ML11214A177
| ML11214A177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Watts Bar  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/2011 |
| From: | Shukla G Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Shukla G | |
| References | |
| NRC-1000 | |
| Download: ML11214A177 (331) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
ACRS Plant Operations and Fire Protection Subcommittee Docket Number: n/a Location: Rockville, Maryland Date: July 12, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-1000 Pages 1-159 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1
2 3
4 DISCLAIMER 5
6 7 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 8 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 9
10 11 The contents of this transcript of the 12 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 14 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions 15 recorded at the meeting.
16 17 This transcript has not been reviewed, 18 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 19 inaccuracies.
20 21 22 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5 (ACRS) 6 + + + + +
7 PLANT OPERATIONS AND FIRE PROTECTION SUBCOMMITTEE 8 MEETING 9 + + + + +
10 TUESDAY 11 JULY 12, 2011 12 + + + + +
13 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 14 + + + + +
15 The Subcommittee met at the Nuclear 16 Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, Room 17 T2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, at 8:30 a.m., Harold B.
18 Ray, Chairman, presiding.
19 20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
21 HAROLD B. RAY, Chairman 22 JOHN W. STETKAR, Member-at-Large 23 SAID ABDEL-KHALIK, Member 24 J. SAM ARMIJO, Member 25 DENNIS C. BLEY, Member NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 1 CHARLES H. BROWN, Member 2 MICHAEL T. RYAN, Member 3 JOHN D. SIEBER, Member 4
5 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
6 GIRIJA SHUKLA, Designated Federal Official 7 NORBERT CARTE, NRR/DE/EICB 8 PATRICK MILANO, NRR/DORL/LWBSP 9 TOMY NAZARIO, R-II/DCP/CPB3/WB 10 JUSTIN POOLE, NRR/DORL 11 LAKSHMINARASIMH RAGHAVAN, NRR/DORL/LWBSP 12 DAVID RAHN, NRR/DE/EICB 13 14 ALSO PRESENT:
15 GORDON ARENT, TVA 16 STEVE CLARK, TVA 17 WILLIAM CROUCH, TVA 18 STEVEN HILMES, TVA 19 FRANK KOONTZ, TVA 20 WARREN ODESS-GILLETT, Westinghouse 21 PETER OLSON, TVA 22 DAVID STINSON, TVA 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIRMAN RAY: Meeting will now come to 3 order. This is a meeting of the Advisory Committee on 4 Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee on Plant Operations 5 and Fire Protection.
6 I am Harold Ray, Chairman of the 7 Subcommittee. Subcommittee Members in attendance are 8 Said Abdel-Khalik, Sam Armijo, John Stetkar, Charles 9 Brown, Jack Sieber, Dennis Bley, and I believe Michael 10 Ryan will join us, but he is not present with us at 11 the moment.
12 Mr. Girija Shukla of the ACRS Staff is the 13 Designated Federal Official for this meeting. The 14 Subcommittee will hear presentations from NRC Staff 15 and the Applicant, Tennessee Valley Authority, 16 regarding the status of construction, inspection, and 17 licensing activities related to Watts Bar Nuclear 18 Plant Unit 2.
19 We have received no written comments or 20 requests for time to make oral statements from members 21 of the public regarding today's meeting. The meeting 22 will be open to public attendance.
23 Girija, do we have a line open, a phone 24 line? No, no phone line.
25 The Subcommittee will gather 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
4 1 analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate 2 proposed positions and actions as appropriate for 3 deliberation by the full committee. And I will 4 comment on that in a minute.
5 The rules for participation in today's 6 meeting have been announced as part of the notice of 7 the meeting published in the Federal Register on June 8 29th, 2011. A transcript of the meeting is being 9 kept, and will be made available as stated in the 10 Federal Register notice.
11 We request that participants in this 12 meeting use the microphones that are located 13 throughout the meeting room when addressing the 14 Subcommittee. The participants should first identify 15 themselves, and speak with sufficient clarity and 16 volume so that they may be readily heard. Please 17 silence your cell phones.
18 We will now proceed with the meeting.
19 Before I turn to the staff to make a couple of 20 comments, let me make a couple of introductory 21 comments of my own.
22 I am advised that expected future 23 Subcommittee actions, and full committee, as it 24 currently is foreseen, are now as follows: we 25 anticipate a subcommittee meeting on October 5th, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 another one on December 14th, and then not a 2 presentation to the full committee until May 10th, 3 some 10 months from now.
4 Whether there might be more subcommittee 5 meetings to be held, or further changes in that 6 outlook, of course, only time will tell. But the 7 agenda for today's meeting, Pat, has been the subject 8 of some comment, in that it's -- where's Pat?
9 MR. MILANO: I'm right here.
10 CHAIRMAN RAY: Oh, there you are. I was 11 looking over there for you. I always turn this way to 12 the staff, and instead of being over there, you're 13 over there.
14 Anyway, it needs more detail. It's too 15 terse and hard to really tell what the content is.
16 And as a consequence of that, perhaps we will stumble 17 around a little bit here. But the one piece of 18 guidance I want to give you in advance, just based on 19 the discussions among members thus far, is we're going 20 to want to devote as much time as is of value to 21 discourse in the I&C area and the systems that are 22 planned for this plant.
23 There -- and we're not able, at least at 24 this point, to feel like we've gotten enough 25 information from the pre-reading that we've done. So NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 I would ask that both staff and the applicant take 2 that into account here at the last minute as we're 3 proceeding with the meeting, recognizing that we may 4 be in a mode of asking questions that reflect the fact 5 that we are craving more information than is currently 6 available to us.
7 And with those two opening comments, then 8 I will turn it over to you, Pat.
9 MR. MILANO: Thanks. Good morning, Mr.
10 Ray, and the other members of the subcommittee.
11 Again, my name is Patrick Milano. I'm a Senior 12 Project Manager with the Watts Bar Special Projects 13 Branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
14 With me today is Mr. Justin Poole, who is also with 15 our branch.
16 With regard to the other presenters, 17 primary staff presenters today, we have Mr. Tomy 18 Nazario, the Senior Resident Inspector from Watts Bar 19 Unit 2, that will be doing the inspection portion of 20 the presentation. And from our Instrumentation and 21 Controls Branch, you'll be hearing from David Rahn and 22 Norbert Carte later this morning.
23 We are before the subcommittee today to 24 continue with our presentations on the Staff's review 25 of the operating license application for Watts Bar NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 Unit 2.
2 Although we will be giving you a brief 3 overview of the overall status of licensing 4 inspection, we will be focusing on what has transpired 5 since our last presentation that we made to this 6 subcommittee in February of this year.
7 Shortly, you will be hearing from TVA, 8 which will be providing you with its current status of 9 facility construction, followed by a discussion of the 10 primary areas of the FSAR that were addressed in the 11 Staff's latest supplement, supplement number three to 12 the Safety Evaluation Report.
13 In that regard, the two primary areas are 14 as noted. We'll be talking about chapter four, the 15 reactor -- basically the reactor fuels area. And 16 chapter seven, the instrumentation and controls.
17 Depending on the number of questions and 18 the -- we'll be -- if there's time, I've got in my 19 presentation -- we had what I would call our closure 20 of some open issues and stuff that came out of 21 supplement 22, and that the staff has reviewed and now 22 considers them closed.
23 If we have time, we'll go through some 24 briefly, what they were and what the staff did to make 25 its assessment that those areas were okay. If not, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 we'll cover it in the next subcommittee meeting.
2 CHAIRMAN RAY: Is -- I don't want to be 3 disruptive to either you or the applicant, but would 4 we be prepared to invert these two topics, and do I&C 5 first and then the reactor?
6 MR. MILANO: Yes, we can.
7 CHAIRMAN RAY: Can we do that?
8 MR. MILANO: Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN RAY: I think that will give us 10 a better sense of how much time we want to spend in 11 the area that I indicated that there's interest in 12 pursuing further, and then we can know how much time 13 we can spend on the reactor, which I think all of us 14 pretty well recognize is less -- involves less change 15 from Unit 1 --
16 MR. MILANO: That's correct.
17 CHAIRMAN RAY: -- than the I&C area, where 18 we want to make sure we understand what's going on.
19 So if we could do that, that would be appreciated.
20 MR. MILANO: Okay. After TVA's 21 presentation, the staff will provide a short status of 22 the licensing and construction inspection programs as 23 time permits. And then we will discuss the staff's 24 conclusions, and we'll look -- and we will provide you 25 a look ahead of what's remaining to be completed under NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 the review of the FSAR.
2 Now I would like to turn over the floor to 3 TVA, and in particular Mr. David Stinson, TVA's Vice 4 President for Watts Bar Unit 2, and Mr. William 5 Crouch, the licensing manager for Unit 2. Thank you.
6 MR. STINSON: Good morning. I'm David 7 Stinson, the Unit 2 Vice President. It sounds like we 8 want to change our format a little bit and maybe start 9 out to the completion status, you want us to start out 10 with the I&C.
11 CHAIRMAN RAY: We do, just because I think 12 that will give us a better sense of how much time 13 that's going to take, and then the other things I can 14 more easily accommodate that.
15 MR. STINSON: No problem. I don't mind 16 closing at all.
17 MR. HILMES: Okay. My name is Steven 18 Hilmes. I am the electrical and I&C manager for the 19 Watts Bar Unit 2 project. If you go to page 21 in 20 your presentation, it's going to walk through a little 21 bit on the changes that we've implemented on Unit 2 22 for the I&C project, reasons for modifications such as 23 effective design and the status of testing.
24 Going to page 22, early on in the I&C 25 design development, a philosophy was established 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
10 1 try to maintain as close similarity between Unit 1 and 2 2 in the safety actuation area. For the safety 3 actuation systems, the digital and analog platforms 4 were maintained the same for both units, if at all 5 possible. There is one small change, but it was an 6 analog to analog conversion.
7 Modifications to hardware were only made 8 for obsolescence of components, generally on the board 9 level type changes, IC chips, things along those 10 lines.
11 Another change that was done, however, was 12 Watts Bar was originally a 10 to 50 milliamp plant.
13 As we're all aware of, 10 to 50 milliamp platforms are 14 hard to come by anymore, so we took this opportunity, 15 since we had to replace transmitters, to convert to 4 16 to 20.
17 In the --
18 MEMBER BROWN: This is largely -- excuse 19 me. This is largely for your sensor conversions?
20 MR. HILMES: Yes. Any inputs or outputs 21 have been changed to a 4 to 20.
22 MEMBER BROWN: That's formats for analog 23 transmission.
24 MR. HILMES: That's correct. In general, 25 it was just a matter of an input resistor or an output NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 resistor.
2 MEMBER BROWN: I understand that.
3 MR. HILMES: For the digital portions of 4 the safety-related actuation systems, the firmware is 5 identical between Unit 1 and Unit 2.
6 MEMBER BROWN: When you say firmware, what 7 do you mean by firmware? I know what I mean by 8 firmware, but --
9 MR. HILMES: Yes. Our Eagle 21 is 10 firmware-based, meaning the software is programmed on 11 a chip and inserted on e-PROMs. So for Eagle 21, it's 12 the identical software for both units.
13 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. Let me walk through 14 that again. You made a comment somewhere -- I don't 15 remember exactly where it was, that this is a discrete 16 logic component system.
17 MR. HILMES: Eagle 21 is microprocessor-18 based.
19 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. I wanted to confirm 20 that, because I'm not familiar with that.
21 MR. HILMES: The SSPS, which is the actual 22 2 out of 4 logic, is discrete logic.
23 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. But Eagle 21 feeds 24 the SSPS for the --
25 MR. HILMES: That's correct.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 MEMBER BROWN: -- final trip and actuation 2 functions.
3 MR. HILMES: It's equivalent to the 4 bistables that you normally have in a plant.
5 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. Now, I'm not quite 6 finished yet. On the firmware aspect of it -- and if 7 I get my question wrong, please fix me. It is 8 microprocessor-based.
9 MR. HILMES: That's correct.
10 MEMBER BROWN: And so what you refer to as 11 firmware is fundamentally your programming, your 12 application code, is loaded into your e-squared PROMs 13 or e-PROMs, whatever. I presume it's e-squared PROMs, 14 is that correct?
15 MR. HILMES: E-PROMs, actually.
16 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. They're not 17 electrically erasable, they're UV PROMs or some other 18 --
19 MR. HILMES: They're UV PROMs.
20 MEMBER BROWN: UV PROMs, okay. Those are 21 -- they're not changeable. So what you mean by 22 firmware for your code is, that chip becomes your 23 firmware. Is that what you're saying?
24 MR. HILMES: That's correct.
25 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. So if you want 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
13 1 change the program, you burn a new PROM -- I mean, you 2 write the program, the application. You make the 3 changes. You burn it in, UV-wise, and then you take 4 that chip and you take out the old and put in the new 5 one, and you maintain, I guess, configuration control 6 by the nature of the control of that chip, and the 7 version of it, or what have you.
8 MR. HILMES: Yes. Essentially, the chip 9 is an individual part number --
10 MEMBER BROWN: With a part number, right?
11 MR. HILMES: Yes.
12 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. All right.
13 MR. HILMES: For the safety-related 14 monitoring systems, primarily the PAMS systems, we 15 replaced a system if it was obsolete or if Unit 1 was 16 going to replace the system near-term. Again, that's 17 primarily talking about PAMS here.
18 For the non safety-related process 19 control, we did replace the system if it was obsolete.
20 We've gone to digital process control. And the 21 primary reason for making that decision was based on 22 the increased reliability and ability for redundant 23 sensor processing and so forth that the digital 24 systems give you.
25 So what I want to do is go to page 23.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 I'm going to walk through the --
2 MEMBER BROWN: Let me jump just a minute 3 so I can just calibrate myself before you get there.
4 When you talk about the non safety-related process 5 controls, there were references to a process computer 6 system in at least the SERs and in the FSAR. Is that 7 the part you're talking about?
8 MR. HILMES: No, I'm talking about the DCS 9 itself, the what would originally be steam generator 10 level control.
11 MEMBER BROWN: But digital control system?
12 What's DCS?
13 MR. HILMES: It's I/A, it's a distributed 14 control system.
15 MEMBER BROWN: Distributed control system.
16 MR. HILMES: So whereas you used have 17 steam generator level control, pressurizer control, 18 were controlled by old analog modules, it is now a 19 digital control system. Non safety-related only.
20 MEMBER BROWN: So one system can -- okay.
21 MR. HILMES: Not -- let me -- if I can 22 continue a little bit --
23 MEMBER BROWN: All right. I'll wait for 24 a few minutes before I --
25 MR. HILMES: -- it'll become more obvious NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 for you.
2 MEMBER BROWN: Let me tell you, my 3 difficulty was, in trying to go back to the FSAR, 4 getting at like 103, the latest one that at least I 5 had, there was really -- there were no diagrams, no 6 figures, no nothing that described -- gave you a 7 picture.
8 It was just words that talked about a 9 distributed control system, without any ability for an 10 old brain like mine to have a graphical input, 11 something I could store, as opposed to trying to save 12 4,622 words in terms of -- so I had a difficult time 13 picturing the layout, and what you meant by your 14 distributed control system.
15 MR. HILMES: Okay.
16 MEMBER BROWN: Because you used to have 17 one by one for everything, and now it's all lumped 18 into one big piece for these, or multiple pieces -- is 19 it multiple pieces?
20 MR. HILMES: Multiple pieces.
21 MEMBER BROWN: Well it's not -- how do we 22 get a grasp on that? And that is a change.
23 MR. HILMES: Yes, it is.
24 MEMBER BROWN: And I think we would like 25 to have a feel for what that looks like --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 MR. HILMES: Okay.
2 MEMBER BROWN: -- from a figure and block 3 diagram standpoint, as opposed to just words.
4 MR. HILMES: I have a figure in here that 5 I think will help you with that.
6 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. I think I know which 7 figure you're talking about, and it didn't help a 8 whole lot.
9 MR. HILMES: Okay.
10 MEMBER BROWN: I hate to -- just giving 11 you a heads-up before we get there.
12 MR. HILMES: Okay. All right. So working 13 down through the hierarchy of systems, emergency 14 safety actuation system, as previously stated, we use 15 Eagle 21 for the bistables. It's the same system on 16 both units, same platform. It is microprocessor-17 based.
18 Primary changes are on the board level for 19 components that are obsolete, and the conversion of 4 20 to 20 that we did. Firmware is identical on both 21 units. For the actuation logic, again, both units use 22 Westinghouse SSPS system. It's a discrete logic 23 system.
24 We actually went to the point -- on this 25 system, Westinghouse went in and had the high NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 threshold logic gates manufactured in order to 2 maintain consistency between the units.
3 MEMBER BROWN: When you say -- I'm sorry.
4 MR. HILMES: Yes?
5 MEMBER BROWN: I was going to ask one.
6 Just, high threshold, you mean --
7 MR. HILMES: Motorola high threshold, I 8 think it was 15 volt operating voltage.
9 MEMBER BROWN: Fifteen volt? Okay. As 10 opposed to three and four volts that you --
11 MR. HILMES: Yes.
12 MEMBER BROWN: I'm sorry, John.
13 MEMBER STETKAR: Before you get to the 14 next page, I'm going to ask you a generic question.
15 Because the staff raised it in the SER, and I was 16 curious. It said that the Unit 2 circuit boards are 17 not coated.
18 MR. MILANO: Yes.
19 MEMBER STETKAR: Are the Unit 1 circuit 20 boards coated?
21 MR. MILANO: The original boards on Unit 22 1 have conformal coating, but as they are being 23 replaced for -- we periodically replace the LPCs, the 24 circuit boards. They will no longer have conformal 25 coating either.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 MEMBER STETKAR: What experience does 2 Westinghouse -- I understand that Westinghouse 3 justifies this because they have some kind of 4 proprietary solder mass process for their solder 5 connections.
6 MR. MILANO: Yes, and they've done some 7 testing to show that the humidity does not have an 8 impact to --
9 MEMBER STETKAR: I did a little research, 10 and humidity doesn't have any effect at all on the 11 formation of tin whiskers, which is one of the real 12 benefits of having a conformal coating on your boards.
13 Humidity is not -- at least the research I looked at, 14 humidity is not a parameter that seems to affect the 15 growth of tin whiskers.
16 MR. MILANO: You're right.
17 MEMBER STETKAR: So my question -- I 18 understand protecting the boards from a humidity 19 perspective, but what experience does Westinghouse 20 have with their soldering process in an uncoated board 21 environment for the growth of tin whiskers? And this 22 requires some amount of time.
23 MR. MILANO: Yes.
24 MEMBER STETKAR: This is not something you 25 can do in a ten minute test.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 MR. MILANO: Westinghouse has had some 2 problems with SSPS boards with growth of tin whiskers 3 on certain vintages of boards. As of right now, as 4 far as I'm aware of, there has been no issues with any 5 of the Eagle processor boards as far as tin whisker 6 generation.
7 And you know, that's --
8 MEMBER STETKAR: Because everything I've 9 read says conformal coatings really help you --
10 MR. MILANO: It doesn't --
11 MEMBER STETKAR: -- both from tin whiskers 12 growing out, and if they do protrude, from coming back 13 in, you know, and contacting --
14 MR. MILANO: It doesn't necessarily keep 15 you from getting tin whiskers, but yes, it is helpful.
16 MEMBER STETKAR: If you have them and they 17 don't do anything to you, you don't care.
18 MR. MILANO: Again, keep in mind, though, 19 that Eagle 21 boards, they have a periodic replacement 20 requirement. So essentially, they are --
21 MEMBER BROWN: Say that again.
22 MR. MILANO: They have a periodic 23 replacement requirement.
24 MEMBER BROWN: Of the board, the circuit 25 boards?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 MR. MILANO: Yes. Specifically, the LCP 2 boards, there's --
3 MEMBER BROWN: LCP meaning?
4 MR. MILANO: The loop processor, control 5 processor. So they have to be replaced periodically.
6 During that, they are either refurbished or you 7 install a new board, so there is visual observation of 8 the boards.
9 MEMBER STETKAR: Do you have any 10 information from --
11 MEMBER SIEBER: What's the period of 12 replacement?
13 MR. MILANO: I believe it's ten years, is 14 what I recall 15 MEMBER SIEBER: Same as years and years 16 ago.
17 MR. MILANO: Yes. There was some early 18 issues with clock chips on the LCP boards, and that's 19 where --
20 MEMBER SIEBER: And the failures seemed to 21 occur after two years. Okay.
22 MR. MILANO: Steve, do you have a comment 23 on that?
24 MR. CLARK: Yes. This item was actually 25 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
21 1 CHAIRMAN RAY: Identify yourself, please.
2 MR. CLARK: I'm sorry. Steve Clark, 3 representing TVA. This actually was closed based on 4 a previous NRC position, and the conclusion was that 5 the low number of reported events associated with this 6 issue, the lack of any increasing trend, the lack of 7 any apparent decrease in reliability of systems or 8 components due to tin whiskers, the existence of 9 applicable regulatory requirements and programs, i.e.
10 10 CFR Part 21, the maintenance rule requirements, the 11 Reactor Oversight Program, the issuance of information 12 notice 2005 -- that one's not right. I think it's 13 2005.2 -- to alert licensees indicated that tin 14 whiskers do not meet the requirements of NRC 15 management directive 6.4, Generic Issues Program, for 16 further pursuit.
17 Based on the considerations discussed 18 above, RES recommended that the issue be returned to 19 the originator to be evaluated for other possible 20 options. As a result, the issue was dropped from 21 further pursuit. And that's from the NRC's own 22 records.
23 MEMBER STETKAR: Unfortunately, I'm an 24 engineer and not an attorney, so I don't understand a 25 lot of that stuff.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 My concern is, what has been the 2 Westinghouse operating experience, in particular over 3 extended periods of time, on Eagle 21 system circuit 4 boards that do not have conformal coatings? That is 5 a very specific question. It isn't generic Eagle 21 6 boards, because perhaps some of them are coated. I 7 don't know.
8 And I don't know how long they've been in 9 operation on particular applications. So you know, if 10 you're only taking a snapshot of your operating 11 experience over two or three years, or something like 12 that, in the industry, that's not a long enough time 13 to actually see any functional effects from this 14 phenomenon.
15 Or, if for some reason, a reasonable 16 fraction of the boards indeed do have conformal 17 coatings, that's a difference that we're going to at 18 Watts Bar.
19 MR. CLARK: Let us take that as an issue, 20 and we'll get back to you.
21 MEMBER STETKAR: So it's basically what 22 has -- does Westinghouse have reasonably well 23 documented operating experience with uncoated boards.
24 CHAIRMAN RAY: Okay, Girija, we want to 25 take note of this as something they owe us back.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 MEMBER BROWN: Can I make one observation 2 on that? Conformal coating -- I'm glad you picked up 3 on that. I mean, I've never installed anything 4 anywhere, of any of these boards, in any kind active 5 humidity environment or potential humidity environment 6 that didn't have conformal coating, just because our 7 experience in testing -- I'm from the Naval Nuclear 8 Program, excuse me -- just because our testing 9 experience demonstrated that if you didn't conformal 10 coat it, and you got some high humidity circumstances, 11 then you ended up getting some -- not so much tin 12 whiskers, or whatever you want to call them, but the 13 fact is you get some varying signals coming out, your 14 resistances from trace to trace when -- I presume 15 these are the new, modern boards that have traces that 16 are four micros -- I'm kidding slightly here, but 17 they're close together.
18 I don't know whether they're multi-layer 19 boards or not, but you've got through-holes with parts 20 going through them, all kinds of stuff. And I mean, 21 if you're in an accident situation, casualty 22 situation, where you now end up with higher humidity 23 levels and higher temperatures inside of the -- in the 24 rooms where these systems are located, you're still 25 depending on this stuff for information in terms of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 you plant corrective actions and other monitoring that 2 you do.
3 So that's a little bit surprising to me, 4 to hear that you are not conformal coating boards.
5 MR. HILMES: The environment that --
6 excuse me. The environment that these boards are in 7 are HVAC-controlled areas. We do have one HVAC, 8 essentially, the humidity in the room, and 9 temperatures, are staying --
10 MEMBER BROWN: Well, what if you lose 11 that, though? I mean, you can't predict whether 12 you're going to keep all this stuff. If you have 13 station blackout circumstances, and now you're on some 14 other backup power for a while, and you're not running 15 HVAC, it's -- I understand they're all humidity 16 controlled and temperature controlled. We learned 17 that the hard way also. If you want to maintain the 18 stuff for a while, you try to keep it cool and dry.
19 But that still doesn't -- I'm just throwing that out, 20 that it's a little surprising to me. I'm just 21 amplifying John's comment.
22 MR. HILMES: Okay. I'll follow up on that 23 question, on operating experience for tin whiskers for 24 Eagle 21 boards.
25 MEMBER BROWN: This isn't exclusive to tin NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 whiskers. This is general moisture on the cards.
2 MEMBER SIEBER: Well, even beside that 3 periodic replacement, it's actually a pretty good idea 4 to --
5 MEMBER BROWN: Well, I'm not objecting to 6 periodically replacing them. I think that we came to 7 that conclusion also. If you don't replace this stuff 8 once or twice in the life of the ship, then you're 9 going to start having reliability problems, no matter 10 how good it is.
11 MEMBER SIEBER: In commercial plants' 12 experience, 10 years ended up being about the right 13 number. And one of the factors was, those cards that 14 used capacitors, capacitors deteriorate over time.
15 And it doesn't make any difference whether the card is 16 coated or not.
17 And our experience was that temperature 18 and humidity didn't seem to make a big difference 19 either, because the components of the boards 20 themselves generate the heat. And so they create 21 their own environment.
22 But anything with capacitors turns out to 23 be a longevity issue, and the industry ended up with 24 about a 10 year replacement rate to deal with that 25 particular issue.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 But I think we have to make sure that we 2 understand exactly what it is they're doing to make 3 sure that it's in conformance with previous operating 4 experience.
