– Six phase review schedule
– Review is focused on changes proposed by
Westinghouse, using SRP-based review
– Issuance of Individual Chapters in Phase 2 (SER
with Open Items [SER/OIs]) to become a
supplement to NUREG-1793
July 23 - 24, 2009
Overview
3
ACRS Subcommittee Presentation
Westinghouse Design Certification Amendment and
Bellefonte COL Application SER/OI
• Bellefonte Combined License application SER with
open items
– Six phase review schedule
– In general based on revision 1 of the application
dated January 21, 2009
– Incorporates by Reference Westinghouse DCD
revision 17
July 23 - 24, 2009
Overview
4
ACRS Subcommittee Presentation
Westinghouse Design Certification Amendment and
Bellefonte COL Application SER/OI
• Structure of SE/OI for Bellefonte
– Incorporate by reference sections
• Staff makes finding that IBR is appropriate
• Refers to the NUREG
– Standard COL content
• Staff evaluation will apply to all SCOL applications, as
appropriate
– Site-specific COL content
• Staff evaluation will apply only to TVA/Bellefonte
July 23 - 24, 2009
Overview
5
ACRS Subcommittee Presentation
Westinghouse Design Certification Amendment and
Bellefonte COL Application SER/OI
• RCOL Applicant Transition
– Entire SE/OI issued based on the TVA/Bellefonte
application
– Southern/Vogtle responds to all OIs related to
standard content
– Southern/Vogtle responds to all site-specific
issues
– NRC staff evaluates responses and develops
Advanced Final SER with no OIs based on
Southern Nuclear application. This is expected to
be first AP1000 COL application to come to ACRS
for final determination.
July 23 - 24, 2009
Overview
6
ACRS Subcommittee Presentation
Westinghouse Design Certification Amendment and
Bellefonte COL Application SER/OI
• Presentation sequence
– Westinghouse present design certification amendment content
– TVA presents FSAR content
– Staff presents Westinghouse design certification amendment safety
evaluation and Bellefonte COL safety evaluation
•
Future Subcommittee Meetings
– October 6 -7, November 19-20 – additional chapters
– Possibility of additional subcommittee meeting in early 2010
•
Interim Letter Reports
July 23 - 24, 2009
Overview
7
Presentation to the ACRS
Subcommittee
Westinghouse AP1000 Design Certification Amendment Application Review
Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 COL Application Review
SER/OI Chapter 1
Introduction and General Discussion
July 23 – 24, 2009
Staff Review Team
•
•
Technical Staff
– Steve Koenick, Project Manager, Organizational Effectiveness and
Productivity Branch
– Eric Oesterle, Project Manager, Rulemaking, Guidance and
– Advanced Reactors Projects Branch
– Mike Dusaniwskyj, Economist, Financial Policy and Rulemaking
Branch, NRR
– Rick Pelton, Training and Assessment Specialist, Operator Licensing
and Human Performance Branch
Project Managers
– Serita Sanders, AP1000 DCA
– Joe Sebrosky, AP1000 Bellefonte COL
– Sujata Goetz, Project Manager, AP1000 Projects Branch 1
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 1 - Introduction and
General Discussion
2
Overview of DCA and COL
Open Items
SRP Section/Application Section
DCA
Bellefonte
1.1
1.2
Introduction
General Plant Description
0
IBR w/SUP
0
IBR w/SUP
1.3
Comparisons with Similar Facility Designs
0
IBR
1.4
Identification of Agents and Contractors
0
IBR w/SUP
1.5
Requirements for Further Technical Information
0
IBR
1.6
Material Referenced
0
IBR w/SUP
1.7
Drawings and Other Detailed Information
0
IBR w/SUP
1.8
Interfaces for Standard Designs
0
1
1.9
Compliance with Regulatory Criteria
0
1
1.10
Nuclear Power Plants to be Operated on MultiUnits Sites
0
2
General updating of information in Chapter 1
2
N/A
N/A
3
2
7
Other Parts of Application
Totals
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 1 - Introduction and
General Discussion
3
Overview of AP1000 DCD Chapter 1 Introduction and General Discussion
DCD Section
Summary of Changes to DCA
1.1
Introduction
No major changes
1.2
General Plant Description
1.3
Comparisons with Similar Facility
Designs
No major changes
1.4
Identification of Agents and Contractors
No major changes
1.5
Requirements for Further Technical
Information
No major changes
1.6
Material Referenced
1.7
Drawings and Other Detailed
Information
No major changes
1.8
Interfaces for Standard Designs
No major changes
1.9
Compliance with Regulatory Criteria