5 MEMBER BROWN: I'm done.
6 MR. HILMES: Okay. We discussed SSPS.
7 Moving to slide number 24, the source range and 8 intermediate range monitors are gammametric on both 9 units. The Unit 2 system is an upgraded version of 10 the Unit 1. They are analog rate-meters. However, 11 there is an embedded processor in the monitor for the 12 shutdown monitor.
13 That digital portion of those monitors is 14 identical between Unit 1 and Unit 2. Same firmware, 15 same processor.
16 MEMBER BROWN: So the Unit 1 had embedded 17 processors?
18 MR. HILMES: Yes.
19 MEMBER BROWN: When did Unit 1 go online?
20 MR. HILMES: '96.
21 MEMBER BROWN: '96? Okay.
22 MR. HILMES: It's a rather simple timer-23 type setup on the board. It's not a complex 24 processor.
25 MEMBER BROWN: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 MR. HILMES: Aux feedwater control and 2 emergency gas treatment, we use Foxboro Spec. 200s on 3 both units. They are analog systems. Again, the only 4 major change here is the board-level component 5 replacements due to obsolescence and the conversion of 6 4 to 20.
7 Turbine-driven aux feedwater speed 8 control, we are still using an EGM box on both units.
9 They are analog. Essentially, the controls are 10 identical. The only delta, again, is the 4 to 20.
11 MEMBER STETKAR: Steve, what's your 12 experience been on Unit 1 with it, the Woodwards EGM?
13 You said you're still using it.
14 MR. HILMES: Yes. There is a TVA 15 incentive to go to a digital control, governor 16 control. Right now that's still in the corporate 17 level, looking at it. We really don't have that much 18 reliability on the EGM boxes themselves.
19 The problem is, they are obsolete. They 20 are hard to come by. And some of the -- we've had to 21 have some remanufacturing done in the controls, and 22 refurbishments, in order to get a good one, a good 23 setup for Unit 2. But yes, long-term-wise, we're 24 looking at replacement, also.
25 MEMBER STETKAR: Okay. Thanks.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 MR. HILMES: There is also some 2 miscellaneous safety-related controls out there.
3 These are discrete controllers that handle things 4 along the lines of emergency raw water screen wash, 5 things like that.
6 Unit 1 kind of had a mix of G-Mac and 7 Robert Shaw for this equipment. Unit 2, since we were 8 using Spec. 200, we decided to stay with that, use 9 that format. It's an analogue to analogue to 10 conversion. Again, it's strictly discrete 11 controllers.
12 Moving on to Slide 26, safety-related 13 monitoring. For safety-related monitoring, there's 14 really two major changes that we have converted to 15 digital. One is containment high rad monitors. We've 16 gone to a General Atomics RM-1000 monitor. It is a 17 software-based -- or actually, it's a firmware-based, 18 but it is burnable, electrically burnable.
19 It's a discrete component. It's "pull 20 this rate meter out, and this is the replacement rate 21 meter for it." In the design, we have no digital 22 communications with these rate meters. They are 23 strictly analogue outputs to the process computers 24 that are isolated, R2 recorders if applicable.
25 MEMBER BROWN: So just the processing? 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
29 1 other words, they take an analogue -- they take their 2 analogue signal in, they convert it, they munch on it, 3 but any data transmission is analogue --
4 MR. HILMES: That's correct.
5 MEMBER BROWN: -- communications. And any 6 communications in, at all, are analogue.
7 MR. HILMES: There is no external 8 communications.
9 MEMBER BROWN: At all?
10 MR. HILMES: At all.
11 MEMBER BROWN: It's strictly outputs?
12 MR. HILMES: It's just outputs. We have 13 used these at our Sequoyah plant in non-safety 14 applications, and we've had pretty good success using 15 these monitors.
16 The big change on safety-related 17 monitoring was the post-accident monitoring system.
18 This is a -- Unit 1 originally had an ICCM-86 system.
19 This was an old, multi-bus system, that was actually 20 older than the Eagle 21.
21 It was not readily available for 22 reengineering, so what we have determined -- what we 23 decided to put in was a Common Q platform. It's based 24 on ABB-AC160 equipment.
25 It is functionally equivalent to what Unit NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 1 has. The system includes two independent trains of 2 RVLIS, core exit thermal couples, and saturation 3 monitoring.
4 It does have digital communications to the 5 process computer, or as we call it, the ICS. The 6 communications is unidirectional. It actually has two 7 levels of barriers there. One is the maintenance test 8 panel is the qualified isolator. Secondly, there is 9 a data diode that has been installed between the 10 Common Q system and the process computer, in addition.
11 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay. This has no control 12 functions?
13 MR. HILMES: This has no control 14 functions.
15 MEMBER SIEBER: Just data monitoring.
16 MR. HILMES: Yes. It is -- some of our 17 Cat A variable, type A variables for PAMS, but it has 18 no automatic control function.
19 MEMBER SIEBER: Is it like an SPDS, part 20 of that?
21 MR. HILMES: Yes. You know, it's a 22 qualified PAM indication.
23 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay.
24 MR. HILMES: Okay?
25 MEMBER STETKAR: Steve, let me -- you have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1 several slides coming up here on non-safety-related 2 systems. Let me ask you just sort of a logistics 3 question here.
4 I had a few questions as I was reading 5 through the FSAR and the SER regarding not so much 6 details of the I&C system itself, but its interaction 7 with the plant functions, things that it was doing.
8 When is it better to address those 9 questions? Because I don't necessarily want to 10 interrupt the discussion of what's coming up here as 11 far as what's inside the box, if you will, as far as 12 the I&C system, with those kinds of questions.
13 MR. HILMES: From a safety-related 14 standpoint, or a non-safety-related standpoint?
15 MEMBER STETKAR: Safety-related. That's 16 why I interrupted you before we get to the next slide, 17 here.
18 MR. HILMES: Now would be fine.
19 MEMBER STETKAR: But I don't know when --
20 I mean, we could also ask the same questions when we 21 get to the other chapters where those functions exist, 22 if you will.
23 MR. HILMES: Yes. Frank, what's the best 24 way to --
25 MEMBER STETKAR: I don't know the 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
32 1 place to bring it up.
2 MR. HILMES: In the systems themselves?
3 MR. KOONTZ: Probably by the systems, yes.
4 MR. HILMES: Okay. That may be better 5 done later.
6 MEMBER STETKAR: But let me ask you one 7 that's probably -- it's kind of not so much system --
8 it's sort of system -- P-12. There's a block on low-9 low T av --
10 MR. HILMES: Yes.
11 MEMBER STETKAR: -- that prevents opening 12 the steam dumps below -- when you get below low-low T 13 av, it's at the T-12 overlock, so you don't overcool.
14 Apparently, on Unit 2, as best as I can tell, that 15 interlock -- it's manually instated, so that you can 16 cool down.
17 And I guess you've changed your cooldown 18 procedures to allow you to cool down a little faster 19 or whatever. I don't care about that. What I care 20 about is, apparently the fact that it's blocked is not 21 alarmed, and that it's not automatically reinstated 22 when temperature goes back up.
23 At least, that's what I could tell from 24 what I read. If that's not true, I'd like to know 25 that. If it's true, I'd like to know why. Both why NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 is it not alarmed to the operators, and almost more 2 importantly, why isn't it automatically reinstated 3 when temperature goes back up above that -- the low-4 low T av?
5 That's sort of the nature of the 6 interfaces, and I brought this one up because it kind 7 of is the system, but it's also part of the function.
8 So if you just want to make a note of that one, and as 9 far as the other interactions with pumps and pipes and 10 valves, and those types of things, I'll wait till we 11 get to those systems.
12 MR. CROUCH: Let us take that as a 13 question. We'll bring it back.
14 MEMBER STETKAR: Yes. Thank you. Thanks 15 for indulging me. Now you can go on with all of your 16 non-safety stuff.
17 MR. HILMES: Non-safety-related systems.
18 For the rod position indication, we use CERPI in both 19 Unit 1 and Unit 2.
20 MEMBER SIEBER: Is that a digital system?
21 MR. HILMES: It is a digital system.
22 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay. So it's not 23 particularly sensitive to the reactor coolant system 24 temperature, right?
25 MR. HILMES: No, it is not.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 MEMBER SIEBER: Analogue systems --
2 MR. HILMES: That is correct.
3 MEMBER SIEBER: -- because of the variable 4 reluctances --
5 MR. HILMES: You have the non-linearity 6 issues. This was an attempt to help to resolve some 7 of those issues.
8 MEMBER SIEBER: It's not perfect, but it's 9 better than the old ones.
10 MR. HILMES: Yes.
11 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay. Thanks.
12 MR. HILMES: CERPI wasn't originally 13 installed in Unit 1. It was changed out under 50.59 14 several years ago.
15 MEMBER SIEBER: Right.
16 MR. HILMES: The deltas between the two 17 systems are basically upgrades and hardware, primarily 18 the displays on the panel have changed.
19 MEMBER SIEBER: Last time I checked, 38 20 Westinghouse units made that change.
21 MR. HILMES: I can't tell you right 22 offhand.
23 MEMBER SIEBER: It's a reasonable upgrade.
24 MR. HILMES: Yes. Loose parts monitoring.
25 We used to have an old tech system. It was somewhat NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 1 of an analogue loose parts monitoring system. We have 2 converted to a Westinghouse DMMS-DX system.
3 This system is actually being replaced on 4 both units. This is a pretty common Westinghouse 5 replacement system for loose parts.
6 MEMBER SIEBER: It's neither required by 7 regulation or your FSAR?
8 MR. HILMES: There is regulation -- it's 9 not required by tech specs. Is it in the TRM at all?
10 I don't believe --
11 MEMBER SIEBER: I don't think so.
12 MR. HILMES: I don't believe so.
13 MEMBER SIEBER: And there is no regulation 14 for it. However, it's a recent standard feature.
15 MR. HILMES: No, there is regulatory 16 guidance on loose parts. It's -- it has to be able to 17 function in the environment where it's located.
18 Essentially, qualification requirements.
19 MEMBER SIEBER: Do you know the number, by 20 any chance, or does your staff?
21 MR. HILMES: Steve, do you have that off 22 the --
23 MR. CLARK: I'm trying to find it.
24 MEMBER SIEBER: Staff may know it.
25 MR. CLARK: I want to say it's like NUREG NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 1 --
2 MR. RAHN: I could answer that, if you 3 want.
4 CHAIRMAN RAY: Go ahead.
5 MR. RAHN: My name's David Rahn. I'm with 6 the I&C branch in the office of NRR. And it's 7 Regulatory Guide 1.133, is the item that we're 8 interested in.
9 And it is true that there are some 10 requirements in there for ensuring that it must at 11 least survive an operating basis earthquake, as well 12 as some other environmental qualifications, to make 13 sure it doesn't fail in service under its long-term 14 vibration that it experiences when it's inside a 15 drywell.
16 MEMBER SIEBER: It has no control 17 functions.
18 MR. HILMES: It has no control function.
19 MEMBER SIEBER: Great. I'll read about it 20 later on.
21 MR. HILMES: Moving on to turbine valve 22 control, Unit 1 and Unit 2 both use Westinghouse AEH 23 system. It's essentially -- we did carb replacements, 24 refurbishments. However, within the control block 25 itself, it's identical.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 1 There is one delta here, in that the new 2 turbine we have has no impulse chamber. And in order 3 to deal with that, what we did is, we put a 4 transmitter on each of the four steam lines going 5 directly to the steam chest.
6 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay.
7 MR. HILMES: Using -- that signal goes 8 into the distributor control system, which does some 9 medium -- actually, a high-medium select to give us 10 our process signal for control.
11 MEMBER SIEBER: And who's the turbine 12 manufacturer?
13 MR. HILMES: It's Siemens.
14 MEMBER SIEBER: Siemens? Okay.
15 MR. HILMES: Eagle interlocks and the 16 AMSAC interlocks still stay on just two of the 17 channels. We didn't see -- looking at the 18 perturbations we would see during valve testing, it 19 was not significant effect on them.
20 The annunciator system, page -- slide 28 21 -- is a Ronan system. It's essentially an upgraded 22 version of what we have on Unit 1. The Unit 1 system 23 was DOS-based. Unit 2 is Windows-based. A lot of the 24 hardware, actually, we reused the Windows boxes. We 25 refurbished, and we reused 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
38 1 MEMBER STETKAR: Those differences are 2 transparent to the operators?
3 MR. HILMES: They are transparent to the 4 operator.
5 Reactor coolant pump and turbine generator 6 vibration are Bentley-Nevada systems. We essentially 7 used the latest upgrade of Bentley-Nevada equipment 8 for both of them.
9 There is one delta here, on the -- the 10 feed pump thrust trips come out of this system. On 11 Unit 1, it is a single-coincidence trip. On Unit 2, 12 we made it a 2 out of 3 coincidence.
13 Okay?
14 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay.
15 MR. HILMES: Containment hydrogen monitor, 16 per current regulations, we downgraded to a non-17 safety-related system. It is a digital monitor. It's 18 a single monitor now, instead of dual monitors. And, 19 well, that's pretty much it.
20 We have done all the validation that it 21 will operate in the environment it's required for.
22 MEMBER BROWN: What's the basis for 23 downgrading it to a non-safety-related-system?
24 MR. HILMES: Which NUREG is that this 25 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
39 1 CHAIRMAN RAY: All plants have done that, 2 because the containment can withstand detonation.
3 MR. HILMES: 1.7, I think.
4 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. We know that for 5 sure, huh? Based on recent experience?
6 (Laughter.)
7 CHAIRMAN RAY: It's hard to answer the 8 question.
9 MEMBER BROWN: Just, based on recent 10 experience, I'm wondering why that makes sense.
11 That's all.
12 CHAIRMAN RAY: We're talking PWRs here, so 13 --
14 MEMBER SIEBER: Containment design.
15 MEMBER BROWN: That's a nuance that I 16 won't pick up on, since the BWR side is more 17 amorphous.
18 MR. HILMES: Okay. Moving on to process 19 control, let's go to slide 29. What we have done here 20 -- well, Unit 1 and Unit 2 originally had analogue 21 process controls. They were Foxboro H-Line Bailey/G-22 Macs and Robert Shaws.
23 We have gone to a DCS system. The DCS is 24 a fault-tolerant distributed control system. We have 25 redundant processor pairs, which continuously check NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 1 each other. If one fails, the other one takes over.
2 We have set this up into 15 control 3 processor pairs. This is along the lines of your 4 questions. What we try to do -- actually, this is a 5 good time to go to the next slide, here.
6 What we did is, we -- you need to, when 7 you design one of these, you have to ensure that a 8 control processor pair failure doesn't cause you to be 9 outside your transient analysis for control system 10 failures.
11 So what we've done is we've broken the 12 control system into 15 pairs. Two of them are going 13 to the aux control room, but they are not networked.
14 They are -- when you are operating, they do not 15 communicate at all to the rest of the network, okay?
16 So they're not shown here.
17 But for example, like steam generator 18 PORVs, you have each steam generator's PORV in a 19 separate control processor pair. So if I lose this 20 guy, I still have the other three, that I'm minimizing 21 my impact on my plant.
22 In the Westinghouse design, however, there 23 are certain control systems that actually get signals 24 from other systems, like your --
25 CHAIRMAN RAY: Steve? For the purposes of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 1 the transcript, if you just look at this monitor here, 2 we can hear you better. You can point there, but look 3 here.
4 (Laughter.)
5 MEMBER STETKAR: Actually, you can use the 6 mouse. Here you go.
7 CHAIRMAN RAY: Whichever way you want to 8 do it.
9 MEMBER STETKAR: You can give that to 10 Steve.
11 MEMBER SIEBER: And you have a mouse.
12 (Simultaneous speakers.)
13 MR. HILMES: Okay. So on the systems 14 where we, for example, out of rod control, you have 15 some signals going to your steam generator level 16 control.
17 That's standard Westinghouse design. We 18 wanted to design this system so that you could lose 19 the network entirely and not take down the -- you 20 know, create a perturbation to the operator. So what 21 we did is, on those signals that were -- where we are 22 sending the signal over the network, we have put in a 23 redundant analogue signal also, so it communicates 24 through both digital and analogue.
25 If I lose the network connection, 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
42 1 continues to function, so the operator just keeps on 2 going. He gets an alarm that it -- we've lost the 3 network -- but they keep going.
4 So what we have done is, we have segmented 5 this thing into these processor pairs, so that we do 6 not create an event where we lose multiple control 7 systems outside what was already analyzed in chapter 8 15.
9 MEMBER SIEBER: And so you don't run all 10 the control system through one set of processors.
11 MR. HILMES: Oh, no.
12 MEMBER SIEBER: Each one is independent.
13 MR. HILMES: Yes. We've had this concept 14 of islands of control for some time, that we've been 15 using. And you know, if you start looking at what can 16 take down these systems, essentially the real concern 17 is losing this network. And so we ensure that we can 18 lose that network without any issues.
19 MEMBER STETKAR: Steve, I'm pretty well 20 out of my league, so Charlie's going to have to jump 21 in here pretty quickly. But when you talk about -- I 22 understand losing the network. People always talk 23 about losing things in a nice clean way, like you flip 24 the switch and it goes away and everything is clean 25 and black.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 1 What provisions are there to prevent 2 crosstalk among the different processing functions 3 here, while they're connected to the network? In 4 other words, a fault in one processing function 5 propagating up, being read -- that's not a network 6 failure in the sense of turn off the switch, 7 everything is black. It's a propagation of fault 8 conditions.
9 MR. HILMES: Well, again, the system is 10 segmented, okay? From a transient event type 11 analysis. So that if I lose one processor pair, I 12 don't deviate from that.
13 MEMBER STETKAR: Losing it cleanly, 14 though.
15 MEMBER BROWN: But where's a pair in 16 there?
17 MR. HILMES: Actually, each of these is a 18 processor pair. There is actually two microprocessors 19 on each.
20 MEMBER BROWN: Okay, so that's the 21 redundancy. That's the one that's acting -- that you 22 mentioned a minute ago, and the other one's monitoring 23 it in some way.
24 MR. HILMES: Yes.
25 MEMBER BROWN: So you've got some scheme NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 1 to tell you that its primary one is operational, and 2 the other one just sits there asleep until it needs to 3 -- not literally asleep, but --
4 MR. HILMES: They both look at each 5 other's outputs digitally and verify they're the same.
6 If they see a delta, they go through an algorithm to 7 determine which one's in error. If they can't 8 determine that, the one that was originally in 9 control, stays in control.
10 MEMBER BROWN: So there is a one 11 designated as a primary one.
12 MR. HILMES: Yes, but --
13 MEMBER BROWN: A normal, if you will -- in 14 other words --
15 MR. HILMES: It will automatically --
16 MEMBER BROWN: The fault one, even though 17 you may see there's a difference between the two.
18 MR. HILMES: Yes.
19 MEMBER BROWN: If it's indeterminate, then 20 you stay with the primary one.
21 MR. HILMES: Yes.
22 MEMBER SIEBER: The place where you use 23 data diodes, does that sort of enforce the separation 24 concept?
25 MR. HILMES: We do not use data diodes 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
45 1 the internal network. We have done testing, 2 essentially, where we -- what we do is a broadcast 3 storm or a data storm, which -- essentially, what we 4 do is, we overload this network bus to the point where 5 it can no longer function, okay?
6 And that could happen in real life.
7 Actually, this is addressing your question. How that 8 happens in a closed network like this is if one of 9 these CP pairs loses its mind and just starts blurting 10 out data.
11 You do not want to take down your diverse 12 systems in the plant by that occurring. Therefore, we 13 designed around it, where the network just can be 14 totally lost.
15 MEMBER BROWN: You show six boxes that say 16 "network."
17 MR. HILMES: Yes.
18 MEMBER BROWN: Is that one network?
19 MR. HILMES: These -- what this is showing 20 here is -- all of these are actually on the network.
21 What this is showing is if there are process signals 22 that are going over that network.
23 MEMBER BROWN: Okay, but there's not six 24 networks.
25 MR. HILMES: No.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 1 MEMBER BROWN: There is one network, and 2 all the processors feed into that one network.
3 MR. HILMES: That's correct.
4 MEMBER BROWN: And it's distributed to all 5 these other points based on addressing, et cetera, and 6 all that other kind of stuff.
7 MR. HILMES: Yes.
8 MEMBER SIEBER: And these are just 9 examples, the networks?
10 MR. HILMES: Yes. I was going to mention 11 that.
12 MEMBER BROWN: Well, there was a comment 13 somewhere, and I'm trying to remember that you went 14 away from a ring bus to some other type of --
15 MR. HILMES: That's on the process 16 computer.
17 MEMBER BROWN: Oh, okay. Not on this 18 thing.
19 MR. HILMES: Right. In reality, there are 20 two --
21 MEMBER BROWN: It's shown in the FSAR.
22 MR. HILMES: There is a paragraph 23 discussing it, but there is no details to that level.
24 MEMBER BROWN: No figures, no discussions 25 of how this operates, or why it's supposed to be good NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 1 or not good.
2 MR. HILMES: Not at this point.
3 MEMBER BROWN: Is there ever going to be, 4 to document this?
5 MR. HILMES: Steve, did we put any 6 discussion on the fault tolerance in there? State 7 your name.
8 MR. CLARK: I don't remember --
9 MR. HILMES: State your name.
10 MR. CLARK: Steve Clark again. The 11 segmentation analysis was actually done as a separate 12 calculation to demonstrate the reliability of the 13 network, and actually the reliability of the entire 14 system.
15 And that's a separate document. I believe 16 it's referenced in the FSAR, and then we did add a 17 description of the system to the FSAR, but I don't 18 know -- I don't believe we've added any figures or 19 anything like that yet.
20 MEMBER BROWN: You say yet.
21 MEMBER SIEBER: Because if you, later on, 22 were to modify the instrument system for this plant, 23 how would you do a 50.59 without a description of 24 what's there now, and the performance characteristics 25 there. Specify it, so you could make 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
48 1 CHAIRMAN RAY: Jack, you may need to speak 2 a little more loudly for the microphone.
3 MEMBER SIEBER: -- so that you could 4 actually make that comparison.
5 MR. HILMES: Well, how that is actually 6 controlled is, our segmentation analysis actually has 7 the description of the requirements that have to be 8 maintained. If we make some change in that, that 9 would affect that, we would have to revise that 10 segmentation analysis --
11 MEMBER SIEBER: Yes, you would.
12 MR. HILMES: -- at a basic --
13 MEMBER SIEBER: But it's not part of your 14 official plant description, so it doesn't really mesh 15 with the regulations, as I --
16 MR. CLARK: Well, one thing to remember is 17 that everywhere that this changes -- in other words, 18 if you go to like steam generator level control, where 19 it's discussed, the description has been revised to 20 include the fact that the DCS is used, and how the DCS 21 actually functions, whether it's looking at an 22 auctioneer high signal, or how it's working in there.
23 So we went through the entire FSAR, and 24 there's a fair number of changes associated with this.
25 In chapter 7, the primary change is we added 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
49 1 description of the system to chapter 7.
2 MEMBER SIEBER: I think that's something 3 for the staff to look at, as to whether there's enough 4 detail in the FSAR.
5 MEMBER BROWN: Well, the SSE --
6 MEMBER SIEBER: So that later on, a 50.59 7 can be performed, if necessary, to support some 8 change.
9 MR. KOONTZ: This is Frank Koontz. I can 10 address a little bit of that. In our 50.59 process in 11 Watts Bar, and TVA in general, we train people to look 12 at both what's explicit in the FSAR and what's also 13 implicit. So if it has a design function that we talk 14 about in the FSAR, like a distributed control system, 15 then we also teach them to go to the basis documents, 16 and base their 50.59 analysis on that, also.
17 MEMBER SIEBER: That's good engineering 18 thinking, but perhaps not good legal thinking.
19 CHAIRMAN RAY: Well, we can take it up 20 with the staff in terms of how they assess the FSAR.
21 MEMBER SIEBER: Great.
22 CHAIRMAN RAY: Detail. But anyway, let's 23 continue to pursue the understanding.
24 MR. HILMES: Just a couple other bullets 25 here.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 1 MEMBER SIEBER: Which page are you on, 2 Steve?
3 MR. HILMES: Actually, I'm flipping back 4 to 29 here, so I catch everything. Okay. Fifteen 5 redundant processors. Each of the CP pairs has 6 redundant power supplies going to it, so essentially 7 from this day forward the plant, if you lose one power 8 source, you will no longer put the plant in a 9 transient from a process control system failure 10 standpoint.
11 The data buses. There are actually two 12 data buses, they're redundant of each other. Again, 13 we assume we lose them both. We just assume the 14 network goes away.
15 MEMBER SIEBER: But most of your 16 controllers are single loop controllers, right? So 17 the communications aspect of it -- you aren't really 18 coordinating one controller with another one.
19 MR. HILMES: The only place where that 20 gets difficult is, like I said, sometimes signals go 21 into rod controls, and then they daisy chain over to 22 the other systems. That's the Westinghouse Group 23 concept of controls.
24 MEMBER SIEBER: It's not a top-down, one-25 train 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
51 1 MR. HILMES: No.
2 MEMBER SIEBER: Like supercritical coal 3 fired boilers that reduce the size of everything by 4 making sure every valve moves with every other valve, 5 you don't have that here?
6 MR. HILMES: Basically, just from the 7 shared controls, shared processors, the system pretty 8 much meets single failure criteria -- we call it fault 9 tolerance -- just off the fact of the way it's 10 designed. But we segmented the system to ensure the 11 interaction between systems.
12 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay.
13 MR. HILMES: Again, on here we have 14 multiple sensors coming in, whereas the old design, 15 you had to literally flip your feed flow transmitters 16 with a hand switch in the control room.