Appendix – 1A Conformance with
Regulatory Guides
Conforming changes
Conforming changes
Appendix – 1B Severe Accident
Mitigation Design Alternatives
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 1 - Introduction and
General Discussion
Conforming changes
No Major changes
4
AP1000 SER Chapter 1 – Key Functions
•
Historical
- Chronology, Key References
• Summary
- Design Features & Changes
• Generic
- Editorial & Conforming Changes, COL Items
Tabulation, Regulatory Guides and Criteria
• Open Items
- 2 NRC OIs for Tracking
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 1 - Introduction and
General Discussion
5
Bellefonte RCOL Review
Bellefonte RCOL Application Part
Evaluation
1
General and Administrative Information
including Financial Information
Section 1.5.1 of SER
2
Final Safety Analysis Report
Evaluated in appropriate SER Chapters
3
Environmental Report
Final Environmental Impact Statement
4
Technical Specifications
Chapter 16 of SER
5
Emergency Plan
Chapter 13 of SER
6
Limited work authorization (not used)
7
Departures Report
Evaluated in appropriate SER chapter
8
Security Plan
Summary provided in Chapter 13 of SER
9
Withheld Information
Evaluated in appropriate SER Chapter
10
Proposed Combined License Condition
including ITAAC
Evaluated in appropriate SER Chapter
July 23 - 24, 2009
NA
Chapter 1 - Introduction and
General Discussion
6
Bellefonte COL Technical Topics of Interest
• Departures and Exemptions
– Departures
•
•
•
•
•
COL application organization and numbering
unit 3 transformer area arrangement
service water system blowdown flow path
emergency response facility locations
exclusion area boundary atmospheric dispersion value
– Exemptions
• COL application organization and numbering
• exclusion area boundary atmospheric dispersion value
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 1 - Introduction and
General Discussion
7
Overview of Bellefonte COL FSAR Chapter 1
Summary of
Departures/Supplements
FSAR Section
1.1
Introduction
IBR* with standard and site-specific
supplements
1.2
General Plant Description
IBR with site-specific supplements
1.3
Comparisons with Similar Facility Designs
1.4
Identification of Agents and Contractors
1.5
Requirements for Further Technical Information
1.6
Material Referenced
1.7
Drawings and Other Detailed Information
1.8
Interfaces for Standard Designs
1.9
Compliance with Regulatory Criteria
1.10
Nuclear Power Plants to be Operated on
Multi-Units Sites
* IBR - incorporated by reference
July 23 - 24, 2009
Completely IBR
IBR with site-specific supplements
Completely IBR
IBR with standard supplement
IBR with site-specific supplement
IBR with site-specific supplement
IBR with standard supplement
Standard and site-specific supplemental
material
Chapter 1 - Introduction and
General Discussion
8
Bellefonte COL Technical Topics of Interest
•
Open items
– 1-1, TVA to update application based on outcome of AP1000 design
certification amendment
– 1-2, staff to determine which FSAR commitments require a license
condition
– 1.4-1, TVA to identify how interface items from the AP1000 DCA are
addressed in the Bellefonte COL application
– 1.4-2, Regulatory Guide tables to be updated and confirmed correct
– 1.4-3, staff to complete review of applicant’s assessment of potential
hazards due to construction of one unit on operating units on site
– 1.4-4, TVA to provide a positive commitment for when management
programs to be in place to address hazards of construction on operating
units
– 1.5-1, TVA to provide a discussion of which parts of application support
issuance of 10 CFR 30 and 40 (byproduct and source material) licenses
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 1 - Introduction and
General Discussion
9
Bellefonte COL Technical Topics of Interest
• Financial qualifications review
– Evaluates financial resources to build operate and eventually
decommission a nuclear facility
• Effects of reinstatement of the Bellefonte 1 and 2
Construction Permits on Bellefonte 3 and 4 application
• COL holder items
• Operational program implementation
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 1 - Introduction and
General Discussion
10
Presentation to the ACRS
Subcommittee
Westinghouse AP1000 Design Certification Amendment Application Review
Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 COL Application Review
SER/OI Chapter 5