17 That is done now in logic, and so those 18 types of failures, other than giving you an alarm 19 telling you you've lost a sensor, the operator doesn't 20 see any change in the control of the plant.
21 MEMBER BROWN: Could you say that again?
22 MR. HILMES: In the areas where we have 23 redundant transmitters, for example steam flow, we 24 have two transmitters coming in --
25 MEMBER BROWN: From each loop? From each NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 1 generator?
2 MR. HILMES: From each -- yes, for each 3 one.
4 MEMBER BROWN: So you have eight total 5 steam flow detectors.
6 MR. HILMES: That's correct. We use a 7 steam pressure, I believe, as a confirmatory for that 8 system. And if you lose one of those two feed flows, 9 it automatically flops over to the other feed flow.
10 MEMBER BROWN: Well, what are we talking 11 about? Steam flow or feed flow?
12 MR. HILMES: Feed flow or steam flow, 13 either one.
14 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay.
15 MR. HILMES: And essentially, from the 16 operator's standpoint, he does not see any transient 17 in the plant. He gets an alarm that tells him that --
18 MEMBER SIEBER: It flipped.
19 MR. HILMES: -- that he's lost a 20 transmitter. Where we had three sensors, we've used 21 a median signal in the majority of the cases. For 22 example, steam generator level is -- you have three 23 transmitters, so it's a median select.
24 MEMBER STETKAR: Steve, has that change 25 been made over on Unit 1?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 1 MR. HILMES: Unit 1 is actually working on 2 the design for this.
3 MEMBER STETKAR: So you still have the 4 manual --
5 MR. HILMES: It's still manual.
6 MEMBER STETKAR: Okay.
7 MR. HILMES: And one other point is, 8 everything still uses independent stations in the 9 control room. So from an operators standpoint, we 10 tried to make the controllers as similar to the 11 Foxboros as was possible.
12 We did make some tweaks in the design so 13 it was single failure-proof. They do not rely on soft 14 control under normal situations. They can use soft 15 control for maintenance purposes, but not for normal 16 operations, purely off of the station.
17 Okay, any other questions on process 18 control?
19 MEMBER STETKAR: Last bullet on this one.
20 I read -- there isn't much in the FSAR, there wasn't 21 much in the SER, and there's one bullet on here. Can 22 you explain to me, because I didn't have enough time 23 to read everything, what does that last bullet mean?
24 MR. HILMES: What that means is we have a 25 number of non-safety-related controls in the backup NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 1 control room.
2 MEMBER STETKAR: Okay.
3 MR. HILMES: We also replaced them with 4 I/A. Those are independent of the rest of the 5 network. There is no network connection at all. You 6 have two pairs of CPs up there, and each of those are 7 independent, and they have no ethernet connection.
8 The only time you would hook it up is during an 9 outage, if you need to upload new software.
10 MEMBER BROWN: You'd hook it up to the 11 network, you mean?
12 MR. HILMES: Yes.
13 MEMBER STETKAR: Okay. That's why I was 14 confused. There's no need, for example -- if I need 15 to abandon the control room, for whatever reason, 16 there's no need for me to now connect those CPs to the 17 network, so that I have the indications and controls 18 or whatever for the non-safety over in --
19 MR. HILMES: They are sitting there, 20 running the software.
21 MEMBER STETKAR: Thank you.
22 MR. HILMES: They are self-contained.
23 MEMBER STETKAR: Thank you.
24 MR. HILMES: We did not want to leave any 25 possibility of screwing up the backup controls.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 1 MEMBER STETKAR: I am glad to hear that.
2 Thank you. It wasn't all that clear in the words that 3 I read.
4 MEMBER BROWN: Do they still get the 5 monitoring signals? I mean, if you're going to 6 control something, you've got to have some idea of 7 what's going on in the plant.
8 MR. HILMES: All of that -- actually, you 9 have much more, because you not only have the 10 hardwired normal monitoring signals, you also have 11 your -- over your data link, you can also get any 12 other state within that control system.
13 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. Let me make sure I 14 understand that. In the normal controls, I guess 15 you'd just think of the reactor plant controlling the 16 monitoring. And you've got the Eagle 21 that measures 17 everything, that sends out data somewhere. I presume 18 that goes to the control room.
19 MR. HILMES: Yes.
20 MEMBER BROWN: Both of the redundant 21 display processing systems, or what have you. Is that 22 -- and they use a certain set of sensors. I take it 23 you -- that same information is provided to the 24 auxiliary control room? Or is there a separate set of 25 instrumentation that goes with 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
56 1 MR. HILMES: No, it's a -- generally, it's 2 a separate set of controls.
3 MEMBER BROWN: Not controls, 4 instrumentation -- the monitoring -- the plant 5 information, does it come from separate sensors and 6 separate --
7 MR. HILMES: Generally separate, but there 8 are cases where there are isolators and the same 9 signal goes to both.
10 MEMBER SIEBER: Switches that you turn.
11 MEMBER BROWN: I'm not objecting. I'm 12 just trying to understand what it is, okay?
13 MR. HILMES: Yes.
14 MEMBER BROWN: I mean, look. You've got 15 -- the one figure that you had of any relevance at all 16 was 7.1-1, which showed process sensors going to four 17 different channels, which -- I presume those are all 18 independent sensors.
19 MR. HILMES: They are.
20 MEMBER BROWN: So each channel had its own 21 set, but there was no information on this thing as to 22 where the data went after it went and tripped 23 something. There was no main control rooms and 24 others, or the auxiliary control room. So that was my 25 question, is where -- is it the same set of stuff 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
57 1 sends it to both the main control room and the 2 auxiliary control room? It's a fairly -- I'm not sure 3 that's a yes or no question, but that's what I'm 4 asking.
5 MR. HILMES: In some cases, they will be 6 repeated to the aux control room, but in those cases 7 they will be isolated.
8 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. I mean, you just 9 mean they can't backtalk.
10 MR. HILMES: That's correct.
11 MEMBER BROWN: That's fine. But there's 12 not a separate set of sensors that are associated with 13 the auxiliary control monitoring function, and a 14 separate set of instrumentation?
15 MR. HILMES: Not in all cases. There 16 isn't a yes/no to that. It's a mix of them. It's --
17 MEMBER BROWN: Is that described 18 somewhere? I mean, it's not discussed, that I could 19 find.
20 MR. HILMES: I don't think there's any 21 details --
22 MEMBER BROWN: There's nothing in the FSAR 23 on that, either?
24 MR. HILMES: -- available on the aux 25 control room. I'm not aware of anything.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 1 MEMBER BROWN: I make the point, because 2 we're being asked to make a determination that this is 3 all okay, and yet where is it written down, other than 4 in the answer to John's question?
5 MR. HILMES: Generally, through this 6 process, there were many RAI questions, and --
7 MEMBER BROWN: I understand that, but we 8 have thousands of RAIs, and what I tend to look at 9 when I go to try to figure out what you're doing with 10 this stuff is to go to the FSAR, and then look at the 11 SER afterwards, to see.
12 I'd like to understand what your systems 13 look like, and --
14 MEMBER STETKAR: A bit of our problem is, 15 we don't necessarily read all of the RAIs and 16 responses. And quite honestly, on this particular 17 issue, reading the SER I was really confused. I hope 18 the staff isn't confused, but reading the staff's 19 words in the SER, they talk about "these are only 20 needed when the control room is abandoned. The only 21 time you have to abandon the control room is during a 22 fire, and therefore you don't have to assume a fire 23 with any other design-basis accident."
24 And that's what got me really confused 25 about how these things are normally connected 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
59 1 aux control room. Because from what you tell me, all 2 of that fire stuff has nothing to do with how the 3 system works.
4 MR. HILMES: Bill will have to talk about 5 that.
6 MR. CROUCH: Okay. Understood. We'll get 7 that as a follow-up.
8 MR. HILMES: Moving to the last thing, 9 which we sort of touched upon, the ICS, which is the 10 process computer for the plant -- ICS stands for 11 integrated computer system.
12 It's a system that at Unit 1, we've 13 installed. It replaces the various tech support 14 center computers and stuff, and integrates them into 15 one computer system.
16 One thing about ICS. It is the only 17 system that communicates with other systems. You 18 know, as far as Ronan, Eagle, LEFM, everything -- if 19 there's external communications, it goes to ICS. It 20 doesn't go between the systems.
21 The major difference is Unit 1 had an old 22 ring ethernet type configuration. Those really are 23 obsolete. We've converted to a mesh-type network, 24 treeing-type network. Unit 1 is actually doing the 25 same change-out, due to obsolescence of their NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 1 equipment.
2 We've got upgraded servers, CPUs. And of 3 course, we've had to address detection issues, as far 4 as security issues. The software for Unit 2 is based 5 on the Unit 1 software. Obviously, there are 6 differences on control inputs and so forth. When 7 those control inputs are different, we had to make 8 adjustments.
9 I'd like to go to page 32, this figure 10 here, just to point out -- as I said, since this is 11 really the only connection to the outside world, it is 12 configured such that before you actually get to the 13 ICS there is a data diode which will only allow one-14 way communications out of the ICS.
15 There are -- at each level of the network, 16 there is intrusion detection systems out there. And 17 additionally, for all the control systems, there are 18 firewalls installed. For safety-related systems, 19 there is strictly one-way communications via data 20 diode, or there just is no --
21 MEMBER BROWN: So those orange boxes are 22 firewalls?
23 MR. HILMES: What's that?
24 MEMBER BROWN: Those orange boxes are 25 firewalls?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 1 MR. HILMES: They are firewalls. As you 2 see, they are only on the non-safety-related 3 components.
4 MEMBER BROWN: Well, you've got one up in 5 the -- well, I guess the TSC is a non-safety-related 6 function.
7 MR. HILMES: Yes.
8 MEMBER BROWN: But I mean, the Foxboro 9 stuff isn't -- I'm confused here. On some of the 10 Foxboro items, aren't those part of the plant 11 monitoring systems? I'm going back to find out where 12 you --
13 MR. HILMES: Foxboro has analogue 14 indications that come out of Foxboro, and it also can 15 send digital data to the process computer as far as 16 information. It is set up not to receive data.
17 MEMBER BROWN: What kind of --
18 MR. HILMES: It is not safety-related.
19 Foxboro I/A is not safety-related.
20 MEMBER BROWN: If they're using the aux 21 feed system, which you refer to as a safety-related 22 system --
23 MR. HILMES: Those are Spec. 200. Spec.
24 200 is an analogue control.
25 MEMBER BROWN: So there's a difference NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 1 between those --
2 MR. HILMES: Yes. This is talking about 3 Foxboro I/A.
4 MEMBER BROWN: What does I/A mean?
5 MR. HILMES: Intelligent Automation. It 6 is the distributed control system.
7 MEMBER BROWN: Another minor nuance, not 8 able to be found.
9 MR. HILMES: Understood.
10 MEMBER BROWN: Or major nuance, depending 11 on how you want to --
12 MEMBER SIEBER: They're used more in the 13 chemical industry than in power plants.
14 MR. HILMES: We have actually used it 15 quite a bit in TVA. It's the -- we prefer their 16 architecture over the others we've looked at.
17 MEMBER BROWN: Each of those blue lines, 18 is that a -- is each of those a process computer?
19 MR. HILMES: No. This is strictly the 20 network levels within the system. In other words, as 21 you go up, you have different levels of networks.
22 These would be essentially your process computers 23 right here.
24 MEMBER BROWN: The things called ICS A, B, 25 et cetera?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 1 MR. HILMES: Yes. We have -- our ICS is 2 redundant. It has two processors. If you lose one, 3 you still have the system functioning. Unit 1 and 4 Unit 2 are separate, however they do communicate with 5 one another, since there are some parameters that are 6 common between the two.
7 MEMBER BROWN: So if you lose one of them, 8 you lose PAMS. Is that correct?
9 MR. HILMES: No, you do not.
10 MEMBER BROWN: Well, you've only got one 11 PAMS shown on here, I guess. That's why I ask the 12 question. It's a Common Q, I figured that was a PAMS.
13 MR. HILMES: Common Q is only feeding the 14 ICS information. If you lose the whole system, it has 15 no impact on any of the controls or any of the safety-16 related systems.
17 MEMBER BROWN: Well, how's the PAMS 18 system, then -- how's that information get to the main 19 control room?
20 MR. HILMES: It has individual displays 21 themselves that are up in the control room, 22 specifically for PAMS. Not --
23 MEMBER STETKAR: Let's be careful on 24 throwing around tons of acronyms here. PAMS --
25 MEMBER BROWN: Post-accident monitoring NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 1 system. I'm sorry.
2 MEMBER STETKAR: But PAMS --
3 MR. HILMES: Common Q PAMS.
4 MEMBER STETKAR: But PAMS is strictly the 5 three parameters through the Common Q, in your 6 vernacular?
7 MR. HILMES: That is correct.
8 MEMBER STETKAR: Safety Parameter Display 9 System, SPDS, all of the other parameters, come -- not 10 all, the vast majority of them come through this.
11 MR. HILMES: You're correct. That is 12 correct.
13 MEMBER STETKAR: So be careful when we're 14 talking about PAMS, because it's --
15 MEMBER BROWN: I understand. Thank you.
16 MEMBER STETKAR: -- not this.
17 MR. HILMES: SPDS, you are correct, is --
18 MEMBER STETKAR: SPDS is mostly this.
19 MR. HILMES: -- resident in this system.
20 MEMBER STETKAR: Okay. Thank you.
21 MR. HILMES: Now, as he said, there are 22 other hardwired indications that are in the control 23 room. Since this is not a qualified system, you can't 24 rely on that for your category -- type A variables, or 25 type A and type B, I believe.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 1 MEMBER STETKAR: A1s, anyway. This --
2 there was some discussion -- again, pictures help.
3 There was some discussion about the ability of this 4 system to store and trend parameter values over time.
5 MR. HILMES: It does.
6 MEMBER STETKAR: Which apparently Common 7 Q has a fairly limited storage and trending function, 8 at least from what I've read. Again, it's --
9 MR. HILMES: Warren, what's the historical 10 on Common Q?
11 MR. ODESS-GILLETT: This is Warren Odess-12 Gillett, from Westinghouse. The time limit of the 13 trending on the operator's module for the Common Q 14 Post-Accident Monitoring System is one hour.
15 MEMBER STETKAR: One hour. Okay. And 16 this system has a longer trending interval available 17 to the operators?
18 MR. HILMES: You essentially can -- we 19 have a -- it can -- we essentially have timeless 20 storage.
21 MEMBER STETKAR: Okay. Timeless storage 22 is limited, for example, by how long I have 23 electricity for these things. What's the rated 24 lifetime on the non-1E 250 volt batteries at Watts 25 Bar?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 1 MR. HILMES: Our station blackout coping 2 is a four-hour coping period.
3 MEMBER STETKAR: And that's safety-related 4 stuff. What's the non-1E 250 volt DC batteries?
5 MR. HILMES: It's also based on a four-6 hour --
7 MEMBER STETKAR: Four hours?
8 MR. HILMES: Yes.
9 MEMBER STETKAR: Okay.
10 MR. HILMES: That's the way it was set up.
11 Now --
12 MEMBER STETKAR: So after four hours, you 13 can't trend anything.
14 MR. HILMES: That's -- if you lose all AC 15 power, and --
16 MEMBER STETKAR: If you lose all AC power 17 in a station blackout.
18 MR. HILMES: That is how long we have 19 addressed it in the coping period.
20 MEMBER STETKAR: Okay. Thank you.
21 MEMBER BROWN: This big, big, big data 22 diode that you show up there, a very impressive data 23 diode.
24 (Laughter.)
25 MEMBER BROWN: Graphically intuitive.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 1 What is the nature -- I didn't -- there was -- I could 2 not find any description of the nature of this data 3 diode. Is it a -- and my question goes into the form 4 of, that there's two questions.
5 How isolated is it from this, whatever 6 this PEDS corporate Watts Bar network is? Is it 7 microprocessor-based, software-controlled?
8 MR. HILMES: It is.
9 MEMBER BROWN: So it can be -- so it's 10 told to be one way based on software commands within 11 it, as opposed to a hardwired cyber-protected one-way 12 data transmission path?
13 MR. HILMES: It's a cyber-protected one-14 way transmission path.
15 MEMBER BROWN: Well, that's --
16 MR. HILMES: But it actually is two 17 computers, okay? And between the computers, there is 18 only a transmit line to the other computer. So it 19 strictly streams data from one computer to the other.
20 MEMBER BROWN: The diode is two computers?
21 MR. HILMES: Yes.
22 MEMBER BROWN: And you're -- I'm not 23 worried about changing between them. I'm talking 24 about going outward to the network, the corporate 25 network, back and forth. That's where your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 1 interchange is most critical.
2 MR. HILMES: Yes.
3 MEMBER BROWN: From outside, external.
4 MR. HILMES: That's right. Outside cannot 5 communicate to the --
6 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. My question is --
7 MR. ARENT: Excuse me, this is Gordon 8 Arent. I'm the general manager of licensing for TVA.
9 We need to be careful, when we get into a discussion 10 on data diode, from a safeguards standpoint.
11 So we can talk about it at a high level, 12 but when we get into the cybersecurity aspects, we 13 just have to be very careful as to where we draw the 14 line on the level we're speaking --
15 MEMBER BROWN: Okay.
16 MR. ARENT: We can go into a closed 17 session, if you'd like.
18 MEMBER BROWN: When are we going to talk 19 about cybersecurity aspects? At some other meeting?
20 That's fine. I mean, that's okay with me.
21 MR. MILANO: Cybersecurity we talk about 22 in the next ACRS subcommittee meeting.
23 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. Well, how about 24 putting that on the list of things to give us in 25 immaculate detail, as to how this --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 1 MEMBER BLEY: But when he's talking 2 detail, is there an actual physical --
3 MEMBER BROWN: Non-changeable.
4 MEMBER BLEY: -- physical system that 5 prevents that communication, or is it software-6 controlled?
7 MEMBER BROWN: Right.
8 MEMBER BLEY: And if it's software-9 controlled, how is it? And how do we ensure that it's 10 --
11 MEMBER BROWN: The concern there is, 12 somebody from the outside being able to interfere and 13 tell it to turn itself around, that's all. So we'll 14 put that off.
15 CHAIRMAN RAY: All right. We'll do that 16 in the October meeting.
17 MEMBER BROWN: I just wanted to make it 18 clear what we were looking for.
19 CHAIRMAN RAY: All right.
20 MR. HILMES: And that's it on the process 21 computer.
22 MEMBER STETKAR: One last question on the 23 process computer. Are -- and this, again, is a bit 24 outside of the I&C stuff. But on Unit 1, I recognize 25 the computers are different, and all that kind of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 1 stuff.
2 Are the operators ever trained -- do they 3 run through drills where they have no information from 4 the process computer? In other words, when you go 5 through simulator training, do you black it out, and 6 just force them to use what is available from the 7 safety-related displays and stuff?
8 MR. HILMES: Rep drills. There are 9 scenarios where they --
10 MEMBER STETKAR: I'm talking more than a 11 single failure, now. I'm talking, take this thing 12 out.
13 MR. HILMES: And I have personally been in 14 rep drills at TVA --
15 MEMBER STETKAR: Oh, okay.
16 MR. HILMES: -- where we have lost the 17 process computer.
18 MEMBER STETKAR: Okay, good. Thank you.
19 Good.
20 MR. HILMES: One other thing I want to 21 mention is per the -- actually, this isn't 22 specifically written down. We've talked about 23 everything through 34. Oh, I'm sorry. Slide 34. Go 24 to slide 34. Sorry, I'm getting out of phase. I was 25 going to just status you on where we are on testing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 1 from a hardware standpoint.
2 All the hardware for the I&C systems has 3 been built. It has all undergone FAT testing, and any 4 issues that came up with the FAT testing are resolved, 5 or there is one open item still in Eagle which we have 6 to implement in the plant.
7 Site acceptance testing is ongoing. A 8 number of the systems, for example Eagle 21, the site 9 acceptance testing has been completed. Foxboro I/A is 10 up and running, so we're at that point where most of 11 these are operating.
12 And pre-operational testing is in 13 progress, or the testing is being developed at this 14 point in time.
15 MEMBER STETKAR: Steve, I wasn't going to 16 ask this, but you had to bring up this slide. I read 17 that there was an issue when you were doing the 18 Factory Acceptance Testing on the Unit 2 Eagle 21, 19 where you discovered that the configuration that you 20 had for Unit 2 had some problems.
21 And you traced that back to the fact --
22 you discovered that a math coprocessor chip had been 23 replaced in the Unit 1 system, and had resolved that 24 problem.
25 But apparently that chip hadn't been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 1 replaced in the system that was being used for the 2 factory acceptance tests on Unit 2. You know, you 3 replaced the chip, and that function worked.
4 That leads me to the question of, how do 5 you ensure that indeed all of the hardware 6 replacements that have been made on Unit 1, are indeed 7 now installed in your Unit 2 system?
8 Because that change got all the way to 9 factory acceptance testing without somebody finding 10 it.
11 MR. HILMES: Yes. That was a -- what 12 actually happened there was that, prior to building 13 the Watts Bar Eagle 21, Westinghouse had qualified 14 this other math coprocessor, and they were using it 15 interchangeably between the two.
16 It just so happens that what Watts Bar had 17 were the faster math coprocessor, okay? It was that 18 way from day one on Unit 1.
19 MEMBER STETKAR: Oh, okay.
20 MR. HILMES: Did the original factory 21 acceptance test, it was with the faster coprocessor.
22 Yes, we discovered this when we were trying to upload 23 data to -- upload parameters to the Eagle 21 ranges 24 and so forth.
25 There's a cycle that it goes through 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
73 1 it's uploading. Because Eagle 21 is deterministic, 2 with the slower processor it did not have sufficient 3 time to do that full upload.
4 When we identified that, we went and -- we 5 actually ended up going to the Unit 1. It just so 6 happens we were talking about board replacements, and 7 we were going through a cycle of board replacements.
8 We looked at Unit 1, and we noticed the delta in the 9 coprocessor.
10 So that's how it was identified. Again, 11 that was detected during factory acceptance testing, 12 though. They did identify that it did not work 13 properly.
14 MEMBER STETKAR: That's good. That's why 15 you do that testing. We caught that one on that 16 particular test.
17 MR. HILMES: From a design change 18 standpoint, what we did as part of doing Unit 2 is, we 19 went through every design change that was ever 20 implemented on Unit 1, and we ensured ourselves that 21 either the design change was -- we had a package out 22 there to implement it on Unit 2, or it was not needed, 23 because since then we've replaced the system entirely, 24 or something like that.
25 But we went methodically through every DCM NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 1 that was out there.
2 MEMBER STETKAR: That's good. And from 3 what you said, in this particular instance, it wasn't 4 really a design change. It just happened to be the 5 original installed boards on Unit 1 had the faster 6 chip on them.
7 MR. HILMES: That's correct.
8 MEMBER STETKAR: So it was -- huh.
9 CHAIRMAN RAY: Okay. Now, I --
10 MEMBER BROWN: One other question, just to 11 be -- back on slide 32, the TSC is shown as coming 12 through a firewall from the two networks, two process 13 computer networks.
14 MR. HILMES: Yes.
15 MEMBER BROWN: Single firewall, that's 16 what it looks like, on the box. And I guess -- and 17 this is based on just experience, no other basis for 18 this question, in that firewalls I have found in many 19 circuits start blocking information, because they get 20 confused.
21 And so this is a point of single data --
22 is it one firewall, are there multiple display systems 23 or computer systems in the TSC that get independently 24 from each of these two channels, or trains, or 25 whatever you want to call them? Or is it all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 1 processed through one firewall that --
2 MR. HILMES: I know there are independent 3 firewalls on Unit 1 and Unit 2, and also to the 4 simulator at that point, I understand.
5 MEMBER BROWN: Is that what this means in 6 here, is -- these are -- the right hand side is Unit 7 2, and the left hand side is Unit 1?
8 MR. HILMES: Generally, that is correct.
9 This is Unit 2, this is Unit 1. We have a common TSC, 10 okay, for both units. And these TSC computers do go 11 to two separate firewalls here, for Unit 1 and Unit 2.
12 I'll have to go back and check to make 13 sure. We have multiple computers up there. I'm not 14 sure offhand if they're in multiple firewalls, 15 independent ones for each one.
16 MEMBER BROWN: I'm just curious as to how 17 the data from Unit 2 gets segregated from Unit 1, if 18 it's all into one network. However it gets processed, 19 it's just -- it's not clear how --
20 MR. HILMES: Yes, this is really three-way 21 communications here. You're going to TSC, but you've 22 also got communications going back and forth between 23 here.
24 Because things like the met tower only go 25 into the Unit 1 computer, so you have to somehow get NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 1 that information over to the unit 2 tower.
2 MEMBER BROWN: Met tower?
3 MR. HILMES: Meteorological.
4 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. Weather.
5 MR. HILMES: Weather. So it's a little 6 more complicated than this pictorially is showing 7 here.
8 CHAIRMAN RAY: Okay.
9 MR. HILMES: I have a very detailed 10 drawing I can provide you with.
11 MEMBER BROWN: Well, it would be nice if 12 that was included in the technical data that is 13 generally based on this. That would have made stuff 14 clearer.
15 MR. HILMES: Okay.
16 CHAIRMAN RAY: Let me try and summarize 17 where we are right now, from a time management 18 standpoint. We're going to have to forego discussion 19 of construction status and schedule, because that's a 20 lower priority as far as this meeting is concerned, 21 and I think as far as the applicant is concerned in 22 communicating with the subcommittee.
23 We've been spending time on trying to get 24 information that wasn't understood or perhaps not 25 available, so it's been a productive use of the 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
77 1 There is, at this point, I think an overarching 2 question about configuration -- the licensing basis 3 configuration disclosure, and how that can be used for 4 configuration management going forward. 50.59 was 5 referred to, for example.