Reactor Coolant System and Connected Systems
July 23 – 24, 2009
Staff Review Team
•
•
Technical Staff
– David Terao, Chief, Component Integrity, Performance and Testing
Branch 1, Division of Engineering (CIB1/DE)
– Neil Ray, Acting Chief, CIB2/DE
– Yi-Hsiung (Gene) Hsii, Reactor Systems, Nuclear Performance and
Code Review Branch, Division of Safety Systems and Risk Assessment
(SRSB/DSRA)
Project Managers
– Perry Buckberg, AP1000 DCA
– Ravindra Joshi, AP1000 Bellefonte COL
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
2
Overview of DCA and COL
Open Items
SRP Section/Application Section
DCA
Bellefonte
5.1
Introduction
0
0
5.2
Integrity of Reactor Coolant Pressure
Boundary
2
0
5.3
Reactor Vessel
0
0
5.4
Reactor Coolant System Component and
Subsystem Design
2
0
4
0
Totals
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
3
Overview of AP1000 DCA Chapter 5 Reactor Coolant System and Connected Systems
5.1
DCD Section
Summary Description
5.2
RCPB Integrity
5.3
Reactor Vessel (RV)
5.4
Component and
Subsystem Design
July 23 - 24, 2009
Summary of Changes to DCA
- Minor RCS P&ID changes
- Clarified seismic limitations in 50.55a for piping
design
- Added additional ASME code cases to standard
design
- Revised design to incorporate zinc injection into RCS
- Added/revised material specifications for RCPB
- Surveillance capsule lead factors and azimuthal
locations
- Submitted a pressure-temperature limit report
(PTLR)
- Revised RV insulation (addressed in SER Section 19)
- Revised the reactor coolant pump (RCP)/flywheel
design
- Revised the RCP heat exchanger design (Rev. 17)
- Revised steam generator design and ISI
- Revised material for mainsteam line flow restrictor
- Revised pressurizer design (height, diameter)
- Revised RNS Long-term makeup to containment
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
4
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCA
Applicable Code Cases
•
Westinghouse revised DCD Table 5.2-3 to include additional
ASME Code cases used in the standard plant design (Section
III).
•
The staff requested that Westinghouse also include Code cases
used in lieu of ASME Code, Section XI inservice inspection and
ASME OM Code inservice testing requirements.
•
Westinghouse will provide supplemental information in its DCD
to address use of ASME Code cases for ISI and IST.
•
This open item is identified as OI-SRP5.2.1-EMB-01.
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
5
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCA
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary (RCPB) Materials
•
DCA Changes:
– 304, 304L, 316 and 316L in addition to the current Rev.15 materials
(304LN and 316LN)
– Reactor vessel (RV) material (maximum Cu limit of 0.06%)
– Delta ferrite upper limit of 20 FN for stainless steel welds
– Allowance of Zinc addition to the reactor coolant
•
RCPB materials comply with requirements of ASME Code, Section
III
•
No Open Items.
•
Revision 17 to AP1000 DCD includes option to use carbon steel –
staff currently reviewing.
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
6
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCA
Pressure and Temperature Limits
• Westinghouse addressed submittal of P-T limits by
providing a Pressure-Temperature Limits Report (PTLR)
– PTLR
• Follows guidelines of GL 96-03
• Contains bounding P-T limits and complete methodology
– COL Information Item 5.3-1 (STD COL 5.3-1)
• Plant-specific P-T limit curves will be addressed by the COL
Holder during procurement and fabrication of the reactor
vessel prior to fuel load
• NRC staff approved Westinghouse’s generic AP1000
PTLR in a letter dated 12/30/08 (ML083470258)
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
7
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCA
Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Integrity
•
DCA Changes:
– Heavy tungsten inserts with Type 403 Stainless steel inner hub and 18Ni maraging steel outer hub.
– Alloy 625 outer shell
– Revised flywheel analysis for the above material
•
Changes are acceptable:
– Analysis demonstrates flywheel does not generate missile.
– Materials are compatible with PWR reactor coolant chemistry.
•
One Open Item (OI-SRP 5.4.1-CIB1-01):
Include flywheel material used in flywheel analysis in DCD.
•
In addition, Westinghouse recently proposed a material change to
RCP flywheel outer hub (staff is reviewing).