6 To what extent is the information that 7 we're relying on only in RAI responses, for example, 8 as opposed to being in the FSAR? We're going to want 9 to ask the staff about that, and what their take on 10 that is.
11 And I think, rather than -- we're going to 12 have to take a break, and we are absolutely going to 13 stop at noon, because we've got other things scheduled 14 behind us. So rather than go to the applicant's 15 presentation on the reactor at this point, we're going 16 to take a break.
17 We're going to then ask the staff to do 18 their portion of what you've been talking about, so 19 that we can get their assessment and insights in terms 20 of the disclosure of the information that we're asking 21 about, and how that's going to be managed going 22 forward.
23 In other words, are we going to add 24 information, or does it already exist in places that 25 we haven't been able to get access to? And to finish NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 1 up the topic of I&C, because that's the most important 2 thing, and I think that's what you will get the most 3 benefit from, as well of the rest of us, is to get 4 that discussion taking place.
5 We've got two more subcommittees, at 6 least, as I mentioned, and the full committee isn't 7 for 10 months. So the most important thing for us to 8 do is to get information that is of the kind that 9 we've been discussing.
10 We will need to make sure we give Region 11 II their opportunity to make any presentations to us 12 that have to do with the activities that they're 13 responsible for. And then we'll see where we are when 14 that's done, and how much time -- we may defer chapter 15 4 to the next meeting. I don't know.
16 But we're going to have to stop at noon, 17 and I think that we're best served by focusing on this 18 area which is somewhat problematic from the standpoint 19 of our review. I mean, you can answer a lot of 20 questions, but then the lingering, unanswered question 21 is 10 years from now, how do we know that that is 22 accessible in the licensing basis, so you can 23 understand when you change it, as inevitably will 24 happen, is that still within the licensing basis, is 25 an amendment required, or whatever.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 1 And that's where we're going to go for 2 now. So we're going to stop now. I'm going to ask 3 everybody, because of the time constraints that we 4 have here, to be back and ready to go at 10 after 5 10:00.
6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled meeting 7 went off the record at 9:58 a.m. and resumed at 10:09 8 a.m.)
9 CHAIRMAN RAY: All right. We will resume 10 now. Thank you. Pat, I see we are ready to delve 11 into some detail here, it looks like, which is fine.
12 But I would appreciate if we could begin with some 13 response, I guess, or reaction or comment by staff on 14 how we discriminate between things that we learn about 15 the current set of I&C equipment and that which is in 16 the licensing basis and, therefore, serves as a 17 requirement for the inevitable changes that will take 18 place, unless an amendment to the licensing basis is 19 sought.
20 That's a very murky thing for us, at this 21 point in time. We don't know whether we are just 22 being told well, this is the way it is today, but, you 23 know, when the next generation is installed under 24 50.59, if that were to occur, we could -- it could be 25 different.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 1 As compared with -- now, this is the basis 2 on which the plant is being licensed and if it 3 changes, then we would expect to see an amendment.
4 That's something that, at least, I am trying to 5 understand better. And normally, that would be just 6 looking at the Design Certification process, for 7 example, issues which are addressed in an RAI 8 generally then wind up with some conforming amendment 9 to the Design Certification that incorporates that 10 information.
11 This is different because we are talking 12 about an existing plant and not a certified design.
13 But nevertheless, the same principle is at work, 14 inevitably, and so if you could comment about that a 15 little bit? When you get a response back from an RAI, 16 how do you decide, when do you decide that well, we 17 would like to see that in the FSAR?
18 MR. MILANO: When we get our responses 19 back from the RAIs, you know, we -- from the -- it's 20 really up -- part of it is up to staff discretion. We 21 do have some level of dialogue and you will see and 22 you have probably seen some of this where we talk 23 about the -- in the SER the dialogue that has 24 transpired. And we talk to our evaluation or 25 assessment of the RAI responses.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 1 You are correct in the fact that there is, 2 at some point, a determination of whether that 3 information needs to be documented into the FSAR. And 4 if it doesn't -- if it isn't currently there, you will 5 see we will have a confirmatory item that TVA needs to 6 put that into the FSAR.
7 We are not going to discuss it today, but 8 in some of the -- in our Section 9 discussion with 9 regard to the servicewater systems, we, indeed, had 10 that situation. And while the staff has come to the 11 conclusion it was acceptable, we have three open items 12 for each one of those sections to have the FSAR 13 updated.
14 So the bottom line is it is somewhat 15 discretionary and up to the staff.
16 CHAIRMAN RAY: No, that's fine. I mean, 17 I think it is appropriate that it would be a 18 discretionary matter, but like I said, we would like 19 to know which way it is whenever -- at least it's 20 important to what we do.
21 And so with that having been said and you 22 have listened to the discussion up until now, let me 23 ask you to proceed with staff presentation on I&C 24 then.
25 MR. MILANO: Yes. We are going to start NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 1 on No. 9, which is up there right now. And again, 2 I'll just reintroduce the two staff members that are 3 going to be doing most of the talking this morning.
4 You have got Mr. David Rahn and Mr. Norbert Carte.
5 Mr. Carte will be doing most of the -- he did most of 6 the review for the Common Q Platform, the PAM system 7 and stuff. And Mr. Rahn will do predominantly the 8 remaining portions of the I&C.
9 CHAIRMAN RAY: Okay.
10 MR. MILANO: And with that, I'll turn it 11 over to you.
12 CHAIRMAN RAY: Okay. That's fine. And I 13 should have voted. I think we all understood that 14 there may be information, at some point, that we 15 should defer to a closed meeting, because of the 16 safeguards implications. Okay.
17 MR. RAHN: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
18 Chairman and Members of the ACRS Committee. I 19 appreciate your concern regarding the slides that we 20 have available today. You know, our instructions were 21 to prepare for a half hour presentation and just 22 summarize about two years of evaluation that was 23 performed by our staff.
24 There are nine members of our staff that 25 participated in this particular evaluation. Several NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 1 -- there were 45 subsections of the FSAR that were 2 prepared individually with safety analyses.
3 And so a lot of the work that we did is in 4 the details of what was submitted as well as what we 5 asked for. And I'll get into some of what the types 6 of information that we asked for that was actually 7 then requested to be put onto the docket for us.
8 In general, we did spend roughly 7,000 9 plus man-hours performing this evaluation. A lot of 10 this evaluation, the trick and the challenge for us, 11 was to find out what has remained the same within a 12 Unit 2 design compared to the design that was 13 evaluated for Unit 1?
14 And then which things have been upgraded 15 on Unit 1 which are going to be upgraded on Unit 2 and 16 verify whether or not we are meeting the licensing 17 basis for that. And finally, anything that is 18 considered brand new for Unit 2, we evaluated that to 19 our current evaluation criteria.
20 The scope covered the -- several key focus 21 areas in the I&C design process, which I'm going to go 22 through quickly. And we will talk to you briefly 23 about some of the areas that we covered, but we will 24 be happy to answer questions to the best of our 25 ability and any other questions on any other areas NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 1 that you would like us to talk about.
2 I'm also going to talk a little bit about 3 the current status of where we are, which is very, 4 very nearly complete and identify what are the 5 remaining issues to be worked on.
6 So could I have the next slide, please?
7 So essentially, to start this process, we looked at 8 starting with, approximately, Amendment 92 of the FSAR 9 and although we considered all the way up through 10 Amendment 104, the bulk of our I&C work was documented 11 in Amendments 93 through 102, essentially.
12 And 103 and 104 contain information that 13 we requested to be put into the FSAR through our 14 evaluation process. So the later amendments start to 15 document more information than was originally supplied 16 to us for -- on the docket.
17 MEMBER BROWN: Dave?
18 MR. RAHN: Yes?
19 MEMBER BROWN: Relative to that, when I 20 was looking -- this is I need an information 21 response --
22 MR. RAHN: Yes.
23 MEMBER BROWN: -- on this. I looked at 24 98. I looked at 100, 101, 102 and 103.
25 MR. RAHN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 1 MEMBER BROWN: And I noticed that they 2 weren't all complete. In other words, 102 only has 3 four sections --
4 MR. RAHN: Sections. Yes, described data.
5 MEMBER BROWN: -- something else only has, 6 I don't know, one of your other ones had three 7 sections or something like that. And one of them, I 8 think, 100 was relatively complete, I think.
9 MR. RAHN: Yes. It --
10 MEMBER BROWN: But I was off doing 11 comparisons and trying to track. And 103, I think, 12 was complete also. My memory is failing me right now.
13 MR. RAHN: Right. I believe you are 14 correct. There were -- some were piecemeal.
15 MEMBER BROWN: But that was a difficulty.
16 MR. RAHN: Yes.
17 MEMBER BROWN: That was a difficulty 18 trying to find pieces of stuff and going back to FSARs 19 that were only partial.
20 MR. RAHN: Right.
21 MEMBER BROWN: Particularly on the post-22 accident monitoring system, which was left out of a 23 number of them.
24 MR. RAHN: Yes.
25 MEMBER BROWN: And figures were deleted.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 1 I mean, there was a whole section that said there are 2 no figures. And the references was left out of 3 Chapter 7. I was never able to find a list of 4 references, even though there were a lot of references 5 called out in the text.
6 MR. RAHN: Yes. This has been a challenge 7 for us as well, Member Brown.
8 MEMBER BROWN: So I'm correct in my 9 perception? I wasn't missing something?
10 MR. RAHN: Yes, you were.
11 MEMBER BROWN: Okay.
12 MR. RAHN: No, no. And to be honest, to 13 do the evaluation of what was already evaluated in 14 Unit 1 to make a determination whether it is the same 15 or not was also a challenge, because the -- from 1996 16 onward, several supplemental SERs were issued. And 17 the work that was done in those supplemental SERs was 18 also done in a piecemeal fashion. Some of it 19 identifying ways in which previous items are 20 identified could be closed and other issues where it 21 was new information.
22 And so it has been a fairly significant 23 challenge for us to identify what was the original 24 safety evaluation basis, not just the design basis for 25 that design. So in doing so, we had to look at lots NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 1 of old paper.
2 And so to give you an idea of what kind of 3 paper, we looked at all kinds of 50.59 documentation 4 that affected I&C design. We divvied them up amongst 5 the staff according to topical areas. And we also 6 looked at License Amendment Requests that happened on 7 Unit 1 since that time.
8 And that gave us kind of -- and from that, 9 we also evaluated what was described in the 10 supplemental safety evaluation reports. And so the 11 combination of those three stacks of paper, if you 12 will, gave us our basis for making conclusions as to 13 whether the design is the same or not the same.
14 And quite frankly, that was a challenge 15 for us.
16 MEMBER SIEBER: Did you review the updates 17 to the Unit 1 FSAR to see if they adequately reflected 18 changes made under 50.59?
19 MR. RAHN: No, we did not. We did not.
20 MEMBER SIEBER: Do you think somebody 21 ought to do that.
22 MR. RAHN: We -- I don't know. What do 23 you think, Norbert? I don't think that our basis --
24 because what we did was we followed a procedure in-25 house, which is -- we call it -- hold 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
88 1 Essentially, it's the process was to compare old 2 designs versus new design not to confirm that Unit 1 3 was correctly reflected.
4 MEMBER SIEBER: Yes, well, that's part of 5 it. That should be an internal process that the 6 licensee does.
7 MR. KOONTZ: We do have --
8 MEMBER SIEBER: And maybe I can ask the 9 licensee. When you do 50.59 modifications to any 10 system in the plant, is there a step in your 11 procedures for 50.59 to look at the FSAR to make sure 12 that it is always up to date in accordance with the 13 annual updates?
14 MR. RAHN: Well, but --
15 MR. KOONTZ: This is Frank Koontz. I 16 think I can address that. We do look at the FSAR when 17 we do 50.59 processes.
18 MEMBER SIEBER: Right.
19 MR. KOONTZ: And we would look to see if 20 the FSAR descriptions are accurately describing the 21 system, if that's what you are asking me?
22 MEMBER SIEBER: That's what I'm asking.
23 Now, the question is is there enough detail there to 24 be able to reflect what exists, so that you can 25 reference that for future evaluations?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 1 MR. MILANO: Within Office of NRR, we have 2 an office instruction and we do a triennial or --
3 excuse me, once every three year inspection of the 4 FSAR against the 50.59 changes to make sure that they 5 were adequately reflected into the FSAR or USAR for 6 Unit 1.
7 We don't do every single one of them. It 8 is a sample and we increase, you know, depending on 9 what we find, we may increase the sample size.
10 Mr. Raghavan?
11 MR. RAGHAVAN: My name is Raghavan. I'm 12 a Sandia Project Manager at the Watts Bar Branch.
13 Under the regulations, all 50.59s have to be reviewed 14 under Part 50.71(e).
15 MEMBER SIEBER: Right.
16 MR. RAGHAVAN: To be looked at that they 17 are incorporated into the FSAR. And under the -- also 18 the regulations, we periodically review all the 19 actions that have been taking place and incorporated 20 in the updated FSAR.
21 So to answer your question, the FSAR 22 should reflect all the changes that have taken place 23 by way of any amendments, any 50.59s or any responses 24 that they have provided, TVA has provided, to the NRC.
25 They all have to be incorporated as part of 50.71(e).
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 1 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay. I guess I could 2 draw a conclusion from this in that the staff had to 3 do a lot of work in order to piece together what the 4 design basis was.
5 MR. RAGHAVAN: Yes.
6 MEMBER SIEBER: Because it really wasn't 7 reflected in any single place, that's why you ended up 8 with a three-step process. The FSAR, in my 9 impression, is pretty general.
10 MR. RAGHAVAN: Yes.
11 MEMBER SIEBER: In describing what is 12 going on. And I had extreme difficulty trying to 13 review where we stand today with the ultimate design 14 of the system to see if it meets the requirements, 15 because from a public information standpoint, all the 16 details aren't there.
17 MR. RAHN: Right.
18 MEMBER SIEBER: And I don't know whether 19 regulations require how much detail that requires, but 20 I do know what licensees go through in the 50.59 21 process and where they looked. And it should be 22 explicitly stated what the basis is for each one as 23 opposed to making a lot of implicit assumptions that 24 it's okay.
25 And that's why we are struggling with 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
91 1 I&C area.
2 MR. RAHN: Yes. Yes, I appreciate that 3 concern, because it is difficult. If you -- as you 4 read Supplemental Safety Evaluation 23, you will 5 notice that nearly every page is littered with ADAMS 6 accession numbers and reference documents that we had 7 to go extract from --
8 MEMBER SIEBER: Right.
9 MR. RAHN: -- the design evaluation and 10 make sure that we had a reference to it to identify 11 what was our basis for performing the evaluation.
12 MEMBER SIEBER: Well, I have sympathy for 13 the reviewer and also for our own Members trying to 14 figure out what was going on.
15 MR. RAHN: I believe though the challenge 16 in the future in making sure that either 50.59 or a 17 License Amendment Request adequately identifies what 18 the design change is and on what basis the previous 19 evaluation was made. It's going to have to take into 20 account all those references that we made into our 21 safety evaluation supplement.
22 MEMBER SIEBER: I think for the future, 23 for this licensee and every other licensee, we ought 24 to sort of sharpen up the practice so we really 25 understand what the design basis is and that expedites NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 1 50.59 changes or references from one unit to another.
2 And I think that would be helpful.
3 MR. RAHN: Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN RAY: Well, we will --
5 MEMBER SIEBER: I'm not clear that it is 6 required.
7 CHAIRMAN RAY: We will, I think, have to 8 get back to this subject later. I'll note that just 9 Chapter 7 in the SER is 175 pages.
10 MEMBER SIEBER: Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN RAY: And it is very difficult to 12 find out -- figure out what -- leaving aside that we 13 can perhaps easily find out what TVA's current design 14 intent is, what we actually have to rely on is, as you 15 have said here, one reference that down the road 16 people will have to go back and try and figure out 17 what on earth was the basis for the --
18 MEMBER SIEBER: Right.
19 CHAIRMAN RAY: -- licensing approval.
20 Anyway, given that we have got an hour and a half to 21 go now, and not any more than that, let's proceed on 22 through with your presentation.
23 MR. RAHN: Okay.
24 CHAIRMAN RAY: Taking note of this.
25 MR. RAHN: Before leaving this slide, 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
93 1 want to make one mention that not in all cases do we 2 have sufficient documentation to help us to make our 3 decision, so we burned a couple of audits of some of 4 the design and testing processes that were happening 5 at the Westinghouse facility.
6 So, for example, on the Eagle 21 factory 7 acceptance test and also some of the Common Q software 8 development qualification processes.
9 Could I have the next slide, please? So 10 as I mentioned before, we had to break this into three 11 categories in order to complete this identification of 12 what has changed and what is the same. But per LIC-13 110, the process that we followed was to identify 14 those particular changes that were made that are 15 really deltas between Unit 1 and Unit 2. So that also 16 forced us to make sure we understand what was in Unit 17 1.
18 Next slide, please. So in general, all of 19 our I&C focus areas pretty well-covered the same 20 topics from one application to the next. The 21 challenges are how do these topics apply given the 22 delta in technologies that are being applied?
23 But the most important are evaluations of 24 independence between the controls and the protection 25 systems, between reactor controls and protection NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94 1 systems, in particular, but as well as BLP controls.
2 We also will make sure that we have 3 addressed the criteria for maintaining independence 4 and isolation between safety and non-safety systems.
5 We look at the effects of a single random failure on 6 the accomplishment of safety functions and that's not 7 just safety-related components, but non-safety-related 8 components.
9 We also look to make sure that anything 10 that was done for the current standards for Watts Bar 11 Unit 1 was qualified at least to those standards and 12 any piece of new equipment that was purchased and 13 dedicated for a safety-related function, we made sure 14 met the new staff criteria for environmental 15 qualification, seismic, EMI and RFI testing.
16 MEMBER BROWN: That was one of the 17 questions I had when you all had initially addressed 18 that. The fundamental basis and the lead-in was 279.
19 MR. RAHN: Yes.
20 MEMBER BROWN: And I got a little fuzzed 21 up when I was trying to figure out when they built all 22 the new stuff, this -- you are telling me here that it 23 is going to meet 603. It will meet the --
24 MR. RAHN: Yes.
25 MEMBER BROWN: -- current requirements as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95 1 opposed to the 20-year-old 1971 279 requirements?
2 MR. RAHN: That's correct. And if we have 3 some time, Norbert is prepared to talk a little bit 4 more to you -- tell about how we tackled that issue.
5 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. All right. That's--
6 I just wanted to make sure I confirmed my 7 understanding.
8 MR. RAHN: Yes. In addition, we applied 9 the particular regulatory guide or industry code and 10 standard or regulatory issue summary or whatever kind 11 of topical area that would be applicable to the system 12 that we were reviewing.
13 Okay. So I happened to pick RPS and ESF 14 on here, but we, you know, can talk about some of the 15 other systems if you have some particular questions.
16 We tried to, in order to prepare for this particular 17 presentation, get highlights of what we thought you 18 might be interested in, but we can also address other 19 areas.
20 In particular, in the area of the Eagle 21 21 Plant Protection System, which feeds both RPS and the 22 ESFAS systems, we did learn that the configuration of 23 Watts Bar Unit 2 is identical to that of Unit 1. And 24 that took a little bit of doing. And Norbert might 25 even be able to talk a little bit about that as well, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96 1 if you are interested, because he performed an 2 evaluation of a lot of the configuration control 3 documentation at the Westinghouse plant.
4 In addition, we evaluated a lot of the 5 board changes that Steve Hilmas was mentioning 6 earlier, as well as, I don't think he mentioned, but, 7 we identified that there are also better power 8 supplies in general.
9 First of all, there are four separate 10 instrument buses, not just two, and they use 11 combinations of those four to address partitioning as 12 well as controls in a much better fashion than Unit 1 13 had. Although, Unit 1 is certainly adequate.
14 MEMBER BROWN: You know, it's interesting 15 you bring that up.
16 MR. RAHN: Yes.
17 MEMBER BROWN: Because I was -- you 18 certainly can't dig that out of either the SER -- I 19 mean, you have got the words and the FSAR. I mean, 20 you just -- that is a good point to be made is that 21 you actually think that is an improvement over what 22 they had before. You can't discern that from our 23 viewpoint.
24 MR. RAHN: I believe --
25 MEMBER BROWN: And there is no picture NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
97 1 showing that.
2 MR. RAHN: -- it was alluded to in a 3 previous ACRS presentation by the Electrical 4 Department. I think they had a brief discussion on 5 that, although they didn't talk about how it was 6 partitioned.
7 Our staff evaluated the combination of 8 failures of individual power supplies as well as the 9 master/slave pairs of the distributed controls and so 10 forth. So we looked at that area in particular. I 11 think the electrical guys identified the fact that 12 they had this new system for power supply 13 distribution.
14 We also recognized that the analog input 15 signal levels were changed 4 to 20 essentially, 16 replaced 10 to 50, so that standard is different.
17 Next slide, please. In the RPS area, we 18 are -- we have a confirmatory item to ensure that the 19 hardware enforced one-way communication is actually 20 working. We don't see a reason why it wouldn't work, 21 but we would like it demonstrated as part of a pre-op 22 test.
23 And so that's an area where they have a 24 serial to Ethernet connection and in the serial 25 portion, it's a four-wire system, they have a transmit NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
98 1 and receive and they have actually lifted the ability 2 -- the wires completely from the receive end. So the 3 Eagle 21 really will only transit out. There is no 4 way it's getting a signal back from the process 5 computer system.
6 In addition, there were some little things 7 identified during the tests regarding some of the 8 input signals being slightly different during the 9 factory-acceptance test and they are attributing that 10 to some of the actual configuration of the landing of 11 the leads on the cards, which made a potentially minor 12 input error, which will be -- that actually has been 13 corrected and tested, but we are going -- we would 14 like to see it validated by tests as well, because it 15 affects the demonstration of the T av.
16 Next slide, please. As far as what we 17 were concerned, after having evaluated all the deltas 18 between Unit 1 and Unit 2, we are satisfied that the 19 RPS system meets the current -- the applicable 20 criteria for that system. So we don't have any real 21 open issues, except for the confirmatory items on RPS.
22 CHAIRMAN RAY: And you believe that all of 23 the things that you rely upon in making that finding 24 are accessible in the record for future reference if 25 a change should be found?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
99 1 MR. RAHN: If we felt it was not 2 adequately documented, we documented it ourselves by 3 placing a reference to it in our Safety Evaluation 4 Report.
5 CHAIRMAN RAY: Yes. Okay. So then the 6 question becomes the FSAR plus the SER, which includes 7 what you just said --
8 MR. RAHN: Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN RAY: -- constitutes the basis on 10 which one would look at future changes?
11 MR. RAHN: That's correct.
12 MEMBER BROWN: I would -- I understand 13 that. It's just that the ability to dig that out 10 14 years from now --
15 MR. RAHN: Yes.
16 MEMBER BROWN: -- is -- to me, would be 17 difficult when you would have people coming -- you 18 know, myself and a number of others were not on the 19 Committee.
20 MR. RAHN: Yes.
21 MEMBER BROWN: Maybe they weren't on the 22 Committee 16 years ago or 15 years ago and then for, 23 you know, other little evolutions when this came up 24 and I'm not even sure I would have remembered. I know 25 I wouldn't have remembered all that detail for 10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100 1 years. And I'm not saying everything has to be 2 reflected in the FSAR, but there are certain things 3 such as the isolation of data communications.
4 MR. RAHN: Yes.
5 MEMBER BROWN: The idea of lifting the 6 wire in the thing, so that you literally can't have 7 it.
8 MR. RAHN: Yes.
9 MEMBER BROWN: You have -- you try to dig 10 that out somewhere.
11 MR. RAHN: Yes.
12 MEMBER BROWN: That's very difficult to do 13 when you look for it.
14 MR. RAHN: That particular one, we 15 actually reviewed a piece of their modification 16 package, so -- for putting it into Unit 1, so they 17 actually have a design package. We made a reference.
18 We had that documented and made a reference to it and 19 put it in our SER.
20 MEMBER BROWN: And that's good, except you 21 have got to follow the string and touch a number of 22 different places to find out what does that really 23 mean.
24 MR. RAHN: Yes.
25 MEMBER BROWN: You know, what is wrapped NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
101 1 up in that. So anyway, I was just trying to emphasize 2 the point.
3 MR. RAHN: Yes. I think there are places 4 in the -- in our SER where we identified functionally 5 what they did. I think it actually describes the 6 hardware change that I was mentioning.
7 CHAIRMAN RAY: Well, there is a generic 8 issue here we will pick up later.
9 MR. RAHN: Yes, yes.
10 CHAIRMAN RAY: We need to -- I think we 11 can adequately --
12 MR. RAHN: In the area of ESF Actuation 13 System, there were several changes that were 14 identified to us. One of the most critical things for 15 us was the upgrade to the Foxboro Spec 200 intellect 16 system for several of the analog controls.
17 In addition, there were some power supply 18 upgrades put into the solid-state protection cabinets, 19 as well as some facilities for improving surveillance 20 testing. And there were a number of minor changes 21 that were made throughout the design that were -- we 22 have determined to be functionally the same as what 23 Unit 1 has.
24 So but of the areas that we looked at, we 25 determined that the changes that were made were able NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
102 1 to be evaluated in terms of the current licensing 2 basis for Watts Bar Unit 1.
3 MEMBER BROWN: The question I did not ask, 4 because I didn't -- I forgot about it. I didn't 5 forget about it, but it didn't occur to me. On the 6 solid-state protection system, that is different from 7 the old one in terms of the details?
8 MR. RAHN: Cards, yes.
9 MEMBER BROWN: The cards. And I'm 10 presuming that the old one was an early version 11 integrated circuit and/or discrete transistor logic 12 inputs, whereas a lot of the more current logic gates 13 are part of the large scale integrated circuits.
14 And I guess my question is there is four 15 channels feeding four channels to go to both.
16 MR. RAHN: Right.
17 MEMBER BROWN: And it looks like there is 18 contact closures on the inputs, at least based on the 19 one diagram in there, which keeps isolation from that 20 standpoint. But those larger integrated circuits, 21 larger scale integrated circuits --
22 MR. RAHN: Yes.
23 MEMBER BROWN: -- you can combine multiple 24 channels on one larger scale integrated circuit, which 25 gives you some vulnerabilities in terms of 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
103 1 compromise, you know, the ability to have a failure 2 compromise the whole chip.
3 Now, did they use separate chips for each 4 one?
5 MR. RAHN: Okay.
6 MEMBER BROWN: Accordingly for total 7 independence or not?
8 MR. RAHN: The particular individual that 9 did have review, isn't here.
10 MEMBER BROWN: Oh.
11 MR. RAHN: But --
12 MR. MILANO: We can get TVA to --
13 MR. RAHN: Yes.
14 MR. MILANO: -- provide that.
15 MEMBER BROWN: That's fine.
16 MR. HILMES: Steve Hilmes, TVA. Actually, 17 in the case of SSPS, it is the same. We -- they 18 actually went back and remanufactured the old chips.
19 Yes.
20 MEMBER BROWN: Well, that's painful.
21 MR. HILMES: Yes, it was. Yes, we --
22 MEMBER BROWN: I hope you bought a 23 thousand of them. Okay. You answered my question.
24 If you just redid it with the old stuff, then that--
25 MR. HILMES: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
104 1 MEMBER BROWN: -- answers my question 2 satisfactorily. Thank you.
3 MR. HILMES: Yes.
4 MR. RAHN: Okay. The next slide, please.
5 We did see that there were some -- the upgrade to the 6 aux feedwater controls, which we think actually is an 7 enhancement that would improve the reliability of the 8 aux feedwater controls, so that was actually a plus, 9 in our minds.
10 The design for implementing the equipment 11 does meet our regulatory requirements. There was an 12 evaluation performed on their failure modes and 13 effects analysis for this upgrade, and it remains, 14 basically, function-for-function identical to the Unit 15 1 FMEA.
16 And in addition, we evaluated things like 17 IE Bulletins that have had impact on I&C design. And, 18 of course, one of them that is really critical was 19 what happens if you have an automatic initiation and 20 that signal clears? We want to make sure that the 21 system goes into a completion or protective-action 22 type mode and then doesn't automatically reset. It 23 has to be manually reset. And those features were 24 also incorporated into the design of the upgrade that 25 was done on Unit 2.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
105 1 So overall, we found that the conclusions 2 we made regarding the safety of Watts Bar Unit 1, the 3 ESF Actuation System apply to the Unit 2 design.
4 Next slide, please. Another area we 5 looked at was to ensure that as so far as to limiting 6 safety system sightings that were selected for 7 operation of Watts Bar Unit 2, were done in accordance 8 with our current criteria.
9 Back in 2006 and actually the years 10 leading up to 2006, there was a lot of discussion 11 regarding maintaining a setpoint to a very small 12 amount of deviation. And so we issued a Regulatory 13 Issue Summary 2006-17, which clarified what our 14 concerns were regarding what happens when a technician 15 goes and finds an instrument out of tolerance during 16 a surveillance.
17 And so we have -- our staff has improved 18 its criteria, risk guidance, for developing as-found 19 and as-left instrument values and we found that the 20 TVA's setpoint methodology matches our concerns. And 21 so we found that to be acceptable.
22 MEMBER BROWN: Doesn't that mean that if 23 it's out of spec, to recalibrate it?
24 MR. RAHN: Yes. What it, essentially, 25 does is there is actually a variety of ways this goes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
106 1 about. In Eagle 21 space, it's a little different 2 from the analog space. But what happens is 3 Westinghouse has identified an as-found tolerance 4 value that is equal to their calibration accuracy 5 value. And if it ever exceeds that value, it has to 6 be reset to within that tolerance.
7 But beyond that, the staff has identified 8 criteria for what constitutes acceptable draft or 9 acceptable performance, such that if it exceeds that 10 value, it goes into an action limit, which triggers an 11 engineering evaluation or some kind of a corrective 12 action to take a look at.
13 This is prior to reaching the allowable 14 value for the channel. And we found that there are 15 steps for what happens when it is beyond that value 16 matches what the staff's criteria is for triggering a 17 corrective action program to take place.
18 That corrective action program might 19 entail determining whether there is something wrong 20 with the channel or determining whether the tolerance 21 limit was adequately determined. So it may require 22 another engineering evaluation to be performed.
23 MEMBER BROWN: HealthTech is that 24 document?
25 MR. RAHN: Well, there are several.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
107 1 MEMBER BROWN: Several pages --
2 MR. RAHN: No, no, no, no, no. It's not 3 that thick.
4 MEMBER BROWN: It shouldn't be more than--
5 MR. RAHN: Yes.
6 MEMBER BROWN: 5 or 10, 15 pages.
7 MR. RAHN: Well, it's about 40 of 45 8 pages.
9 MEMBER BROWN: 40 pages?
10 MR. RAHN: Yes.
11 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. Could you get a copy 12 of that?
13 MR. SHUKLA: Sure.
14 MR. RAHN: Next slide, please. One of the 15 biggest areas we saw for upgrades were in the area of 16 display instrumentation and some of that display 17 instrumentation was safety-related display 18 instrumentation. And so we did have several key-in 19 areas when we performed the evaluations.
20 Most notably, we first wanted to make sure 21 that TVA's previous commitments with respect to 22 adhering to Reg Guide 1.97 post-accident monitoring on 23 Unit 1 were being followed on Unit 2.
24 In addition, a newer key area was the use 25 of a digital platform for performing computations NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
108 1 associated with post-accident monitoring. Norbert 2 will get into that in more detail in a few minutes.
3 In addition, the use of the containment hi-range 4 radiation monitors, as Steve talked about earlier, was 5 a newer design and so we focused on the qualification 6 aspects of that set of instrumentation.
7 Another area that we found fairly 8 significant change was using a distributed process 9 computer system, rather than a central computer 10 system, because that particular system is used to 11 drive, see those abbreviations there, the bypass to 12 inoperable status indication panel, the safety 13 parameter display system, information that is in the 14 technical support center, as we talked about earlier, 15 and nuclear data links, which are used to feed data 16 here to the NRC Headquarters Operations Center, as 17 well as other places within TVA.
18 In addition, we evaluated compliance with 19 what would happen if we lost power supply on some of 20 the non-safety-related systems that are used as 21 controls to make sure that it didn't trigger an event 22 that would be outside the accident analyses. And I 23 think Steve talked a little bit about this 24 segmentation analysis.
25 Could I have the next slide, please? 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
109 1 think we are talking about -- in particular, what 2 triggered our minds, and what triggered your mind 3 also, Member Brown, is what happens when we have 4 digital-to-digital communications?
5 And so our biggest concern was to zero in 6 on how did they go about accomplishing that? And what 7 do we have to give us our assurance that we are going 8 to be enforcing one-way communication?
9 So we narrowed down what digital 10 communications takes place all the way down to the 11 post-accident monitoring panel talking to the process 12 computer and the Eagle 21 system talking to the 13 process computer.
14 We looked at all the other digital systems 15 that were there and we tried to discern whether there 16 is any information that is being communicated of a 17 safety-to-nonsafety criteria that would entail a more 18 detailed evaluation or a nonsafety-to-safety.
19 And we did learn that the Eagle 21 to 20 Foxboro system require -- is essentially a combination 21 of the analog and contact closure signals and 22 containment hi-range radiation monitoring system also 23 provides analog signals only. So we are -- there were 24 no surprises to be more scrutinized in those two 25 areas.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
110 1 Okay. You can go on the next slide.
2 MR. CARTE: Okay. Regarding the Common Q 3 Post-Accident Monitoring System, it's based on the 4 Westinghouse Common Q Topical Report with some 5 changes. One of the conditions of that safety 6 evaluation, of that topical report was that they 7 follow their software program manual, so we evaluated 8 changes from the original topical report, which 9 included some hardware and software changes.
10 We explicitly asked for an identification 11 and explanation or justification for all changes and 12 we looked at -- to assure that they were following the 13 software program manual, there were changes there and 14 we asked for a description and justification for all 15 those changes.
16 We spent a lot of time and a significant 17 portion of that SE is on three post-accident 18 monitoring variables which are reactor vessel level 19 indication, core exit temperature and subcooling 20 margin monitor. The reason is that two of those 21 variables are Type A Category 1 variables.
22 And what that means is, in essence, if you 23 could go to the next slide, that these, those two 24 variables, provide the primary information to the 25 operators for them to take pre-planned manual actions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
111 1 to accomplish Chapter 15 design basis events.
2 In other words, the operator in this case 3 is the actuation system. And the display is that 4 vital information. And that's why this system 5 required a significant amount of effort in itself. We 6 used the criteria of Reg Guide 1.97 Revision II, which 7 is their commitment, and also IEEE 603.
8 And the reason 603 applies to post-9 accident monitoring variables is part of the 10 difference between 603 and 279. 279 is basically 11 written -- attributably, 279 is basically written 12 against automatic actuation systems.
13 The way 603 is written, it starts off with 14 what are your plant modes? What are your design basis 15 events? What indications do you have that those 16 design basis events are occurring? And then it has a 17 design basis evaluation. Do you have time to take 18 manual action? And if you do, you can design displays 19 and controls to adjust those safety functions.
20 So it is that criteria specifically that 21 is applicable to Type A variables. If there were no 22 Type A variables, we would not have looked at 603. We 23 would not have used 603 to evaluate the Common Q Post-24 Accident Monitoring System, which is, in fact, the 25 criteria which we got into a little bit with 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
112 1 radiation monitors.
2 The radiation monitors do not prompt 3 operator action to address design basis events. So we 4 did not use 603 for the radiation monitors.
5 Basically, we found the system acceptable with a few 6 open items.
7 And let me go on to the next open item.
8 And part of that open item list are things like 9 demonstrate conform -- well, these are a little 10 summarized.
11 Demonstrate conformance with all clauses 12 of 603. So what they haven't explained yet is what 13 specific design basis events are these type area --
14 these Type A variable used for and what manual 15 controls do they use to initiate those events?
16 So from that information, we can look at 17 do they actually have time to do that? Can they 18 operate the controls from where they have the 19 displays? Those are the specific requirements in 603 20 that I cannot say that they conform with, unless I 21 know what the events are. So they still have to 22 provide us an analysis of those events.
23 Demonstrate conformance with Reg Guide 24 1.152, specifically the aspect in there that has not 25 been addressed is the secured development 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
113 1 operational environment. So we have transitioned in 2 this project from Rev. 2, which was originally issued 3 to Rev. 3, which is now on -- available on the 4 website. And they have not responded and I'm not 5 quite sure whether they are going to address Rev. 2 6 and try and address cyber security or whether they are 7 going to just address Rev. 3 and secure development 8 and operational environment.
9 MEMBER BROWN: That's an important 10 distinction between -- from a number of the 11 discussions we have had, both on, I guess, ISG-6 and 12 then 5.71, then ISG-6, whichever one came first.
13 MR. CARTE: Right, right.
14 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. And then the most 15 recent review of 1.152. I mean, there is a big 16 difference there.
17 MR. CARTE: Yes.
18 MEMBER BROWN: So are we going to be able 19 to address that in this next meeting as to what is 20 going on whenever we start talking about the cyber 21 aspects of this thing?
22 MR. CARTE: Well --
23 MEMBER BROWN: I'm not asking you to go 24 into detail. I recognize the security --
25 MR. CARTE: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
114 1 MEMBER BROWN: -- nature of it.
2 MR. CARTE: Basically, my understanding of 3 the approach is that TVA will try and address Reg 4 Guide 1.152 Rev. 3 with the I&C staff. And so we will 5 look at just the secured development and operational 6 environment and any malicious intent will be addressed 7 under cyber security.
8 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. I'm not saying I 9 agree or disagree with that. I hope you understand my 10 comment.
11 MR. CARTE: Yes. And the other clauses 12 that come into effect, if I could lump them together, 13 is a concept which some topical report applicants get 14 a little confused or a little misunderstanding. There 15 is no backfit protection on a topical report. So a 16 topical report is evaluated for conformance to 17 applicable guidance -- at regulations and guidance.
18 However, as time evolves, regulations and 19 guidance change. An application that comes in must 20 meet current applicable regulations and guidance. So 21 there is some times a delta between what the topical 22 report was evaluated against and what the licensee 23 must address.
24 And so part of this misunderstanding are 25 the delay in the response has been the concept 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
115 1 well, this was approved and, therefore, we don't need 2 to evaluate again the current guidance and we are 3 forcing them to docket information with an evaluation 4 against the current guidance.
5 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. So you are saying a 6 delay from Watts Bar to you all? That's the delay you 7 are talking about?
8 MR. CARTE: Yes.
9 MEMBER BROWN: So that's where you are 10 right now.
11 MR. CARTE: Because we look at current 12 applications with respect to current regulations and 13 guidance. And that's a problem with respect to 14 systems that have changed.
15 MEMBER BROWN: There was another reg guide 16 that was revised relative to manual actions that 17 talked about time available and time required to take 18 actions, which was a little bit more detailed. I 19 mean, it was a revision to the -- I forget. It was 20 either 1.6 --
21 MR. CARTE: 1.62 probably.
22 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, you're right, it was 23 1.62. And I didn't see that listed here relative to 24 manual actions. Is there a reason for -- because that 25 -- I mean, that is literally a reg guide that refers NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
116 1 to the ability to take manual actions. And it is not 2 included here. And that had more descriptive -- it 3 wasn't prescriptive, but I mean it had more 4 descriptive saying, you know, if the time got less, 5 then you had to have a better analysis and a few 6 things like that.
7 MR. CARTE: Right. Well, one of the 8 design basis clauses of 603 is Clause 4.5, which 9 includes documentation of the information or the time 10 available for the operator to take actions. So they 11 have not given me that information yet.
12 MEMBER BROWN: Well, 1.62 addressed the 13 old 30 minute rule and said -- you know, the Committee 14 had made a comment that, gee, that was kind of -- 30 15 minutes regardless of what the nature was and you all 16 proposed something and it now became more variable.
17 You didn't have to meet 30 minutes necessarily, if you 18 had --
19 CHAIRMAN RAY: Charlie, we --
20 MEMBER BROWN: My point -- let me -- I'll 21 -- 1.62 is not in here. That's my question. And I'll 22 just leave it at that.
23 MR. CARTE: Okay.
24 MEMBER BROWN: Why it's not -- you know, 25 why it's not part of this.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
117 1 MR. RAHN: Well, I think part of the 2 answer to that, Charlie, is that when we evaluated 3 that portion of the design, we were using the criteria 4 for Watts Bar Unit 1, because we did not find a large 5 delta in the design, with the exception of this post-6 accident issue, so perhaps that's something that we 7 could look at one more time, just to make sure we have 8 got it covered.
9 MR. CARTE: Yes. And I need to look --
10 MEMBER BROWN: Based on this comment about 11 using more current reg guides at the time of the 12 whatever.
13 MR. CARTE: Right. I have to go back and 14 look at 1.62, but if I recall the evolution of that, 15 when we had Reg Guide 1 -- sorry. IEEE-279 is a 16 regulatory requirement, that was a requirement for 17 automatic protective systems. There was also a 18 requirement for a manual initiation of those same 19 systems. And whether we talk at the division level or 20 the system level, that's the difference between 279 21 and 603.
22 But 1.62 was originally written against 23 that manual initiation. What we are talking about a 24 little differently here is that these Type A variables 25 have no automatic actuation system associated. So NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
118 1 it's not the manual initiation clause that was 2 originally intended in 1.62, but rather the manual 3 actions that were coming in under 603 that were not 4 originally part of 279.
5 So I have to go back and think about look 6 at how 1.62 was written and if it still only addresses 7 those system level actuations for which there are 8 automatic actuations or if it includes also --
9 MEMBER BROWN: I thought it included the 10 non -- there were no automatic, but I'll let you go 11 confirm that and it can be addressed later.
12 MR. CARTE: Well, I'll look into that. As 13 well as Reg Guide 1.209 was issued after the Common Q 14 Topical Report was issued, so they have to address the 15 criteria in there.
16 I believe when this was -- when the SE was 17 written, so we are talking at the SE, they had not 18 justified or mitigated all deviations from the 19 material in the SPM. They have subsequently docketed 20 additional information, which I have not completed my 21 review of.
22 One thing which they didn't describe was 23 how to perform periodic testing of RVLIS system, so 24 I'm waiting for that information, as well as, 25 obviously, we haven't seen any of the technical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
119 1 specifications. So we have to make sure that those 2 are met.
3 Another criteria which is not on here, but 4 which is interesting is the synergistic effects of 5 high temperature and high humidity.
6 MEMBER BROWN: Yes.
7 MR. CARTE: So if you look at criteria in 8 terms of -- we have sometimes separately stated 9 temperature requirements and separately stated 10 humidity requirements. And so in some senses, 11 depending on how you conform to requirements, you can 12 say you meet the temperature requirement and you meet 13 the humidity requirement, because it's a relative 14 humidity requirement.
15 However, the actual humidity or actual 16 volume of water in the air is different at a high 17 temperature than it is a low temperature with the same 18 relative humidity. So there may be synergistic 19 effects of temperature and humidity which they have to 20 address. They have to demonstrate that there are no 21 synergistic effects because they had not done the high 22 temperature/high humidity test case.
23 MEMBER SIEBER: Pardon me? Go ahead.
24 MR. CARTE: That's it, I think, for 25 commentary.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
120 1 MEMBER SIEBER: Are there topical reports 2 approved by the staff for either of the Common Q or 3 Eagle 21 systems?
4 MR. CARTE: Yes.
5 MEMBER SIEBER: Yes. Are they 6 referenced --
7 MR. CARTE: Yes.
8 MEMBER SIEBER: -- in the application?
9 Okay. So that becomes the basis or does it?
10 MR. CARTE: That's an interesting 11 question. The question is --
12 MEMBER SIEBER: What relevance does it 13 have to the licensing process that you are going 14 through for Watts Bar 2?
15 MR. RAHN: Certainly from its functional 16 standpoint, I think we could conclude it is the basis, 17 but with the hardware upgrades that have been made, it 18 doesn't address those.
19 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay. So is it referenced 20 in your SER?
21 MR. RAHN: Yes. We talked about how we 22 evaluated the changes in the hardware in our SER.
23 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay. So --
24 MR. RAHN: And some of that --
25 MEMBER SIEBER: -- it is a 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
121 1 MR. RAHN: Yes, right.
2 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay.
3 MR. CARTE: Which includes a description 4 of every hardware and software change and an 5 evaluation of that and we looked at that.
6 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay. Thanks. Thank you.
7 MR. RAHN: In the area of control systems 8 that are not required for safety, another area of 9 interest for us was in the use of the distributed 10 control systems for non-safety controls. And that's 11 an area where we have a concern on is failures of that 12 control system and what impact it has on the operation 13 of the safety systems as well as the safe 14 accomplishment of safety functions.
15 And what we did find was that the license 16 applicant had actually performed a very detailed 17 segmentation analysis, I call it partitioning 18 analysis, but, essentially, it analyzes the effects of 19 failures of function, which they broke into, as Steve 20 talked about earlier, 15 logical functional areas, as 21 well as what would happen if there is a processor 22 failure within that function or what would happen if 23 there is a power supply failure within that function.
24 And so we -- their segmentation analysis 25 written in almost in the form of a calculation type NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
122 1 method, and so we evaluated that as an input for our 2 decision to -- either to determine that it was 3 adequate or not. And we found that their evaluation 4 was effectively detailed enough for us to make a 5 decision that we could conclude that single failures 6 that occur on those systems will not degrade the 7 functional performance of any safety functions within 8 the Chapter 15 analyses.
9 So overall, we have concluded that the key 10 criteria of quality and instrumentation and control 11 and sense and command interactions won't introduce any 12 new unanalyzed failures that have not been currently 13 analyzed, as well as increase or decrease the 14 likelihood of such occurrences.
15 It will decrease. I'm sorry, we did find 16 that the use of fault-tolerant technology actually 17 improved or enhanced the performance.
18 Next slide, please. So, essentially, we 19 are currently looking into detail about the in-core 20 instrumentation system, that's the one major area that 21 we have not completed our review on. However, at this 22 point, we have received sufficient data from the 23 applicant to be able to complete our review. That's 24 an area where our focus is really on the separation 25 and isolation criteria from the in-core NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
123 1 instrumentation, which have mineral-insulated cables 2 that go up into the core and they have a safety-3 related function, which fees the post-accident 4 monitoring for the core exit temperature.
5 And then the non-safety-related function 6 which feeds the in-core detectors which helps do the 7 flux mapping. And so the area of interest for us in 8 this area is the how did they verify that any 9 electrical faults propagated at the -- that performs 10 the separation between the 1E and the non-1E part?
11 How do we ensure that any faults don't propagate into 12 the 1E portion?
13 And so we are nearing our completion of 14 that review and we have asked them to docket a piece 15 of their analysis for that.
16 In addition, we have identified a few 17 field tests, I alluded to a couple of them earlier, 18 that would have to be performed prior to fuel load.
19 And so those issues are going to be identified as 20 things which go on to our regional inspectors table, 21 which we anticipate participating in some of that 22 inspection.
23 The next slide, please. So, essentially, 24 to complete our evaluation, at this point, we are 25 going to work down the remaining open items issues.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
124 1 In terms of numbers, I think we are into the 30 or 40 2 range. I can't remember the numbers any more. I used 3 to follow that a whole lot closer. We are also going 4 to finish our evaluation of the in-core 5 instrumentation system to make sure we are complying 6 with applicable I&C Codes and standards.
7 And then once the tech spec package comes 8 in, we will be looking at that closely in conjunction 9 with the functions that have been identified in the 10 hardware that have been identified to serve those 11 functions to make sure that things like calibration 12 frequency, allowed outage times and some of those 13 criteria have been adequately specified.
14 I just thought of something now. It 15 skipped. Let's go on the next slide. Yes, okay. So 16 overall, what we are anticipating is that we are going 17 to be finishing our evaluation of the in-core 18 instrumentation system by the end of August. And I 19 think we will be ready to submit it to our DORL team, 20 at that point.
21 And then just continue to whittle down all 22 the open items until we finally have either a piece of 23 information that we can put on the docket or something 24 that allows us to make a firm conclusion as to how we 25 determine that it adequately meets the acceptance NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
125 1 criteria under our Standard Review Plan.
2 CHAIRMAN RAY: Well, and obviously, we 3 have a question in our mind of how do we become aware 4 of your resolution of this remaining work? And we 5 will have to follow-up.
6 MR. RAHN: There is a -- I could tell you 7 one thing about that. There is pros and cons, you 8 know, regarding this, so one thing is if you have too 9 much detail in the FSAR, then you always run the risk 10 of being determined as a commitment when it is not a 11 commitment, it's a description. And the other thing 12 is that not enough detail, of course, has all these 13 questions that we have all been struggling with.
14 What is the big picture? What are the 15 components? So somehow for highly technical designs 16 like this is, we have to come up with some either 17 rules of thumb or something that will tell us how much 18 design it needs to be adequately described. And we 19 may have to do it on a functional basis.
20 CHAIRMAN RAY: Yes. I alluded earlier to 21 Design Certification, which is a very -- struggles 22 with the same problem of how much detail, how much 23 constraint, particularly in this area, for example, 24 needs to be part of the certified design in order to 25 reach a finding as compared with things that can 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
126 1 deferred later and demonstrated to functionally meet 2 some design objective.
3 But in any event, we are not going to 4 solve that here. I think we have spent enough time to 5 have gotten all that we can from this meeting in all 6 likelihood. We will be following up with you, at 7 least in the area that requires a closed meeting, but 8 I think also with regard to the issues that you have 9 now described that you haven't yet been able to 10 finish.
11 MR. RAHN: Right.
12 CHAIRMAN RAY: In terms of planning future 13 meetings, that is going to be something we will also 14 address off-line. I want to now give an opportunity 15 to the region to present to us whatever information 16 they would like to, rather than go into another 17 technical area.
18 MR. MILANO: But before we do that, to 19 answer your question with regard to your --
20 specifically with the open items that exist within, 21 you know, the instrumentation organization portion of 22 the review, currently we have 110 open or confirmatory 23 items that must be resolved before --
24 CHAIRMAN RAY: Yes, I've got them listed 25 right here.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
127 1 MR. MILANO: Right. You see them in 2 Appendix HH to the SER.
3 CHAIRMAN RAY: Right.
4 MR. MILANO: Each one of the items that is 5 considered to be open, which means that the staff 6 needs that piece of information it needs to make its 7 determination on it, so that we can consider that 8 portion of the SER that we made our reasonable 9 assurance finding on it, those will be addressed in a 10 future supplement.
11 And, you know, it would be like maybe 12 7.54, you will see just that discussion and how we 13 close it. The confirmatory items will be addressed 14 within the appendices itself and will give you a 15 reference to either a TVA submitted a calculation, 16 which confirmed it, or it was reviewed by an inspector 17 before and we will issue the inspection report number 18 and it will be documented in that table, so that we 19 have confirmation that each one of those items, 20 indeed, was addressed.
21 And all of them will be done before we go 22 to licensing.
23 CHAIRMAN RAY: We still need to make a 24 judgment as to whether or not we need more interaction 25 with you, the applicant, on any of the items that 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
128 1 are talking about, since there are so many now. We 2 will just have to see what our future review scope 3 involves.