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
8
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCA
RCP External Heat Exchanger Design
•
•
•
•
•
In DCD Rev 15, RCP used thermal barrier internal cooling coils and
wrap-around heat exchanger for motor cooling
DCD Rev. 17 changes motor cooling design to externally mounted,
conventional shell and tube HX and stator cooling jacket
External piping and tube side of external HX is part of pressure
boundary components that comply with requirements of ASME
Code, Section III
AP1000 RCP external heat exchanger design specifications
describe the external HX mechanical and thermal design bases and
requirements
OI-SRP5.4.1-SRSB-01 - pending submittal of the external HX
design specifications
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
9
Overview of Bellefonte COL Chapter 5 Reactor Coolant System and Connected Systems
5.1
FSAR Section
Summary Description
Summary of Departures/Supplements
none
Integrity of RCPB
STD COL 5.2-1 Use of later Code editions/addenda
STD COL 5.2-2 Plant-specific PSI/ISI program
STD SUP 5.2-1 Primary water chemistry guidelines
STD SUP 5.2-2 ISI of threaded fasteners
5.3
Reactor Vessel (RV)
STD COL 5.3-1 Plant-specific P-T limits curves
STD COL 5.3-2 Reactor vessel surveillance program
STD COL 5.3-4 Verify as-built RV beltline materials
for Pressurized Thermal Shock
STD SUP 5.3-1 Plant operating procedures for P-T limits
5.4
Component and
Subsystem Design
STD COL 5.4-1 Steam generator tube surveillance
program
5.2
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
10
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Plant-specific Inspection Program
• AP1000 COL Information Item 5.2-2
COL applicant will provide a plant-specific preservice inspection
(PSI) and inservice inspection (ISI) program and address NRC
Order EA-03-009 or later NRC requirements
• STD COL 5.2-2
– PSI/ISI “fully described” in BLN COLA and AP1000 DCD as
discussed in SECY-05-0197
– COL applicant will revise FSAR to meet 10 CFR
50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(D) on reactor vessel head inspections
– Milestones for PSI and ISI implementation: In accordance with
ASME Code, Section XI
– COL holder will submit to NRC a schedule to support operational
program readiness after fuel load (COLA Part 10 Proposed
License Condition 6)
• No open items
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
11
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Use of Plant-specific P-T Limit Curves
• AP1000 COL Information Item 5.3-1
COL holder will address use of plant-specific curves
• STD COL 5.3-1
– BLN committed to update P-T limits using PTLR
methodologies approved in AP1000 DCD using plantspecific material properties (COLA Part 10 –
Proposed License Condition 2)
– Milestones for Implementation: prior to fuel load
• No open items
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
12
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Reactor Vessel Surveillance Program (RVSP)
• AP1000 COL Information Item 5.3-2
COL applicant will address RVSP
• STD COL 5.3-2
– RVSP “fully described” in BLN COLA and AP1000
DCD as discussed in SECY-05-0197
– Milestones for RVSP implementation: Prior to initial
criticality (FSAR Part 10 Proposed License Condition
3.J.1)
– COL holder will submit to NRC a schedule to support
operational program readiness after fuel load (COLA
Part 10 Proposed License Condition 6)
• No open items
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
13
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
RV Beltline Material Properties Verification
• AP1000 COL Information Item 5.3-4
COL holder will provide plant-specific RV beltline
material properties including pressurized-thermalshock (PTS) evaluation and submit report to NRC
prior to fuel load
• STD COL 5.3-4
– Provide plant-specific beltline material properties prior
to fuel load (COLA Part 10 – Proposed License
Condition 2)
– Submit PTS evaluation at least 18 months prior to fuel
load for staff review (COLA Part 10 – Proposed
License Condition 6)
• No open items
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
14
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
SG Tube Surveillance Program
• AP1000 COL Information Item 5.4-1
COL applicant will address a steam generator tube
integrity and surveillance program
• STD COL 5.4-1
– Applicant described SG tube integrity and surveillance
program for BLN in FSAR
– Acceptable because the program is based on the
standard technical specifications, NEI 97-06 and EPRI
SG guidelines
• No open items
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 5 - RCS and Connected
Systems
15
Presentation to the ACRS
Subcommittee
Westinghouse AP1000 Design Certification Amendment Application Review
Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 COL Application Review
SER/OI Chapter 10
Steam and Power Conversion Systems
July 23 – 24, 2009
Staff Review Team
•
•
Technical Staff