4 Dennis, you wanted to --
5 MEMBER BLEY: Yes. I have a follow-up for 6 Norbert. I dug up -- I got 1.62 and took a look. I 7 can see various ways to interpret it. It's manual 8 actions, but otherwise automatically initiated or 9 manual actions as a method diverse from automatic.
10 But if neither one of those apply, what guidance does 11 apply?
12 MR. CARTE: Okay. Yes, I wanted to chime 13 in. There are -- when you think of manual actions, 14 there are sort of three fuzzy sets of requirements 15 that come up for manual actions. One is if you start 16 with 279, you have to have system level actuations and 17 then you had a clause that required manual actuations 18 at the system level for that -- for those system level 19 -- for those automatic actuations.
20 279 came up and said those things need to 21 be independent, not using the same equipment. When 22 603 was issued, it incorporated that requirement for 23 minimum common equipment into the 603. So that's one 24 set of actions. Now, there is -- you have your SECY-25 93087 Item 2Q or something that came up with 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
129 1 diversity and defense in depth policy and position.
2 So if you had a common-cause failure, then 3 you needed the diverse actuation system. And 4 sometimes you can credit manual actions for those 5 diverse actions.
6 So you have a set of manual actions that 7 are diverse to your automatic actions, so that's 8 another set of requirements.
9 And the third set, which is what I implied 10 by Clause 4.5 of 603, is those safety actions which 11 are credited in Chapter 15, which the operator 12 performs manually, for which there is no automatic 13 system.
14 So when you read that clause, I interpret 15 it to address the first two that I mentioned. The --
16 MEMBER BLEY: So we have no reg guide for 17 that third one, which is just straight manual actions 18 and you refer back to IEEE then, right?
19 MR. CARTE: Well, there is the -- IEEE has 20 the requirement that the design basis include the 21 documentation that they have a sufficient time, but 22 that's more of a human factor or not I&C Branch 23 evaluation, whether they actually have time to do 24 these things.
25 MEMBER BLEY: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
130 1 MR. CARTE: We can say that you can 2 operate the controls from where you can see the 3 displays, but we can't really say do you have enough 4 time? And that's --
5 MEMBER SIEBER: With all the other things 6 you have to do.
7 MR. CARTE: Right. It's more of an 8 operator -- I don't know the branch that does that, 9 but we wouldn't really --
10 MR. RAHN: It's actually the Human Factors 11 Branch.
12 MR. CARTE: Human Factors that is, it's 13 not us. But they haven't given us that information 14 yet.
15 MEMBER BROWN: Well, their --
16 MEMBER BLEY: Well, I guess, what I'm 17 hanging on is in this review for Watts Bar, are the 18 involved? Are they doing a separate review?
19 MEMBER SIEBER: I would think so.
20 MEMBER BLEY: If not, how come, you know?
21 MR. MILANO: No, they are. They are. And 22 as a matter of fact, it is not a -- again, it's not an 23 across the Board review. It is only for those things 24 that were not previously reviewed when Units 1 and 2 25 were being licensed.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
131 1 MEMBER BLEY: That decision would have 2 been previously reviewed, I assume.
3 MR. MILANO: So if it was previously 4 reviewed, no, they are not. But there are some 5 instances and you will hear it next time when we talk 6 about accident transient analysis where in one of the 7 transients, there is -- there was a time period of --
8 that was close to the 10 minute limit and, indeed, our 9 Human Factors organization looked and supported the 10 Reactor Systems Branch to say that yes, indeed, that 11 it appears likely that the action can take place at 12 that 10 minute and 30 second time period.
13 So, yes.
14 MEMBER BLEY: And that will be next time 15 though.
16 MR. MILANO: It will be next time.
17 MEMBER BLEY: Yes.
18 MR. MILANO: That's correct.
19 MEMBER BROWN: I would make one 20 amplification on page 4. This was Rev. 1. So display 21 instrumentation provided for manually controlled 22 actions for which no automatic control is provided and 23 that are required for safety systems to accomplish 24 their safety functions, which sounds to me like it 25 talks about your area of which they don't -- 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
132 1 just says you -- it goes on and says they have got to 2 be done in accordance with 603 and they can't be 3 ambiguous.
4 In other words, you have got to have 5 monitoring -- you have got to display information for 6 those functions where there are no automatic actions, 7 but for which manual actions are used for safety 8 systems.
9 MEMBER BLEY: Yes, accomplishment of 10 safety.
11 MEMBER BROWN: So safety --
12 MEMBER BLEY: That's interesting because 13 the introduction has the other statement that it only 14 applies to these other things.
15 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, well, this is -- I 16 knew there was something --
17 MEMBER BLEY: So there is guidance.
18 MEMBER BROWN: I remembered something 19 else, that's why I went and dug it up.
20 MEMBER BLEY: We will look at it.
21 MEMBER BROWN: It's on page 4 of Rev. 1 22 and it's the next to the last paragraph.
23 MEMBER BLEY: I see it. I'm looking at it 24 now.
25 MEMBER BROWN: Yes. So that's what 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
133 1 trying to recall when I was talking to you earlier.
2 CHAIRMAN RAY: What is the bottom line of 3 that?
4 MEMBER BROWN: The bottom line was that 5 hit -- the comment about they didn't have anything for 6 just where manual actions were being used to 7 accomplish a safety function where no automatic -- not 8 just having here I have got an automatic and I've got 9 to be able to manually do it.
10 CHAIRMAN RAY: You say they don't have 11 anything. You meant they didn't have any guidance.
12 But you are referring to something that does apply.
13 MEMBER BROWN: It says that there is 14 guidance for that. And it's in 1.62.
15 CHAIRMAN RAY: All right. Fine. That's 16 all.
17 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you. I'm not very 18 clear most of the time.
19 CHAIRMAN RAY: All right. To be 20 continued, I guess, would be the simplest way to say 21 this. Anything more though with that before we hear 22 from the region?
23 MR. MILANO: No, sir. That's it. That's 24 it for the Chapter 7.
25 CHAIRMAN RAY: I understand.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
134 1 MR. MILANO: We will forego, I believe, 2 the Chapter 4 material until next time.
3 CHAIRMAN RAY: Yes. I think that that's 4 the most sensible thing to do. Like I say, I want to 5 give the region a chance to report to us and have any 6 discussion that is necessary then. And then depending 7 on whether there is any time remaining, we may ask to 8 hear from the applicant again on project status, but 9 we will see --
10 MR. MILANO: Okay.
11 CHAIRMAN RAY: -- what time allows then.
12 MR. MILANO: Okay.
13 CHAIRMAN RAY: Okay.
14 MR. MILANO: In that case, we will -- Mr.
15 Norbert or Mr. Carte and Mr. Rahn will leave and Tomy 16 Nazario, the Senior Resident Inspector will do the 17 construction inspection.
18 CHAIRMAN RAY: I appreciate people being 19 prepared to talk about the other material, but this 20 was just compelling that we were not going to --
21 MEMBER SIEBER: I think the staff --
22 CHAIRMAN RAY: -- make good progress here 23 if we didn't spend enough time on I&C to really have 24 a dialogue. Charlie, one other?
25 MEMBER BROWN: Yes. One. I made 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
135 1 comment about too much detail and not enough detail in 2 the FSAR. And they made the comment about we have to 3 think about it in terms of functional blocked items 4 and that's exactly similar to what we exercised in 5 some of the new applicant DCDs and that's what -- all 6 I was referring to that we ought to have for defining 7 some of these systems in the FSAR.
8 CHAIRMAN RAY: Yes.
9 MEMBER BROWN: Nothing more detailed. Not 10 detailed wiring diagrams, but functional block 11 diagrams.
12 CHAIRMAN RAY: I don't know how we are 13 going to address ourselves to that, other than just 14 the comments that you made, but it seems to me like it 15 is something we need to talk about later.
16 MEMBER BROWN: Yes.
17 CHAIRMAN RAY: With that having been said, 18 let's move on to the regional.
19 MR. MILANO: Okay. We're going to be 20 starting on page 33 of our -- excuse me, page 32 of 21 our slides.
22 CHAIRMAN RAY: All right.
23 MR. NAZARIO: All right. Good morning.
24 My name is Tomy Nazario. I'm the Senior Resident over 25 at Watts Bar Unit 2. I've met some of you before.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
136 1 CHAIRMAN RAY: Yes.
2 MR. NAZARIO: James Baptist was actually 3 supposed to give this presentation. However, there 4 has been last minute changes.
5 CHAIRMAN RAY: That happens.
6 MR. NAZARIO: We just want to give you an 7 overall status in terms of the inspection program and 8 where we are at. Earlier this year, we had completed 9 our 2010 End of Cycle review during which we presented 10 to the public the fact that 14 violations were issued.
11 Actually, it was 13 non-cited and one Notice of 12 Violation and that issue is the one relating to the 13 Heinemann breaker.
14 We also identified a potential substantive 15 cross-cutting issue due to four findings within the 16 same cross-cutting area and this was in the area of --
17 if you look at the guidance, it's Hotel 4 Bravo and, 18 basically, what it speaks to is failure to communicate 19 expectations regarding procedural compliance.
20 So it is something that we are going to 21 continue to look at and monitor as the year progresses 22 and then we will reevaluate during the mid-cycle 23 assessment, which is coming up here shortly.
24 CHAIRMAN RAY: Does this involve 25 contractor personnel or just the applicant?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
137 1 MR. NAZARIO: The applicant. Well, 2 primarily contractor personnel, yes.
3 CHAIRMAN RAY: Yes. Okay.
4 MR. NAZARIO: And then as far as this year 5 goes, to date, we have issued six violations. In 6 terms of regional inspection effort, we have expended, 7 approximately, 14,700 staff hours on the project and 8 this was in 2010. This was actually an increase from 9 8,800 in 2009. And this has been due in large part to 10 the increase in construction activities.
11 Early on in the project, you know, the 12 applicant and the contractors performed walkdowns 13 trying to get a grasp of the project. They went into 14 -- or phased into engineering work and then now they 15 are primarily in the construction phase.
16 We are also utilizing two temporary 17 resident inspectors. We have a total of four 18 residents at the site currently. And during -- last 19 year, we actually had 34 regional inspectors come 20 through the site, so there has been a lot of regional 21 support in terms of inspection effort.
22 We also filled recently a position for a 23 pre-operational testing team leader. And this is just 24 trying to get prepared for a lot of the upcoming pre-25 operational testing and startup testing. And then 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
138 1 added another senior project inspector down at the 2 region in Atlanta.
3 We had a public meeting on June 20th with 4 TVA and this was to discuss their updated schedule, 5 during which they presented a revised fuel load date 6 and that's -- and they will touch on that during their 7 presentation.
8 Right now, they are looking at some time 9 between July and September 2012 for a fuel load date.
10 They also touched on just overall status and that is 11 covered in their slides.
12 The next slide.
13 MR. MILANO: Before -- I would like to 14 just make mention, the numbers of people that Tomy has 15 been talking about, those are only on the Unit 2 side.
16 That there are two separate resident inspectors --
17 MR. NAZARIO: Yes.
18 MR. MILANO: -- for Unit 1.
19 CHAIRMAN RAY: Understood.
20 MR. MILANO: Yes.
21 MR. NAZARIO: Appreciate the clarification 22 there, Pat. Again, regarding inspection activities, 23 which actually we were issuing quarterly inspection 24 reports. We have now moved to six week, six to seven 25 week inspection reports or inspection periods. 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
139 1 again, this is just a reflection of the increase in 2 construction activities at the site. Reports were, 3 again, fairly large, so we want to maintain and be 4 more efficient in the issuance of these reports.
5 Also, one of the things we looked at and 6 you had a, the last time you were at the site, first 7 hand look is the interface between Units 1 and 2. As 8 Pat mentioned, there is a Unit 1 resident office and 9 we have a biweekly, what we call, Unit 1/Unit 2 10 interface meeting. So, you know, the primary concern 11 there is insuring that Unit 1, which is the operating 12 side of the house, is not impacted by construction 13 activities.
14 We also performed a problem identification 15 resolution inspection earlier this year. We conducted 16 one last year. So it's just ongoing and then we have 17 a resident effort which looks at the Corrective Action 18 Program continuously.
19 We closed eight CAPs and SPs. These are 20 Corrective Action Programs and Special Programs. And 21 the sub-issues mentioned there are the ones associated 22 with the electrical sub-issues.
23 We also closed 94 of, approximately, 500 24 open items. Early on in the project, we developed 25 what we call inspection planning and scheduling NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
140 1 database and in there we have exactly 512 items that 2 we are tracking. And these are items that have to be 3 inspected and closed out prior to fuel load.
4 So in terms of progress, we are, you know, 5 right now, as I mentioned earlier, at 94. That is 6 right now our primary challenge is closing out the 7 remainder of these items and in large part, it's due 8 to or correlates to the construction activities that 9 take place at the site and also the completeness and 10 quality of closure packages that are provided to us 11 for our review and inspection.
12 Next slide, please. We have, actually 13 this week, a commercial grade dedication inspection 14 ongoing at the site, so we will be taking a look at 15 the overall program. We have looked at portions of 16 commercial grade dedication in the past, as discussed 17 in some of our previous inspection reports.
18 Then as I mentioned before, as part of our 19 overall inspection program, we will be looking at the 20 pre-operational testing and we will be performing 21 numerous inspections in those areas. We conducted 22 earlier in June training for the NRC staff, primarily 23 the regional staff, on pre-op testing and we had about 24 40 attendees there. So these are inspectors that are 25 going to be assisting us with a lot of these 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
141 1 turnovers as they come up.
2 And then one thing we are also doing at 3 the region, at the regional level, is we are assessing 4 the scope and the schedule for inspections supporting 5 programs, primarily radiation protection, emergency 6 planning, security and these are programs that are 7 currently covered by the Unit 1 organization. So we 8 will be looking at how those transition into the ROP 9 once that comes up.
10 And then again, you know, just to touch on 11 the resolution of the Heinemann circuit breaker and 12 the seismic qualification violation, we actually had 13 an inspection on-site two weeks ago as a follow-up to 14 the Notice of Violation and the results of which were 15 covered during --
16 CHAIRMAN RAY: Your speaker or your 17 microphone is being impacted there.
18 MR. NAZARIO: Oh, okay. I appreciate 19 that.
20 CHAIRMAN RAY: You're all right. All 21 right.
22 MR. NAZARIO: During our upcoming 23 inspection report, so --
24 MEMBER SIEBER: What was the issue with 25 Heinemann, other than seismic? Those are very small NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
142 1 circuit breakers in bakelite cases.
2 MR. NAZARIO: That's correct.
4 CHAIRMAN RAY: No, go ahead.
5 MR. MILANO: The reason why I'm mentioning 6 this is NRR has been supporting the region with regard 7 to -- the casing for this 120 volt circuit breaker is 8 smaller and fits into the MCC differently than --
9 MEMBER SIEBER: So it vibrates?
10 MR. MILANO: That's correct. And so what 11 we are doing is the issue right now is -- the bottom 12 line issue is TVA believes that they could analyze the 13 seismic response of the breaker and the staff right 14 now is of the opinion that the only way you could do 15 it in the configuration is through testing.
16 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay.
17 MR. NAZARIO: All right?
18 MEMBER SIEBER: Yes, these Heinemann 19 breakers are used every place by everybody, but the 20 mounting is important.
21 MR. NAZARIO: Yes.
22 CHAIRMAN RAY: Correct.
23 MEMBER SIEBER: Okay.
24 MR. NAZARIO: Thanks. Next slide. Again, 25 the inspections are ongoing. The issues that have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
143 1 been identified to date have been of minor 2 significance or lower significance as covered in our 3 inspection reports. The majority have been severity 4 level 4 violations and -- or non-cited violations and 5 then the one Notice of Violation that we just talked 6 about here.
7 So far we have determined that we do have 8 adequate inspection resources. Again, and that's just 9 going to continue to increase as time goes by. And 10 just to highlight the point again, which is the fact 11 that there is going to be a continued increase in 12 terms of ongoing inspection efforts as construction 13 activities increase, pre-operational testing and 14 system turnover increases.
15 So any questions?
16 CHAIRMAN RAY: All right. Yes, thanks.
17 MR. NAZARIO: Okay. Appreciate the 18 opportunity.
19 CHAIRMAN RAY: Well, thank you very much 20 for the report. We certainly are very much interested 21 in how this is executed, but it sounds like it is 22 going well. Thank you.
23 MR. NAZARIO: Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN RAY: All right. Pat, I think we 25 will invite the applicant to cover the schedule 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
144 1 status material that they were prepared to address.
2 I want to leave time for any public comment that we 3 need to receive and also be done before 12:00.
4 So may I invite the applicant to return?
5 Sorry for asking you to do this out of order, but I 6 think we made the best use of our time. And now, we 7 would be happy to ask you to go ahead and give us the 8 presentation on the construction completion status and 9 outliers.
10 MR. STINSON: Okay. Thank you. I'll try 11 to go through this briefly. I'm Dave Stinson, TVA.
12 I will go just through a quick update. I'll kind of 13 tell you how we got here.
14 As you know, I'm -- this is my fifth month 15 with the project, so I'm a new project manager in 16 place. To give you a feel for our progress with 17 reassessing the schedule, what our turnover schedule 18 actually looks like, how we are validating that, and 19 as I think Tomy said, that we have kind of a window 20 for completion for fuel load at the July, end of 21 September time frame for 2012.
22 Go to the next slide. So in the 23 engineering, we are 85 percent complete. All 24 engineering resources with just a few exceptions are 25 on-site. We are focusing on field support 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
145 1 construction, working on our Corrective Action Program 2 and also our Special Programs completions, CAPs and 3 Special Programs. And then last is the support.
4 Construction. We just finished a Unit 1 5 outage where we did a large amount of work during that 6 time. We have been focusing. We have actually slowed 7 down our overtime rate fairly substantially from about 8 50 percent down to about 10 percent, looking at 9 improving our overall work performance productivity 10 and then that challenging quality caught as much as 11 the overtime rate did.
12 We have improved our direct work 13 productivity from 19 percent up to 25 percent. Today, 14 we are about 64.5 percent complete with construction.
15 We are focused on staffing critical positions, 16 primarily in developing work plans and a work plan 17 closure area. So field engineers and planners are 18 critical.
19 And then getting a workable backlog. Some 20 of our work plans have been challenging to complete in 21 the past because of their size. And so we developed 22 a new process to make those smaller, more workable, so 23 they get through the process much quicker. It aids 24 the field work and the focus and also aids in closure.
25 Next slide. Our Active Refurbishment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
146 1 Program. We are on the end of that program. Over 77 2 percent of safety-related valves have been complete.
3 With pumps 77 percent and our motors required are over 4 90 percent.
5 Startup testing, we turned over 28 systems 6 to date. Turned over three in May, four were 7 completed in June. We integrated safeguards testing, 8 something that has been a topic, I think, for a while.
9 We intend to perform that on-line with Unit 1 on-line 10 after hot functional testing.
11 And during the outage when the key for us 12 was completing work that -- so that we could do that 13 on-line, rather than an off-line. So we completed an 14 informational flow balance during the outage and got 15 all of our settings, so that when we came on-line, we 16 could do that very quickly.
17 We look to do that in the fall once the 18 river temperatures are down and puts us in position to 19 do that on-line.
20 Just a few slides, so you see kind of how 21 the completion is there. This is the control room 22 probably a couple years ago.
23 And the next slide. And then the control 24 room as it looks now. So substantially completed all 25 the work there and we are now in the process -- over NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
147 1 the next couple of months, we will actually take the 2 curtains down and open that up to the Unit 1 control 3 room. We are that far along.
4 Next slide. Areas that we have turned 5 over, this is our CCW pump room area to just give you 6 a feel for the level of completeness that we will have 7 at the point when we finish. We have a major coatings 8 program.
9 Next slide.
10 CHAIRMAN RAY: Wait a minute. When you 11 remove the barrier and have your single control room 12 with two sides on it, will there be any -- at what 13 point would the shift crews be under single 14 management? I assume that's still off in the future 15 in the two sites.
16 MR. STINSON: Yes, I might actually refer 17 that to maybe Pete on that. We are going to have an 18 SRO, the Unit 2 SRO on duty.
19 CHAIRMAN RAY: Yes.
20 MR. STINSON: At that time. And Pete 21 Olson, our startup manager.
22 MR. OLSON: Yes, Pete Olson, TVA, Startup 23 Manager. We will get staff and control room this fall 24 with an SRO for Unit 1, that's what our target is with 25 the curtain coming down.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
148 1 Our current activities are coordinated 2 through the Unit 1 shift manager now that do impact 3 Unit 1 and are working through that process as this 4 goes through Unit 1 for work orders that impact 5 equipment on Unit 1 also currently.
6 We will continue to staff Unit 2 control 7 room with Unit 2 assigned people. Many of the 8 operators assigned to Unit 1 are part of the Unit 1 9 operating crew. Our auxiliary operators are supplied 10 to this by the Unit 1 staff. And they rotate with us 11 on the Unit 2 side.
12 CHAIRMAN RAY: But the responsibility for 13 the management of the actions associated with startup 14 testing of Unit 2 will be separate from Unit 1 or not?
15 MR. OLSON: Yes, that will be separate 16 from Unit 1 at that -- until down the road quite a 17 bit, yes. Hot functional is really what our target is 18 when you look at the big picture. You know, that's 19 the good example of Unit 1 command and control 20 operating the plan during hot function.
21 CHAIRMAN RAY: Okay.
22 MR. STINSON: Okay. So this slide really 23 just highlights the differences in the plant. Unit 1 24 has been running for the last 15 years. When you add 25 on another unit, there is always a concern that people NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
149 1 will get on the wrong unit. So the bottom left hand 2 corner slide shows the upper MCC buckets as they were 3 previously and the new ones, white, being a common 4 system for the plant and the blue being the Unit 2 5 side of the plant.
6 So when you step up to that, the MCC, it's 7 very clear, you know, which unit is associated with a 8 bucket. The same way on the right hand side. This is 9 a CCW pump room, kind of a before and then after 10 showing the -- what the finished product will look 11 like.
12 Let's go to the next slide. Turbine deck.
13 Just looking at area completeness, we had a chance to 14 add our MSR heaters and a lot of the equipment on that 15 deck itself.
16 Next slide. And just a final look at a 17 close out of that painting area, coatings area there, 18 as we kind of de-staff Siemens as they finish their 19 work on the turbine, actually a week ago Friday. So 20 we are busy getting that ready for pre-op.
21 We went through a very long, about three 22 month, schedule reassessment process to get confidence 23 in our schedule for completion. And I won't go 24 through the detail here, but we basically went through 25 every area of engineering, construction, startup, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
150 1 validated either through looking at all of one area or 2 through sampling the work to go and at the end of May 3 came up with a schedule that we will talk about here.
4 Let's go to the next slide. And it really 5 pointed us towards -- I mean, the philosophy that we 6 used was what have we done historically? What can we 7 kind of bank on going in the future for unit rate 8 performance and construction? What about in a startup 9 area, what have we seen in terms of testing hours and 10 our ability to take these turnovers and immediately 11 start working?
12 So we looked at kind of two areas. Let's 13 validate our construction process if we can, in fact, 14 do better. So we looked at unit rate performance, 15 looked at our peak direct work earned performance, how 16 productive can we be in the field? We looked at our 17 staffing ratios for filled non-manual and then our 18 paper closure performance. All these areas kind of 19 dictate how quickly we can complete the unit.
20 And so we looked at kind of a three month 21 area that we are going to push for construction 22 productivity with the number of systems that we are 23 looking at completing and targeted man-hours that we 24 will earn in over that period.
25 Next slide. Also, with startup, that's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
151 1 the other area we wanted to test. So we want to test 2 their procedures, how well they can develop procedures 3 and perform those, component test performance, how 4 well we do there. Just the overall organization of 5 how they perform when we start adding more and more 6 systems for them to test.
7 And finally, you can take that you are 8 doing component testing and then you do system testing 9 and then how can the organization react to doing 10 milestone testing where we bring in multiple systems 11 to test. So that was what our summer program is about 12 and ending our fall program.
13 Next slide. A few looks at taking term 14 buildings. This is areas which is nearing completion.
15 We should have all systems turned over by the end of 16 July with just a couple of systems feeding over into 17 August. And so what we wanted to do was test our 18 ability to finish systems, but also major milestones 19 like short cycle for the condenser, do our condenser 20 hydros, do our long-cycle, that allows us to test 21 multiple parts of organizations. So we will do that 22 through early October.
23 Next slide. The other key areas that we 24 have backlogs and we want to reduce for a lot of 25 reasons, primarily though, within those backlogs 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
152 1 risk. There are items that may turn out to be work.
2 And so we want to make sure that we get that backlog 3 worked out, so we have a minimum amount of risk 4 through our schedule going forward.
5 So programs like Active Refurbishment, you 6 know, we have gone through great efforts to make sure 7 that our plant is ready to operate with valves, pumps 8 and motors and so the idea is complete all that work, 9 so that they are ready for testing with the only 10 exception being that we have our auxiliary building 11 secondary containment that we want to -- we have to 12 maintain. And so we may not have all of those valves 13 complete, but, at the most, that's about 50 safety-14 related valves.
15 The control room design review, we will 16 have that work essentially complete, that will give us 17 the ability to bring that curtain down, so we won't be 18 adding any impact to the Unit 1 side.
19 Work order closure, that we have about a 20 900 backlog of work orders that are complete in the 21 field, but not yet closed and in our vault. And so we 22 want to bring that down to the average of about 30 23 days, that should give us a backlog of about 400 to 24 500. So we want to bring that down.
25 And also, in our Corrective Action NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
153 1 Program, we want to bring that load down until it 2 averages about 45 days. So we have about 3,000 3 Corrective Actions that have to be worked down through 4 is area. Once again, it's a way for us to reduce risk 5 on the project.