– David Terao, Chief, Component Integrity, Performance and Testing
Branch 1, Division of Engineering (CIB1/DE)
– Gregory Makar, CIB1/DE
– Devender Reddy, Balance of Plant Branch 1, Division of Safety
Systems and Risk Assessment (SBPA/DSRA)
Project Managers
– Perry Buckberg, AP1000 DCA
– Sujata Goetz, AP1000 Bellefonte COL
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 10 - SPC Systems
2
Overview of DCA and COL
Open Items
SRP Section/Application Section
DCA
Bellefonte
10.1
Introduction
0
1
10.2
Turbine Generator
5
0
10.3
Main Steam Supply System
0
0
10.4
Other Features
0
0
5
1
Totals
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 10 - SPC Systems
3
Overview of AP1000 DCA Chapter 10 Steam and Power Conversion Systems
DCD Section
10.1
Summary of Changes to DCA
Summary Description
- Revised design description of SPC system
10.2
Turbine-Generator
- Revised turbine overspeed protection (Rev. 17)
- Changed turbine rotor design from W/MHI to
Toshiba
10.3
Main Steam Supply
System
- Changes to SPC system relief valve setpoints
10.4
Other Features of
SPC System
- Added 7th stage feedwater heaters to condensate and
feedwater system
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 10 - SPC Systems
4
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCA
Turbine Overspeed - D-EHC System
• Changes:
– Replaced mechanical overspeed protection device
with a diverse electrical overspeed device
•
Staff Evaluation:
– Tier 1 ITAAC needed to ensure diversity between the
two electrical overspeed protection devices
•
Open Item:
– Pending review of RAI response
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 10 - SPC Systems
5
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCA
Turbine Rotor Integrity
• DCA Changes:
–
–
–
–
•
Staff Evaluation:
–
–
•
Toshiba turbine replaces the model in the certified design (Westinghouse/Mitsubishi)
Valve test interval increased from 3 months to 6 months
New missile-generation probability and valve-test-frequency reports submitted to support the
turbine-design change
Submittal of maintenance/inspection program changed from “3 years after license approval”
to “prior to fuel load”
Based on operating experience, the missile-probability requirements of GDC 4 can be met
with the new design and valve-test frequency
The maintenance/inspection program will be verified using as-built information
Two Open Items:
–
–
Open Item OI-SRP10.2.3-CIB1-01
Provide a bounding turbine-missile analysis for low-trajectory missiles for dual units
Open Item OI-SRP 10.2.3-CIB1-02
Correct an error in the turbine-missile-probability value in the valve-test-frequency report
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 10 - SPC Systems
6
Overview of Bellefonte COL Chapter 10 Steam and Power Conversion Systems
10.1
FSAR SECTION
Summary Description
SUMMARY OF DEPARTURES/SUPPLEMENTS
STD COL 10.1-1 Flow Acceleration Corrosion
Program
10.2
Turbine-Generator
STD COL 10.2-1 Turbine Maintenance/Inspection
Program
STD SUP 10.2-1 Turbine Missile For Dual Units
STD SUP 10.2-3 ISI For Turbine Assembly
STD SUP 10.2-4 Pre-op/Start-up Testing
STD SUP 10.2-5 Operation/Maintenance Procedures
10.3
Main Steam Supply
System
STD SUP 10.3-1 Procedures To Control Steam-hammer
STD SUP 10.3-2 Main Steam Chemistry
STD SUP 10.3-3 Procedures To Control IGSCC
10.4
Other Features of SPC
System
BLN COL 10.4-1 Circulating Water System
BLN COL 10.4-2 Secondary-side Chemical Additives
BLN COL 10.4-3 Potable Water (Ref. Ser 9.2.5)
STD SUP 10.4-1 Procedures To Control CFS Waterhammer
STD SUP 10.4-2 Secondary-side Chemistry
BLN CDI Circulating Water System (CWS)
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 10 - SPC Systems
7
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Flow-Accelerated Corrosion Program
• AP1000 Information Item 10.1-1
COL applicant will address an erosion-corrosion monitoring program
(flow-accelerated corrosion)
• STD COL 10.1.1
- Applicant described the FAC monitoring and management program in
the FSAR
- Acceptable because applicant is following EPRI NSAC-202L and using
CHECWORKS
• Open Item 10.1-1: Include the program implementation schedule in the
COLA
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 10 - SPC Systems
8
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Turbine Maintenance/Inspection Program
• AP1000 COL Information Item 10.2-1
– COL applicant will submit and implement a turbine
maintenance and inspection program
• STD COL 10.2-1
– Applicant will submit a program that is consistent with
the DCD and based on the as-built rotor
– Acceptable because the applicant will provide the
program prior to fuel load
– No open items
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 10 - SPC Systems
9
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Circulating Water System
• BLN CDI:
The applicant provided plant specific design, operation,
instrumentation and controls, flood protection, and chemical injection
for the BLN CWS.