6 And the last slide really shows our major 7 milestones. And it talks about whether we make a 8 September date or July date and what those key 9 milestones, what dates they will follow on.
10 CHAIRMAN RAY: Okay. Now, early on, there 11 was a need to fit outage windows for some of the work, 12 but you appear to have eliminated that was a 13 constraint on your schedule, so that if it takes 14 longer, it just takes longer, but the lights don't go 15 out as a result, I take it.
16 MR. STINSON: Right. At this point, we 17 don't have reason to take a mid-cycle outage. You 18 know, if some -- we were to discover a reason for 19 that, we certainly would take it, but, at this point, 20 we don't see a need for it.
21 CHAIRMAN RAY: Yes. I mean, I think that 22 as long as there aren't -- there isn't something like 23 an outage requirement on Unit 1, the work that you are 24 doing will just take as long as it takes to get it 25 done.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
154 1 MR. STINSON: That's correct.
2 CHAIRMAN RAY: We are not having to meet 3 some external window like that. That was something we 4 had questions about earlier on, but no longer is an 5 issue, apparently.
6 Any other comments or questions on project 7 status? Thank you.
8 Okay. Two things. The first one would be 9 to ask whether has anyone sought to make any public 10 comments? Girija? And I take it no one is stepping 11 forward to a microphone to do so.
12 So we will wrap-up here. I mentioned out 13 the outset subcommittee meetings currently scheduled.
14 Girija has raised a question about whether we want a 15 meeting prior to the next scheduled meeting, October 16 5th. I don't think so. I don't think so because it 17 looks to me like the Full Committee meeting is far 18 enough distance that if there is a need for us to have 19 other subcommittee meetings, it would behoove us to do 20 so later, rather than sooner, thereby having less, 21 fewer unresolved or open items available.
22 Pat, do you have any comment on that?
23 MR. MILANO: No, sir. Well, as a matter 24 of fact, that leads right into what I was going to 25 talk about.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
155 1 CHAIRMAN RAY: Okay.
2 MR. MILANO: And just to give you a quick 3 synopsis of where we stand, in October we are going to 4 be talking -- we are going to be closing out the last 5 of the items that we have never discussed before this 6 -- the Committee. And that is accident transient 7 analysis including dose consequences, that will be the 8 predominant focus for next time, along with what we 9 consider to be Chapter 11, which is rad waste 10 processing and, basically, dose consequences from 11 normal operation, those are the big areas.
12 And then after that, we have fire 13 protection that you have -- that we have never talked 14 to you about. That's the one where we have been 15 talking with Mr. Shukla about and we will probably 16 have to have a subcommittee meeting in the first 17 quarter of calendar year 12 to discuss that one.
18 The staff is currently progressing to 19 complete about January with their safety evaluation 20 for fire protection.
21 The other items we will be doing in 22 addition to these is we will be discussing the open 23 issues as they -- as we close them out. In 24 particular, those open issues that have -- where the 25 staff has taken -- has had to do some major review NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
156 1 effort in order to complete its reasonable assurance 2 finding.
3 MEMBER RYAN: So the dose consequence, 4 that's targeted for October?
5 MR. MILANO: We are -- open items, we are 6 going to be discussing as we complete them in October, 7 December and then some time in let's say February or 8 March.
9 MEMBER RYAN: So you are not going to try 10 and get it all in one meeting? It will be over three?
11 MR. MILANO: No, it will be over three 12 meetings.
13 MEMBER RYAN: Okay.
14 MR. MILANO: I don't envision us being 15 able to close open items --
16 MEMBER RYAN: Right.
17 MR. MILANO: -- quickly. We will probably 18 have those right to the end.
19 MEMBER RYAN: I just want to understand.
20 MR. MILANO: Yes, sir.
21 MEMBER RYAN: That's fine.
22 CHAIRMAN RAY: On an issue like fire 23 protection, you know, one of the sort of unique 24 factors that we deal with here is that there is the 25 Commission's direction as to Unit 1 being a basis for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
157 1 what we find acceptable on Unit 2.
2 And yet, areas where upgrades are needed, 3 we are supposed to take those into account on Unit 2, 4 if the opportunity presents itself even ahead of Unit 5 1 if they are going to be done on Unit 1 later, for 6 example. 191 being an example on that issue.
7 So we need to keep that in mind and it 8 adds to the challenge to always remember that we are 9 not looking at this as a stand-alone plant, but rather 10 one that is constrained by Unit 1, fundamentally.
11 MR. MILANO: In particular, when you --
12 when we do come before you to talk about fire 13 protection, you will see a major upgrade to the Unit 14 2 and common areas in their approach, especially 15 towards operator manual actions and justifications and 16 safe shutdown evaluations.
17 CHAIRMAN RAY: Well, okay, that's fine.
18 I would add that, you know, we are going to have to 19 mull over this problem of, I kept mentioning our 20 experience in Design Certification, not having, which 21 is different not the same, but, enough detail that 22 would allow us to be confident that we were basing our 23 finding on something that was permanent, not just what 24 somebody happened to think today they were going to 25 do.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
158 1 And we are going to have to think about 2 that, I guess, as to whether there is anything that we 3 want to feedback to you beyond just what you have 4 heard here today.
5 As you say, it's obviously a matter of 6 judgment ultimately. And yet, it's an important 7 judgment that is made. And at this point, when you 8 are dealing with an SER, you know, for a single 9 chapter that is this big along on top of an FSAR, as 10 well as other references that exist, it becomes tough 11 and you have admitted that it's as tough for you as it 12 is for us, I guess.
13 MR. MILANO: You are correct. I mean, it 14 is -- we understand and we, you know, have empathy for 15 what you are going through. And that's generally why 16 we felt the need to put out that Supplement 21, which 17 basically didn't really evaluate much of anything, but 18 just kind of laid out the framework of how we started 19 the project. What was -- what did the staff consider 20 to be already addressed and what was left to be done?
21 And even with, you know, what was left --
22 what we thought was left to be done, when we did that 23 almost two years ago, you are seeing that just 24 Supplements 22 and 23 were each in the 300 to 400 page 25 range.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
159 1 CHAIRMAN RAY: Yes.
2 MR. MILANO: And I believe the next one 3 will probably be in that same category. It has been 4 a lot of work.
5 CHAIRMAN RAY: Well, we will do our best.
6 And like I say, if we have anything more to say on 7 this issue that we are just now wrapping up with, we 8 will let you know. I don't know what it would be or 9 when it would be, but I'm not sure that right now we 10 are satisfied, notwithstanding the fact that we spent 11 the entire time here today, you know, on this one 12 area, that we don't need to do something more or 13 different, but we will think about that and let you 14 know.
15 MR. MILANO: And we will be working with 16 Mr. Shukla to --
17 CHAIRMAN RAY: Yes.
18 MR. MILANO: -- figure out what we -- you 19 know, what items in particular to what we were 20 planning to address in October that we need to do.
21 CHAIRMAN RAY: All right. With that, if 22 there is nothing more, not hearing anybody, we stand 23 adjourned.
24 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 25 11:51 a.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 WBN Unit 2 ACRS Presentation July 12, 2011
Agenda
- Construction Completion Status - Dave Stinson
- Instrumentation and Controls (FSAR Chapter 7) - Steve Hilmes
- Reactor (FSAR Chapter 4) - Frank Koontz
- Auxiliary Systems (FSAR Chapter 9) - Frank Koontz
- Questions Crouch 2
Construction Completion Status Crouch 3
WBN2 Completion Status
- Project Status Update
- Schedule Reassessment Process
- System Turnover Schedule
- Validation Process - - Summer Push
- Construction Productivity
- Startup Productivity
- Backlog / Program Reduction
- Major Milestone Schedule
- Questions Stinson 4
WBN2 Completion Status Engineering
- Overall Progress - 85% complete
- All Engineering Resources at Site
- Current C Focus F A Areas and d Ch Challenges ll
- Field Support
- Corrective Action Programs and Special Programs Completion
- Licensing Support (Fire Protection, Protection Environmental, Environmental Digital I&C)
Construction
- Successfully completed scope required for the Unit 1 outage
- Improved direct work productivity (19(19.7%
7% to 25%)
- Overall Progress - >62.5% complete
- Current Focus Areas and Challenges
- Staffing critical positions
- Field Engineers
- Planners (work plan writers)
- Developing workable backlog of work plans to support craft load (currently 350K)
- Staffing craftsmen to support up to 60,000/week earned hours for direct work Stinson 5
WBN2 Completion Status Active Refurbishment
- Program Status
- Safety-Related y Valves ((all types) yp ) - 70%
- Safety-Related Pumps - 77%
- Safety/Quality-Related Motors - 90%
Startup Testing
- Twenty-eight systems turned over to Startup Test Organization with three being turned over in May and 4 completed in June
- Integrated Safeguards Test - To be performed with Unit 1 on-line after Hot Functional Tests.
- Essential Raw Cooling Water - Informational flow balance completed during Unit 1 outage Spring 2011 - Final flow balance without mid-cycle outage.
Stinson 6
WBN2 Completion Status Area Completion - Control Room Stinson 7
WBN2 Completion Status Area Completion - Control Room Stinson 8
WBN2 Completion Status Area Completion - Condenser Circulating Water (CCW) Pump Room Stinson 9
WBN2 Completion Status Area Completion - CCW Pump Room Stinson 10
WBN2 Completion Status Area Completion - Main Turbine Deck Stinson 11
WBN2 Completion Status Area Completion - Main Turbine Deck Stinson 12
Schedule Reassessment Process March April May June Staff & Implement Integrated Schedule Org Finalize Standard Startup Logic Load WITEL Establish System Ties Validate Startup Test Duration 04/18/11 Define Cable / Terminations / Conduit Remaining - Estimate - Scope to System Establish Logic Ties in Schedule 3-Week 3 Week Lookahead Levelized Identify Target 04/30/11 Crit Path Define & Estimate Remaining Scope to Systems Finalize Commodity Curves Establish Logic Resource To Systems Levelize 05/20/1 05/09/11 Management Develop Engineering Schedule Review Issue Schedule Develop p Licensingg Schedule 05/31/11 Updated: 6/15/11 Stinson 13
Construction Validation Process
- Validate Unit Rate Performance
- Validate Peak Direct Work Earned Performance
- Validate Staffing (FNM ratio) Performance
- Validate Paper Closure Performance Stinson 14
Construction Productivity - Summer Push SYSTEM TURNOVER SKYLINE - SEPTEMBER - 2012 FUEL LOAD Mar -10 Apr-10 May -10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 ######
250 030B 013 030H 251 SUMMER 041 PUSH 030L 040 030C 228 026 033 084 234 030G 043 001 031 030K 46.1 081.1 003B 030I 270 015 047B 037 063.1 030F 006 030J.1 077 059 092 268 044 047A 061.0 046A 209 067.3 030N 014 067 030E 081 304.1 072 068 079 046B 085 280 035B 032 024 261 002.2 210 054 030O 203 005 030D 030A 074 062 061 030J 201 090 064 078 027 055 098 24.1 007 035C 035A 099 067.1 067.2 047C 030M 058 036 002 070 063 244 202 003A 065 052 094 271 Stinson 15
Startup Validation Process
- Validate Startup Test Procedure Performance
- Validate Component Test Performance
- Validate Startup Organizational Performance
- Validate Milestone Focused Performance Stinson 16
Startup Productivity - Fall Push Stinson 17
Backlog / Program Reduction - Validation Process
- Active Refurbishment
- Safety-Related Valves (all types) - Complete except ABSCE constrained
- Safety-Related Pumps - Complete
- Safety/Quality-Related Motors - Complete
- Control Room Design Review
- Essentially complete
- Work Order Closure
- Goal of average age of 30 days or less
- PERs
- Goal of average age of 45 days or less Stinson 18
Major Milestone Schedule WBN UNIT 2 STARTUP MAJOR MILESTONES Revision 1 - 6/8/11 SEPT 12/05/11 04/19/12 04/20/12 05/07/12 05/20/12 05/20/12 09/28/12 JULY 10/07/11 02/22/12 02/27/12 03/10/12 03/23/12 03/23/12 07/31/12 SECONDARY OPEN VESSEL RCS FILL & PLT HFT COLD HYDRO ILRT CORE LOAD 030A- AB Room & Area Coolers 013 - Fire Detection 052 - Loose Parts Monitoring 030E - Ctmt Air Return Fans 002 - Condensate 001 - Main Steam Sys 030B - AB Space Heaters 032 -Control Air Sys 068 - Reactor Coolant 030H - Lower Compartment Clrs 030F - Ctmt Vent Air Cleanup Units 003 - Main & Aux Feedwater 003A - Main Feedwater 030K - Rx Bldg Space Heaters 055 - Annunciator 202 - 6.9kV 6 9kV Rx Coolant Pmp Pwr 030J - Containment Purge 005 - Extraction Steam 003B - Aux Feedwater 078 - Spent Fuel Pit Cooling Sys 062 - Chemical & Volume Cntl Sys 061 - Ice Condenser 006 - Heater Drns & Vents 015 - Steam Gen Blowdown 079 - Fuel Handling & Str Sys 063 - Safety Injection Sys 064 -Primary Containment Sys 007 - Turbine Extraction Traps & Drns 030C - N&S Vlv Vault Exhaust 084 - Flood Mode Boration Sys 063.1 - Safety Injection Partial 065 - Emergency Gas Treatment (EGT014 - Condensate Demineralizer 030D - TDAFW Pmp Rm Exhaust Fan 092 - Neutron Monitoring Sys 067 - Essential Raw Cooling Water 072 - Containment Spray 024 - Raw Cooling Wtr 030G - Upper Compartment Clrs 094 - Incore Instr Sys RDA 070 - Component Cooling Water Sys 090 - Radiation Monitoring 026 - High Pressure Fire Protection 030I - CRDM Clrs 228 - Aux Bldg Lighting Sys 074 - Residual heat Removal Sys 027 - Condensate Circulating Wtr 030L - Pres, Temp & Humidity Mon. 234 - Heat Trace Sys 077 - Waste Disposal 030M - TB Supply Fans 031 - Incore Inst Rm A/C 268 - Perm. Hydro Mitigation Sys 081 - Primary Makeup Water Sys 030N - TB Exhaust Fans 041 - Layup Water Treatment Sys 270 - TB Crane & Misc Sys 098 - Foxboro IA 032 - Control Air 043 - Sampling & Wtr Quality Sys 271 - Ctmt & AB Cranes & Misc 099 - Reactor Protection Sys 033 - Service Air Sys 046B - Aux FW Ctrl Sys 261 - Plant Computer Sys 035A - Gen Hydrog Clr Sys 059 - Demin Water & Cask Decon 035B - Gen Hydrog Seal Oil 085 - Control Rod Drive Cbnt Refurb 035C - Stator Cooling Wtr 250 - Auto/Manual/Public Phone 036 - Feedwater Secondary Treatment 251 - Sound-Powered Phone 037 - Gland Seal Water Sys 040 - Station Drainage Sys 044 - Bldg Heat Sys 046A - Main Fw Ctrl Sys 047A - Turbine Control Oil 047B - Turbine Lube Oil 047C - Turbine Steam Seal 054 - Injection Wtr Sys 058 - Gen Bus Cooling sys 201 - 6.9kV Unit Pwr 203 - 480V U Unit it P Pwr S Sys 209 - TB Mtr Opr Vlv Pwr 210 - TB Ventilation Pwr 244 - Main Gen Elec 7 24kV Pwr 300 - TB Pump / Space Clrs TURNED OVER TO STARTUP C:\Nick\frags\WBN2-SU-Major-Milestones Stinson 19
Instrumentation and Controls (FSAR Chapter 7)
Crouch 20
I & C Modifications
- Reasons For Modifications
- Systems Affected
- Design
- Testing Hilmes 21
I & C Modifications
- Systems Affected
- Safety Related Actuation Systems
- Digital/Analog Platform Maintained Same as Unit 1,1 if Possible.
Possible
- Modifications To Hardware Only Made For Obsolescence of Components or to convert to 4-20 mA input/output.
- Firmware is maintained the same as Unit 1.
- Communications with other systems is transmit only
- Safetyy Related Monitoringg
- Replaced if Obsolete or If Replacement In Unit 1 is Near Term
- Non Safety Related Process Controls
- Replaced if Obsolete
- Replacement Planned on Unit 1 and is Significant for Plant Reliability Hilmes 22
Safety Related Systems
- Emergency Safety Function Actuation Unit 1 Unit 2 Platform Eagle 21 Eagle 21 Type Microprocessor Based Microprocessor Based Difference between Unit 1 and 2 Board level component replacement due to obsolescence.
Input/output set to 4-20 mA. vs. 10-50 mA. Barton Transmitters Changed to Rosemount with Exception of Filled Capillary Loops.
- S f t A Safety Actuation t ti L Logics i
Unit 1 Unit 2 Platform Westinghouse SSPS Westinghouse SSPS Type Discrete Logic Discrete Logic Difference between Unit 1 and 2 Board level component replacement due to obsolescence Hilmes 23
Safety Related Systems
- Source Range Monitors and Intermediate Ranger Monitors Unit 1 Unit 2 Platform Gamma Metrics Thermo Fisher (Gamma Metrics) 300i Type Analog With an Imbedded Processor For Shutdown Monitor (Digital Portion Same as Unit 1)
Difference between Unit 1 and 2 Updated Version of the Unit 1 Display Hardware (analog vs.
digital)
- Auxiliary Feed Water Control and Emergency Gas Treatment Unit 1 Unit 2 Platform Foxboro Spec. 200 Foxboro Spec. 200 Type Analog Analog Difference between Unit 1 and 2 Board level component replacement due to obsolescence.
Input/output set to 44-20 20 mA. vs. 10-50 10 50 mA.
Hilmes 24
Safety Related Systems
- Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feed Water Speed Control Unit 1 Unit 2 Platform Woodward EGM Woodward EGM Type Analog Analog Difference between Unit 1 and 2 Input/output set to 4-20 4 20 mA.
mA vs.
vs 10 10-50 50 mA.
mA
- Misc Safety Related Control Unit 1 Unit 2 Platform G-Mac, Robert Shaw Foxboro Spec. 200 Type Analog Analog Difference between Unit 1 and 2 Input 4-20 mA. vs. 10-50 mA.
Hilmes 25
Safety Related Monitoring
- Containment High Range Radiation monitors
- Changed to digital RM-1000 monitors
- No digital communications to other systems
- Common Q - Post Accident Monitoring System (PAMS)
- New system replaces Unit 1 ICCM-86 ICCM 86 (Functionally equivalent to Unit 1)
- Based on ABB-AC160 platform
- Includes Two Independent Trains Consisting of:
- Core Exit Thermal Couples
- Saturation Monitor
- Digital Communications is Uni-directional via Two Barriers
- Maintenance Test Panel (qualified isolation device)
- Data Diode (added for cyber security)
Hilmes 26
Non Safety Related Systems
- Rod Position Indication (CERPI)
- Same System Installed in Unit 1
- Newer Flat Panel Displays
- Loose Part Monitoring
- Westinghouse Digital Metal Impact Monitoring System DMMSDMMS-DX DX System.
System
- Unit 1 to replace next outage
- Turbine Servo Valve Control and Indication
- Controls Match Unit 1
- Change from turbine impulse pressure to turbine inlet pressure
- Change from 2 to 4 channels of pressure input to process control system
- Eagle Interlocks and AMSAC stays 2 channels, no change Hilmes 27
Non Safety Related Systems
- Annunciator System
- Updated hardware and operating system (DOS to Windows) vs. Unit 1
- Reactor Coolant Pump and Turbine Generator vibration monitoring
- Updated hardware (Functionally equivalent to Unit 1)
- Feed Pumps Thrust Trip 2 out of 3 Coincidence
- Containment Hydrogen Monitor
- Downgraded to non safety-related
- Single instead of dual monitors
- New hardware is microprocessor
- AMSAC - Match Unit 1 Hilmes 28
Non Safety Related Control
- Process Control
- Original design for Unit 1 and 2 - Analog Foxboro H-Line, Bailey (G-Mac), and Robert Shaw
- New design is Foxboro Intelligent Automation (I/A)
- Fault Tolerant Distributed Control System (DCS)
- 15 Redundant Control Processor Pairs (CP)
- Redundant Power Sources to Each CP Pair
- Redundant data bus
- For critical parameters, processors are hardwired to signal input and do not rely on the data bus for information
- Interface for Operators Remains Control Stations
- Redundant Sensor Algorithms Where Practical
- Design is Segmented To Minimize Impact on Loss of a CP Pair or the Network
- Auxiliary Control Room Not Connected to Network Except for Maintenance Hilmes 29
Segmentation of Digital Control System Hilmes 30
ICS Change Review
- Hardware
- Change from a ring type network to a mesh network
- Updated servers, CPUs etc. due to equipment obsolescence
- Unit U it 1 is i in i process off upgrading di tot match t h Unit U it 2
- Software
- U2 software is based on U1 software. Small differences due to the CPU-type
- Same basic applications exist on both U1 and U2 (SPDS, BISI, calorimetrics, etc.)
- Interfaces to External System
- U2 ICS gathers data from same systems as U1
- Systems Include
- Ronan annunciator
- Eagle-21
- ICCM / Common-Q Q
- Bentley-Nevada vibration monitoring
- CERPI Hilmes 31
Process Computer Hilmes 32
ICS Change Review
- Security
- Intrusion detection and firewalls
- Firewalls isolate control systems from ICS
- Intrusion Detection System (IDS) monitors traffic at various layers of the network
- Data Diodes isolate traffic from the external network.
- One wayy communications from Safetyy Systems y
Hilmes 33
I & C Changes
- Testing
- All Factory Acceptance Testing Has Been Completed
- Site Acceptance Testing in Progress
- Pre Pre-Operational Operational Testing in Development Development.
Hilmes 34
Reactor (FSAR Chapter 4)
Crouch 35
Reactor
- Same Fuel Design as Unit 1
- Fuel Type - Westinghouse RFA-2 with Zirlo clad
- Number of Assemblies - 193
- RWST and Accumulator Boron Concentration
- Differences
- U2 - No Tritium Rods
- U2 - Original Core Power of 3411 MWt - No LEFM uprate
- U2 - Original Steam Generators
- U2 - Common Q
- Thermal Conductivity
- Generic Issue
- License Condition to Follow Industry Approach Koontz 36
Auxiliary Systems (FSAR Chapter 9)
Crouch 37
Auxiliary Systems
- Shared Systems - General Design Criteria 5 Conformance
- Perform Safety Functions
- Accident in One Unit - Safe Cooldown of Second Unit
- Major Shared Systems
- Essential Raw Cooling Water
- Component Cooling Water Koontz 38
Auxiliary Systems
- Essential Raw Cooling Water
- Replaced All 8 pumps
- Meets Normal and Accident Requirements
- Component Cooling Water
- Returned Pumps to Dual Unit Configuration
- Maintenance On-line (one unit in outage) Without Entering LCO
- Demonstrated Ability to Bring Non-Accident Unit to Cold Shutdown by 46 hours5.324074e-4 days <br />0.0128 hours <br />7.60582e-5 weeks <br />1.7503e-5 months <br /> Koontz 39
Questions?