•
Staff Evaluation:
The staff evaluated the BLN CWS site-specific information in
accordance with the Commission regulations and SRP guidance, in
particular protection against flooding.
•
The staff finds the BLN CWS site-specific design acceptable - no
open items.
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 10 - SPC Systems
10
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Circulating Water System (Cont.)
• CWS water chemistry is maintained by the Chemical Storage and
Transfer System.
•
Plant chemistry specifies the required chemicals used within the
system.
•
Chemical injection maintains a non-corrosive, non-scale-forming
condition and limits the biological film formation that reduces the
heat transfer rate in the condenser and cooling towers.
•
Chemicals selected are compatible with selected materials or
components used in the CWS.
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 10 - SPC Systems
11
Presentation to the ACRS Subcommittee
Westinghouse AP1000 Design Certification Amendment Application Review
Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 COL Application Review
SER/OI Chapter 11
Radioactive Waste Management
July 23 - 24, 2009
Staff Review Team
Technical Review Team
– Steven Schaffer, Health Physicists (Lead)
– Joshua Wilson, Radwaste System Engineer
– Douglas Dodson, Radwaste System Engineer
Project Managers
– Serita Sanders, AP1000 DCD
– Ravindra Joshi, AP1000 Bellefonte COL
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 11 - Radioactive Waste
Management
2
Overview of DCA and COL
Open Items
SRP Section/Application Section
DCA
Bellefonte
11.1
Source Term
0
IBR
11.2
Liquid Waste Management System
0
0
11.3
Gaseous Waste Management System
1
0
11.4
Solid Waste Management System
0
1
11.5
Radiation Monitoring
0
0
1
1
Totals
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 11 - Radioactive Waste
Management
3
Overview of AP1000 DCD Chapter 11 Radioactive
Waste Management
11.1
11.2
DCD SECTION
Source Term
Liquid Radioactive
Waste Management
•
•
•
•
11.3
Gaseous Radioactive
Waste Management
•
•
•
•
•
11.4
11.5
Solid Radioactive
Waste Management
Radiation Monitoring
•
•
•
•
July 23 - 24, 2009
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO DCD
No technical changes
3 additional waste monitoring tanks in the
radwaste building
Extension of the radwaste building
Selection of ion exchange and adsorption media by
plant operator
Preoperational confirmation of resins
Reduced capacity of the charcoal delay beds by
50%
Monitoring temperature instead of moisture in gas of
the moisture separator
Added Automatic isolation of guard bed
Closed discharge isolation valve to maintain positive
pressure
Replaced progressive cavity pump with a material
handling positive displacement pump
Switched from offline to inline monitors for service
water blowdown and liquid radwaste discharge
Added monitors and improved performance of some
monitors
Design standard for gaseous sampling
Chapter 11 - Radioactive Waste
Management
4
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCD
Liquid Waste Management System
Additional monitoring tanks design
complies with RG 1.143
Added a preoperational confirmation of
resin type and amount in demineralizer
vessels
No open items
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 11 - Radioactive Waste
Management
5
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCD
Gaseous Waste Management System
GALE code analysis proves reduction in
delay bed capacity has small effect on
gaseous releases
Analysis of system leak or failure missing
from DCD (BTP 11-5)
One open item
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 11 - Radioactive Waste
Management
6
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCD
Radiation Monitoring System
ANSI N13.1-1969 vs. ANSI/HPS N13.11999
No open items
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 11 - Radioactive Waste
Management
7
Overview of Bellefonte FSAR Chapter 11
Radioactive Waste Management
11.1
FSAR SECTION
Source Term
11.2
Liquid Radioactive Waste
Management
11.3
Gaseous Radioactive
Waste Management
11.4
Solid Radioactive Waste
Management
11.5
Radiation Monitoring
July 23 - 24, 2009
SUMMARY OF DEPARTURES/SUPPLEMENTS
• None - Incorporated by reference with no
departures or supplements
• STD COL 11.2-1, Processing by mobile equipment
• BLN COL 11.2-2, Cost-benefit analysis of
population doses
• BLN COL 11.5-3, Individual dose limits in Part
50 Appendix I
• STD SUP 11.2-1, Quality assurance
• BLN COL 11.3-1, Cost-benefit analysis of
population doses
• BLN COL 11.5-3, 10 CFR 50, Appendix I
• STD SUP 11.3-1, Supplemental information on
quality assurance
• STD COL 11.4-1, Solid waste management
system process control program
• STD SUP 11.4-1, Quality assurance
• STD COL 11.5-1, ODCM
• STD COL 11.5-2, Effluent monitoring and sampling
program
• BLN COL 11.5-2, Use of existing programs
Chapter 11 - Radioactive Waste
Management
8
COL Chapter 11 - Doses from Routine
Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Releases
Staff performed the following review and analysis:
Confirmed liquid and gaseous effluent releases
Confirmed appropriate exposure pathways
Confirmed the use of appropriate liquid dilution, and
atmospheric dispersion/deposition
Confirmed the use of appropriate land usage
parameters
Verified Applicant’s calculated doses using NRC
recommended models
Performed an independent dose assessment for liquid
and gaseous pathways showing the Applicant’s doses
to be bounding
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 11 - Radioactive Waste
Management
9
Doses from Routine Liquid and Gaseous Effluent
Releases and Comparison to Regulatory Criteria
BLN COL
Regulation
Type of
Effluent
Applicant SAR
(mrem/yr per
unit)
NRC SER
(mrem/yr per
unit)
Pathway
Organ
all
total body
3
0.206
0.0834
all
any
organ
10
0.265
0.136
all
total body
5
0.158
0.0617
all
skin
15
0.957
0.312
all
any
organ
15
9.11
4.93
γ air dose
n/a
10 mrad
0.265 mrad
0.263 mrad
β air dose
n/a
20 mrad
1.39 mrad
1.39 mrad
all
all
total body
25 per site
1.25 (2 units)
0.717 (2 units)
all
all
thyroid
75 per site
18.6 (2 units)
10.1 (2 units)
all
all
other
organs
25 per site
4.69 (2 units)
2.88 (2 units)
10 CFR 50, Liquid
Appendix I
Gaseous
Iodine &
Particulate
Gaseous
40 CFR
190
Regulatory
Limit
(mrem/yr per
unit)
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 11 - Radioactive Waste
Management
10
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Cost-Benefit of Radwaste System Augments
Liquid System Augment
~$33,000 to $40,000 per person-rem
Gaseous System Augment
~$1200 to $4000 per person-rem
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 11 - Radioactive Waste
Management
11
NEI Templates for FSAR Chapters 11.4
and 11.5
Template for Program Descriptions
NEI 07-10, Generic FSAR Template for the
Process Control Program
NEI 07-09, Generic FSAR Template for the
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)
Program Description
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 11 - Radioactive Waste
Management
12
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Solid Waste Management System
Use of approved NEI template to fulfill
operational program description for the
Process Control Program
Onsite or offsite storage of low-level
radioactive waste
One open item
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 11 - Radioactive Waste
Management
13
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Radiation Monitoring for Process and Effluent
Systems
Use of approved NEI template to fulfill
operational program description for the
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
No open items
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 11 - Radioactive Waste
Management
14
Presentation to the ACRS Subcommittee
Westinghouse AP1000 Design Certification Amendment Application Review
Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 COL Application Review
SER/OI Chapter 12
Radiation Protection
July 23 - 24, 2009
Staff Review Team
Technical Review Team
– Edward Roach, Sr. Health Physicist
– Steven Schaffer, Health Physicist
Project Managers
– Serita Sanders, AP1000 DCD
– Ravindra Joshi, AP1000 Bellefonte COL
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
2
Overview of DCA and COL
Open Items
SRP Section/Application Section
DCA
Bellefonte
12.1
Ensuring ALARA
1
1
12.2
Radiation Sources
1
0
12.3
Radiation Protection Design Features
3
1
12.4
Dose Assessment
0
1
12.5
Health Physics Facilities Design
0
0
5
3
Totals
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
3
Overview of AP1000 DCD Chapter 12
Radiation Protection
12.1
12.2
12.3
DCD SECTION
Ensuring ALARA
•
Radiation Sources
•
•
Radiation Protection
Design Features
•
•
•
•
•
12.4
12.5
Dose Assessment
Health Physics
Facilities Design
July 23 - 24, 2009
•
•
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO DCD
Facility changes and general design layout for 10
CFR20.1406 considerations.
No other technical changes
Added three waste monitoring tanks in the
radwaste building
Increase Spent Fuel Pool overall capacity
Changed Fuel Handling Area Shielding Design
Described facility and layout designs for meeting
10CFR20.1406
Added Integrated Head Package (IHP) and quicklock connections
Changed the overall assumed concrete shielding
density
Impact of Integrated Head package not described
Spent fuel pool water level, spent fuel handling
and dose
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
4
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCA
Ensuring that Occupational Radiation
Exposures Are As Low As is Reasonably
Achievable (ALARA)
Incorporated features to demonstrate
AP1000 design complies with 10 CFR
20.1406
One open item
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
5
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCA
Radiation Sources
Three waste monitor tanks addedRadwaste Building
Effect of increase in spent fuel pool
capacity (619 to 884 spaces)
One open item
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
6
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCA
Radiation Protection Design Features
Change in water level when moving spent
fuel
Design features to meet 10CFR20.1406
IHP radiological impact (zones/dose)
Change in concrete shielding density
Three open items
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
7
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCA
Dose Assessment
Impact of Integrated Head Package not
reflected in DCD Section12.4
No open items
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
8
Technical Topics of Interest, AP1000 DCA
Health Physics Facilities Design
Spent Fuel handling and dose
SFP Handling tool interlocks
No open items
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
9
Overview of Bellefonte FSAR Chapter 12
Radiation Protection
12.1
FSAR SECTION
Assuring ALARA
SUMMARY OF DEPARTURES/SUPPLEMENTS
• STD COL 12.1-1- ALARA and operational
policies
• STD SUP 12.1-1- use of video records
12.2
Radiation Sources
• STD COL 12.2-1, Miscellaneous Sources
12.3
Radiation Protection
Design Features
• STD COL 12.3-1, administrative controls for access
• STD COL 12.3-2, criteria and methods for
obtaining representative measurements
• STD COL 12.3-3, groundwater monitoring
• STD COL 12.3-4, program to ensure
documentation of operational events
12.4
Dose Assessment
• BLN SUP 12.4-1, dose to construction workers
12.5
Health Physics Facility
Design
• STD COL 12.5-1, radiation protection program
description
• BLN DEP 18.8-1, ALARA briefing room
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
10
NEI Templates
• NEI 07-03A Generic FSAR Guidance for
Radiation Protection Program Description,
• NEI 07-08 Generic FSAR Template Guidance
for Ensuring that Occupational Radiation
Exposures Are As Low As Is Reasonably
Achievable
• NEI 08-08 Generic FSAR Template Guidance
for Life Cycle Minimization of Contamination
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
11
COL Chapter 12 – Radiation Protection
Staff performed the following review and analysis:
Confirmed commitment to ALARA policy
Confirmed appropriate exposure pathways for
construction workers
Confirmed the use of appropriate milestones to
implement ALARA/RP program as necessary
Confirmed the RP program includes appropriate
measurement and work control guidance
Verified Applicant’s calculated doses for construction
workers using NRC recommended models
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
12
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Assuring that Occupational Radiation
Exposures are ALARA
Use of generic NEI templates to fulfill
operational program and policy
description for the ALARA Program
Implementation of ALARA procedures
One open item
One confirmatory item
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
13
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Radiation Protection Design Features
Use of generic NEI template to fulfill
operational program description for the
Minimization of Contamination Program
Criteria for radiological monitoring
Onsite monitoring of groundwater
Records of leaks and spills
Radioactive liquid waste discharge pipe
One open item and one confirmatory item
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
14
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Dose Assessment
Use of program to minimize exposure to
construction workers during Unit 4
construction.
• Collective dose 1.13 person-rem
One open item
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
15
Technical Topics of Interest, BLN COL
Health Physics Facilities Design
Use of approved NEI template to fulfill
operational program description for the
Radiation Protection Program
Clarification of implementation milestones
One confirmatory item
July 23 - 24, 2009
Chapter 12 - Radiation Protection
16