Crouch 40
Common Q PAMs Hilmes 41
Integrated Safeguards Testing (IST)
- Regulatory Guide 1.41 - Preoperational Testing of Redundant On-site Electric Power Systems to Verify Proper Load Group Assignments
- Purpose - Verify Redundant Power Sources and Load Groups are Independent of Each Other
- Demonstrate Operation of a Load Group is Not Affected by the Partial or Complete Failure of Any Other Power Source or Load Group
- Regulatory Guide 1.41 Partially Satisfied for Dual Unit Operation During Unit 1 Pre-Operational Testing
- Regulatory Guide 1.41 Testing for Unit 2 to be Conducted with Unit 1 On-line 1
Pete Olson
Integrated Safeguards Testing (IST)
Plant Electrical Design
- Four Power Trains - two for each unit
- Power Train - Diesel Generator, 6.9 Kv Shutdown Board and Lower Voltage Distribution System
- Two load groups (A and B)
- Unit 1 - 1A and 1B Unit 2 - 2A and 2B
- Four Diesels and Four 6.9 Kv Shutdown Boards in S i ffor U Service Unit i 1O Operation.
i
- Common Equipment on Unit 2 Shutdown Boards
- Unit 2 Lower Voltage Distribution System Not Totally in Service for Unit 1 Operation 2
Pete Olson
Integrated Safeguards Testing (IST)
Unit 1 Independence Test
- Tested Group/Non-Tested G / G Group
- Four Diesels and Four 6.9 Kv Shutdown Boards
- Included Lower Voltage Distribution Systems Required for Unit 1 Operation
- Unit 2 Lower Voltage Distribution Systems - Not Totally Included
- Ensure Tested Load Group Functions as Designed
- Ensure No Voltage on Non-Tested Load Group
- Demonstrates No Cross Connection between Load Groups 3
Pete Olson
Integrated Safeguards Testing (IST)
Unit 2 Independence Test
- Tested T d Group/Non-Tested G /N T d Group G
- Each Power Train (A or B) will receive testing as follows:
- Manual Safety Injection
- Loss of Offsite Power
- Safety Injection Coincident with Loss of Off-Site Power
- Will Not Disable Opposite Train Diesel
- Ensure Tested Load Group Functions as Designed
- Ensure No Voltage on Non-Tested Load Group
- Demonstrates No Cross Connection between Load Groups 4
Pete Olson
500KV SWITCHYARD SEQUOYAH 2 SEQUOYAH 1 VOLUNTEER SPARE FUTURE ROANE BREAKER BULL RUN FUTURE TO WB HYDRO 161KV SWITCHYARD, BAY 13 TO WB HYDRO 161KV SWITCHYARD, BAY 4 500KV BUS 2-1 500KV BUS 2-2 500KV BUS 2-3 5087 5097 5107 5117 5127 5017 5060 5080 5018 5088 5098 5108 5118 5128 5029 5039 5049 5089 5099 5109 5119 5129 5019 5035 5045 6127 5065 5015 6117 5025 5014 5024 5034 5044 5064 5085 5095 5105 5115 5125 5023 5033 5043 5063 5013 500KV BUS 1-1 500KV BUS 1-2 500KV BUS 1-3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5050 5070 500KV BUS 161 KV BUS 161 KV BUS 500KV BUS 819 815 865 869 GENERATOR 2 CSST C CSST D GENERATOR 1 X Y X Y MAIN 2 MAIN 1 2714 1712 2814 1812 COM STA COM STA CSST B SWGR C NC NC NC NC SWGR D CSST A X Y X Y USST 2B USST 2A USST 1B USST 1A 2612 1612 2514 1514 Y X Y X NC NC NO NO Y X Y X NO NO NC NC 2614 1614 2512 1512 6.9KV START BUS A 4000A 6.9KV START BUS B 6.9KV RCP START BUS B 6.9KV RCP START BUS A 2224 2624 2634 2222 2534 2632 2214 2212 2532 2124 2122 2524 2622 2114 2112 2522 NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO RCP BD 2D RCP BD 2C RCP BD 2B RCP BD 2A RCP BD 1D RCP BD 1C RCP BD 1B RCP BD 1A 1634 1224 1222 1534 1632 1214 1212 1532 1216 1626 1526 1126 1624 1124 1122 1524 1622 1114 1112 1522 NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO 6.9KV UNIT BD 2D 6.9KV UNIT BD 2C 6.9KV UNIT BD 2B 6.9KV UNIT BD 2A 6.9KV COMMON BD B 6.9KV COMMON BD A 6.9KV UNIT BD 1D 6.9KV UNIT BD 1C 6.9KV UNIT BD 1B 6.9KV UNIT BD 1A 1822 1814 NC NC NC 1722 1714 NC NC NC NC NC XFMR 2B XFMR 2A XFMR 1B XFMR 1A NC NC NC NC 480V UNIT BD 2B 480V UNIT BD 2A 480V UNIT BD 1B 480V UNIT BD 1A DG DG DG DG 2B-B 2A-A 1B-B 1A-A 1826 1828 1938 1924 1816 1922 1728 1726 1932 1818 1936 1914 1934 1912 1716 1718 NO NC NO NO NO NO NC NO NO NO NC NO NO NC NO NO 6.9KV SD BD 2B-B 6.9KV SD BD 2A-A 6.9KV SD BD 1B-B 6.9KV SD BD 1A-A NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 2B2-B 2B-B 2B1-B 2A2-A 2A-A 2A1-A 1B2-B 1B-B 1B1-B 1A2-A 1A-A 1A1-A LEGEND NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC OFFSITE POWER CKT R NC OFFSITE POWER CKT P 480V SD BD 2B2-B 480V SD BD 2B1-B 480V SD BD 2A2-A 480V SD BD 2A1-A 480V SD BD 1B2-B 480V SD BD 1B1-B 480V SD BD 1A2-A 480V SD BD 1A1-A 6.9KV START BUS B NC NO NO NC NC NC NO NC NO NC NC NC NC NO NO NC NC NC N0 NC NO NC NC NC NC NO NO NC NC NC NO NC NO NC NC NC NC NO NO NC NC NC NO NC NO NC NC NC 6.9KV START BUS A RCP START BUSES NON-SAFETY B.O.P.
VPS IV VPS III VPS III VPS IV VPS II VPS I VPS I VPS II SAFETY RELATED - TRAIN A NO NC SAFETY RELATED - TRAIN B NO NC NO NC NO NC RMOV BD 2A1-A NC RMOV BD 2B1-B NO NC NO NC RMOV BD 1B1-B NO NC RMOV BD 1A1-A NO Reference Drawings NC RMOV BD 2B2-B NO NC RMOV BD 2A2-A NO NC RMOV BD 1B2-B NO NC RMOV BD 1A2-A NO NO C&A VENT BD B2-B NC NO C&A VENT BD 2A2-A NC NO C&A VENT BD 1B2-B NC NO C&A VENT BD 1A2-A NC 1-15E500-1-29 C&A VENT BD 2B1-B C&A VENT BD 2A1-A C&A VENT BD 1B1-B NC C&A VENT BD 1A1-A 1-15E500-2-35 NO NC NO NC NO NO NC R VENT BD 2B-B R VENT BD 2A-A R VENT BD 1B-B R VENT BD 1A-A 1-75W500-16 NO DSL AUX BD 2B1-B NC NO DSL AUX BD 2A1-A NC NO DSL AUX BD 1B1-B NC NO DSL AUX BD 1A1-A NC Watts Bar NuclearT IO N Plant NC DSL AUX BD 2B2-B NO NC DSL AUX BD 2A2-A NO NC DSL AUX BD 1B2-B NO NC DSL AUX BD 1A2-A NO RM A ElectricalODistribution System F
IN 480V-500KV Y ON L Engineer: Mark D. Bowman CAD MAINTAINED DRAWING DATE FILE NAME REVISION LEVEL 10-02-2007 WBN Electrical Distribution System 0
ACRS Subcommittee Meeting Regarding Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Status of Licensing and Inspection Docket No. 50-391 July 12, 2011 1
Agenda Topics
- Construction Completion Status
- Instrumentation and Controls
- Reactor
- Auxiliary Systems - open items
- NRC
- Status of Licensing and Construction Inspection
- Supplement 23 to SER
- Remaining Activities 2
NRR Presentation of Status of Licensing Activities 3
Status of Operating License Application
- Safety Evaluation Report
- FSAR\SRP Topics
- Generic communication items
- Corrective action program plans
- Programs
- Technical Specifications
- Supplement to Final Environmental Statement
- Material Licenses (10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70) 4
Safety Evaluation Report
- Staff review continues
- Supplements to original SER
- SSER 21 - identifies regulatory framework
- SSER 22 - FSAR Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17
- SSER 23 - FSAR Chapters 4, 7
- Project challenges
- Fire Protection Report (Section 9.5.1)
- Accident and Transient Analyses (Section 15)
- Closure of open items from SER review 5
Safety Evaluation Report
- Generic communication items
- Complete with 3 exceptions
- GLs 04-02 and GL 08-01 and BL11-01
- Corrective action program plans (Complete)
- Programs
- Security, emergency preparedness, quality assurance, and antitrust (Complete)
- Fire protection and cyber-security (Ongoing)
- Technical Specifications
- Staff proof and review Project Summary 6
Safety Evaluation Report Supplement 23 (SSER)
- For Publishing July 2011
- Chapters/Topics Covered
- 4. Reactor
- 7. Instrumentation and Controls
- Parts of other chapters
- 3. Design Criteria
- 5. Reactor Coolant and Connected Systems
- 6. Engineered Safety Features
- 9. Auxiliary Systems
- 10. Steam and Power Conversion
- 14. Initial Test program
- 21. Financial Qualifications 7
SSER 23 - Section 4, Reactor
- Fuel Design
- Unit 1 transition from Vantage 5H to RFA-2 fuel (Amendment 46; 2003)
- Unit 2 core will be all new fuel of RFA-2
- No tritium producing burnable absorber rods
- Fuel Design Bases and Functional Requirements
- Used in the nuclear design of the fuel and reactivity control systems
- Thermal performance and fuel thermal conductivity (open item)
- Mechanical performance bounded by prior analyses
- Thermal-Hydraulic Design
- Preoperational and startup test program commitments 8
SSER 23 - Sec. 7, Instrumentation & Controls Agenda
- Scope of I&C Evaluation
- Evaluation Methodology and Focus Areas
- Current Status
- Remaining Work 9
Scope of I&C Evaluation
- Watts Bar Unit 1 10 CFR 50.59 and LAR evaluations related to Chapter 7 topical areas
- FSAR Chapter 7, Amendments 92 through 103
- Evaluation of requested supporting documents
- Audits of Eagle-21 and Common Q activities 10
Safety Evaluation Methodology Three types of Evaluations, per LIC-110 instruction:
- For WB2 systems proposed to be the the same as that reviewed and approved per NUREG-0847 (Safety Evaluation Report for Watts Bar Units 1 & 2), the staff confirmed that they are, in fact, identical.
- Example: RX Pressure Interlocks for Low Temperature Overpressure Protection
- For WB2 I&C systems that are the same as WB1 systems that have been upgraded through LAR and 10 CFR 50.59 processes since the WB1 OL was granted: The staff verified that the proposed design of WB2 is in compliance with design requirements applicable to the current licensing basis for WB1.
- Example: Eagle-21 Plant Protection System portion of RPS and ESFAS
- Design features that are unique to Watts Bar Unit 2 were reviewed in accordance with current staff regulatory positions.
- Example: Common Q Digital Platform for 3 Post-Accident Monitoring Variables 11
I&C Focus Areas
- Independence between control and protection systems
- Independence/Isolation between safety and non-safety
- Effects of single random failures on accomplishment of safety functions
- Equipment Qualification for new designs (EQ, seismic, EMI/RFI)
- Compliance with NUREG 0737, and Supplement 1 (Clarification of TMI-2 Action Plan Requirements)
- Compliance with design criteria from IEEE 279-1971 and IEEE 603-1991, as applicable
- Conformance with applicable Regulatory Guides and other Industry Codes and Standards 12
RPS System Design
- NRC Staff verified through audit of the Eagle-21 configuration control documents that the system software is identical to that of WB1. Also, staff witnessed the Factory Acceptance Test.
- Hardware upgrades for WB1 were evaluated and found to still meet applicable criteria. Examples:
- Newer, more reliable power supply module design
- Analog input signal levels compatible with newer transmitters 13
Example RPS Confirmatory Items
- Demonstrate via physical test of the evaluated interface that there is one-way communication connection from Eagle-21 to the non-safety plant computer
- Demonstrate via post-modification testing that the RTD input error of 0.2 degrees F identified on Rack 2 during Factory Acceptance Test has been remedied 14
RPS Conclusions
- Contingent on the successful closure of the Confirmatory Items, the NRC staff concludes that the RPS for WB2 is the same as that for WB1 and therefore the NRC staffs conclusions regarding RPS compliance with all applicable regulatory criteria remain valid for WB2.
15
ESF Actuation System Design
- The Eagle-21 portion of ESF for WB2 was found to be the same as that of WB1
- NRC staff evaluated the impact of design changes to ESF actuation system (newer hardware and system functional configuration) made to WB1 since WB1 OL was granted Examples:
- Upgrade Auxiliary Feedwater System initiation controls to Foxboro Spec 200 Analog system
- Newer, more reliable power supplies in SSPS cabinets
- Test jacks added SSPS Cabinets to facilitate surveillance testing 16
ESF Conclusions
- The Aux Feedwater Initiation and Control upgrade did not change any functional performance requirements
- The design for implementing the new equipment meets all applicable regulatory requirements
- FSAR description of ESF Actuation System Reliability and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis is functionally unchanged
- Implementation of TVAs previous commitments with regard to IE Bulletin 80-06 (ESF actions following reset of automatic initiation signals) found to be acceptable
- The Staffs previous conclusions regarding the ESF for WB1 remain valid for the WB2 design 17
Setpoint Methodology NRC Staff confirmed that WB FSAR Amendment 102 provides a description of the plant setpoint methodology that complies with applicable staff guidance for the establishment of Limiting Safety System Settings per 10 CFR 50.36:
- Regulatory Guide 1.105, Rev. 3, Setpoints for Safety-Related Instrumentation
- Regulatory Issue Summary RIS 2006-17, NRC Staff Position on the Requirements of 10 CFR 50.36, Technical Specifications, Regarding Limiting Safety System Settings during Periodic Testing and Calibration of Instrument Channels 18
Display Instrumentation Focus areas:
- Post-Accident Monitoring
- Compliance with Previous Commitments to Reg Guide 1.97
- Use of Westinghouse Common Q platform for 3 Post-Accident Variables
- Containment Hi Range Radiation Monitors
- Use of distributed plant process computer system (Integrated Computer System used to drive BISI, SPDS, TSC and Nuclear Data Links)
- Evaluation of Compliance with IE Bulletin 79-27 (Effects of Loss of non-1E I&C System Electrical Bus) 19
Control and Display System Interfaces
- Evaluation of Safety-to-Nonsafety Data Communications
- Key Safety-to-Nonsafety digital data communications links evaluated to ensure one-way communications is enforced:
- Common Q PAMS-to-ICS
- Eagle 21-to-ICS
- Other Safety-to-Nonsafety communications are implemented through simple, hard-wired isolated analog or contact closure signals
- Examples: Eagle 21-to-Foxboro ESF Actuation Sys
- Containment Hi Range Radiation monitor-to-ICS 20
Common Q Post-Accident Monitoring
- Based on an Updated Common Q Platform
- PAMS Performs Monitoring and Computations for Three Key Post-Accident Variables
- Reactor Vessel Level Indication System
- Core Exit Temperature
- Subcooling Margin Monitor
- Two Type A, Category 1 Variables
- Core Exit Temperature
- Subcooling Margin Monitor 21
Common Q Post-Accident Monitoring
- Reg. Guide 1.97, Rev 2 Type A Variables
- Those variables that provide primary information to the MCR operators to allow them to take preplanned manually controlled actions for which no automatic action is provided and that are required for safety systems to accomplish their safety functions for Chapter 15 design basis events. Primary information is information that is essential for the direct accomplishment of specified safety functions.
- Evaluation Criteria: RG 1.97 Rev. 2 and IEEE 603-1991
- Findings: Provided that satisfactory resolution of the Open Items is accomplished, NRC staff finds the proposed PAMS implementation to be acceptable.
22
Post-Accident Monitoring
- Key Open Items
- Demonstrate conformance with IEEE 603-1991.
- Demonstrate conformance with RG 1.152.
- Demonstrate conformance with RG 1.168 Rev. 1.
- Demonstrate conformance with RG 1.180 for Hi Rad Monitors
- Demonstrate conformance with RG 1.209 and IEEE 323-2003.
- Justify/mitigate deviations from normative material in the SPM.
- Describe how design supports periodic testing of the RVLIS function.
- Verify acceptability of proposed Technical Specifications.
23
Control Systems Not Required for Safety
- New distributed digital non-safety control system (where WB1 has analog controls) which was evaluated by staff per SRP Section 7.7
- Staff found there are no digital communications or interactions with safety systems
- Staff evaluated TVAs segmentation analyses and analyses of the effects of faults or power supply failures
Conclusions:
Meets regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(1) GDC-1, and GDC-13, Clause 6.3 of IEEE 603-1991 (sense and command interactions), and does not introduce new unanalyzed failures, nor increase likelihood or consequences of failures 24
Status of WB2 I&C Design Evaluation
- NRC Staff is working with the staff of TVA to address and close-out open items. Open Items Coordination meetings still regularly held.
- Staffs evaluation of the Westinghouse WINCISE In-core Instrumentation System nearing completion.
Focus is on qualification of Class 1E components and separation/isolation of 1E and non-1E components.
- Items which require completion of field tests are being identified as confirmatory items to be inspected prior to fuel load.
25
Remaining Work
- Complete the evaluation of the new WB2 In-core Instrumentation System (WINCISE) to ensure compliance with applicable codes and standards
- Evaluate proposed WB2 instrument-related Technical Specifications, when submitted
- Continue close-out of remaining Open Items and support Region-II Office with identification of Confirmatory Items and other inspection-related items required prior to fuel load 26
SSER 23 - Other Partial Sections
- 3.9.5 Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals
- Materials are consistent with those of the RVI components in WBN Unit 1 and are acceptable with respect to structural integrity and corrosion resistance
- WBN Unit 2 used nickel-based Alloy X-750 bolts. Open item for TVA to justify not replacing clevis insert bolts
- ASME Sections II and XI for design and inspection provide adequate assurance
- 3.10 Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Seismic Cat. I Mechanical and Electrical Equipment
- No substantive changes from that approved for Unit 1 27
SSER 23 - Other Partial Sections
- 5.4.3 Residual Heat Removal System
- Provides required redundancy in components and design features
- Provided an analysis in 1991, comparing the major systems related to natural circulation cooldown of WBN to those of Diablo Canyon, Unit 1, which showed that the systems adequately provide for natural circulation, boration, cooldown, and depressurization. (BTP RSB 5-1)
- 5.4.5 Reactor Coolant System Vents (II.B.1)
- RCS vent system is acceptable, pending verification of the installation of the RCS vent system 28
SSER 23 - Other Partial Sections
- 6.1.1 - ESF Metallic Materials
- pH and chemistry controls adequate
- Adequate controls on selection of materials
- 9.1.3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System 29
SSER 23 - Other Partial Sections
- 9.2.1 Essential Raw Cooling Water System (ERCW)
- 9.2.2 Component Cooling System (CCS)
- 9.2.5 Ultimate Heat Sink
- 10.2.2 Turbine Disk Integrity 30
Region II Presentation of Status of Construction Inspection Activities 31
Status of Inspection Program
- Completed 2010 End-of-Cycle review
- 14 Non-cited Violations issued in 2010
- Potential substantive cross-cutting issue due to 4 findings with the same cross-cutting aspect
- Currently issued 6 Violations through May 2011
- RII expended 14,700 staff hours on the project in 2010
- Utilizing temporary resident inspectors for 2 positions
- Filled position of Pre-operational testing Team Leader and added another senior project inspector
- Public meeting with TVA on updated schedule 32
Inspection Activities
- Established 6-7 week inspection report frequency
- Maintaining routine inspections of controls to ensure construction activities do not adversely impact Unit 1
- PI&R focused inspection on item closure
- Closed eight CAP/SPs (including CAP sub-issues)
- Closed 94 of approx. 500 open inspection items
- Challenge: Inspecting a large number of open items prior to fuel load.
33
Upcoming/Ongoing Inspections
- Assessing the ability of TVA to dedicate commercial grade items (CGI) in accordance with 10CFR50 and ensure that CGIs will perform their safety function
- System preoperational testing inspections (IMC 2513)
- Review revised schedule for system turn-over dates: ensure inspection resources available for preoperational testing
- Training NRC staff for pre-operational testing inspection
- Assessing the scope and schedule for our inspection of supporting programs - RP, EP, security, etc.
- Resolution of Heinemann circuit breaker seismic qualification violation 34
Conclusions
- Construction inspections are continuing; violations identified have been Severity Level IV or minor
- RII has adequate inspection resources
- Amount of inspection has increased consistent with increase in safety-related construction activities 35
Project Summary of Watts Bar Unit 2 Remaining Activities 36
Project Status
- Staff review continuing, with some delays
- Future Milestones
- SER and FES-OL complete by March 2012
- Complete ACRS review and provide decision
- Conduct hearing and ASLB provide decision
- Operational readiness assessment
- Certification of as-built construction 37
Expectations for Next Meeting
- Scheduled for October 2011
- Accident and Transient Analyses
- Radioactive waste Management
- Radiation Protection
- Cyber-Security Program 38
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 WBN Unit 2 ACRS Presentation July 12, 2011
Agenda
- Construction Completion Status - Dave Stinson
- Instrumentation and Controls (FSAR Chapter 7) - Steve Hilmes
- Reactor (FSAR Chapter 4) - Frank Koontz
- Auxiliary Systems (FSAR Chapter 9) - Frank Koontz
- Questions Crouch 2
Construction Completion Status Crouch 3
WBN2 Completion Status
- Project Status Update
- Schedule Reassessment Process
- System Turnover Schedule
- Validation Process - - Summer Push
- Construction Productivity
- Startup Productivity
- Backlog / Program Reduction
- Major Milestone Schedule
- Questions Stinson 4
WBN2 Completion Status Engineering
- Overall Progress - 85% complete
- All Engineering Resources at Site
- Current C Focus F A Areas and d Ch Challenges ll
- Field Support
- Corrective Action Programs and Special Programs Completion
- Licensing Support (Fire Protection, Protection Environmental, Environmental Digital I&C)
Construction
- Successfully completed scope required for the Unit 1 outage
- Improved direct work productivity (19(19.7%
7% to 25%)
- Overall Progress - >62.5% complete
- Current Focus Areas and Challenges
- Staffing critical positions
- Field Engineers
- Planners (work plan writers)
- Developing workable backlog of work plans to support craft load (currently 350K)
- Staffing craftsmen to support up to 60,000/week earned hours for direct work Stinson 5
WBN2 Completion Status Active Refurbishment
- Program Status
- Safety-Related y Valves ((all types) yp ) - 70%
- Safety-Related Pumps - 77%
- Safety/Quality-Related Motors - 90%
Startup Testing
- Twenty-eight systems turned over to Startup Test Organization with three being turned over in May and 4 completed in June
- Integrated Safeguards Test - To be performed with Unit 1 on-line after Hot Functional Tests.
- Essential Raw Cooling Water - Informational flow balance completed during Unit 1 outage Spring 2011 - Final flow balance without mid-cycle outage.
Stinson 6
WBN2 Completion Status Area Completion - Control Room Stinson 7
WBN2 Completion Status Area Completion - Control Room Stinson 8
WBN2 Completion Status Area Completion - Condenser Circulating Water (CCW) Pump Room Stinson 9
WBN2 Completion Status Area Completion - CCW Pump Room Stinson 10
WBN2 Completion Status Area Completion - Main Turbine Deck Stinson 11
WBN2 Completion Status Area Completion - Main Turbine Deck Stinson 12
Schedule Reassessment Process March April May June Staff & Implement Integrated Schedule Org Finalize Standard Startup Logic Load WITEL Establish System Ties Validate Startup Test Duration 04/18/11 Define Cable / Terminations / Conduit Remaining - Estimate - Scope to System Establish Logic Ties in Schedule 3-Week 3 Week Lookahead Levelized Identify Target 04/30/11 Crit Path Define & Estimate Remaining Scope to Systems Finalize Commodity Curves Establish Logic Resource To Systems Levelize 05/20/1 05/09/11 Management Develop Engineering Schedule Review Issue Schedule Develop p Licensingg Schedule 05/31/11 Updated: 6/15/11 Stinson 13
Construction Validation Process
- Validate Unit Rate Performance
- Validate Peak Direct Work Earned Performance
- Validate Staffing (FNM ratio) Performance
- Validate Paper Closure Performance Stinson 14
Construction Productivity - Summer Push SYSTEM TURNOVER SKYLINE - SEPTEMBER - 2012 FUEL LOAD Mar -10 Apr-10 May -10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 ######
250 030B 013 030H 251 SUMMER 041 PUSH 030L 040 030C 228 026 033 084 234 030G 043 001 031 030K 46.1 081.1 003B 030I 270 015 047B 037 063.1 030F 006 030J.1 077 059 092 268 044 047A 061.0 046A 209 067.3 030N 014 067 030E 081 304.1 072 068 079 046B 085 280 035B 032 024 261 002.2 210 054 030O 203 005 030D 030A 074 062 061 030J 201 090 064 078 027 055 098 24.1 007 035C 035A 099 067.1 067.2 047C 030M 058 036 002 070 063 244 202 003A 065 052 094 271 Stinson 15
Startup Validation Process
- Validate Startup Test Procedure Performance
- Validate Component Test Performance
- Validate Startup Organizational Performance
- Validate Milestone Focused Performance Stinson 16
Startup Productivity - Fall Push Stinson 17
Backlog / Program Reduction - Validation Process
- Active Refurbishment
- Safety-Related Valves (all types) - Complete except ABSCE constrained
- Safety-Related Pumps - Complete
- Safety/Quality-Related Motors - Complete
- Control Room Design Review
- Essentially complete
- Work Order Closure
- Goal of average age of 30 days or less
- PERs
- Goal of average age of 45 days or less Stinson 18
Major Milestone Schedule WBN UNIT 2 STARTUP MAJOR MILESTONES Revision 1 - 6/8/11 SEPT 12/05/11 04/19/12 04/20/12 05/07/12 05/20/12 05/20/12 09/28/12 JULY 10/07/11 02/22/12 02/27/12 03/10/12 03/23/12 03/23/12 07/31/12 SECONDARY OPEN VESSEL RCS FILL & PLT HFT COLD HYDRO ILRT CORE LOAD 030A- AB Room & Area Coolers 013 - Fire Detection 052 - Loose Parts Monitoring 030E - Ctmt Air Return Fans 002 - Condensate 001 - Main Steam Sys 030B - AB Space Heaters 032 -Control Air Sys 068 - Reactor Coolant 030H - Lower Compartment Clrs 030F - Ctmt Vent Air Cleanup Units 003 - Main & Aux Feedwater 003A - Main Feedwater 030K - Rx Bldg Space Heaters 055 - Annunciator 202 - 6.9kV 6 9kV Rx Coolant Pmp Pwr 030J - Containment Purge 005 - Extraction Steam 003B - Aux Feedwater 078 - Spent Fuel Pit Cooling Sys 062 - Chemical & Volume Cntl Sys 061 - Ice Condenser 006 - Heater Drns & Vents 015 - Steam Gen Blowdown 079 - Fuel Handling & Str Sys 063 - Safety Injection Sys 064 -Primary Containment Sys 007 - Turbine Extraction Traps & Drns 030C - N&S Vlv Vault Exhaust 084 - Flood Mode Boration Sys 063.1 - Safety Injection Partial 065 - Emergency Gas Treatment (EGT014 - Condensate Demineralizer 030D - TDAFW Pmp Rm Exhaust Fan 092 - Neutron Monitoring Sys 067 - Essential Raw Cooling Water 072 - Containment Spray 024 - Raw Cooling Wtr 030G - Upper Compartment Clrs 094 - Incore Instr Sys RDA 070 - Component Cooling Water Sys 090 - Radiation Monitoring 026 - High Pressure Fire Protection 030I - CRDM Clrs 228 - Aux Bldg Lighting Sys 074 - Residual heat Removal Sys 027 - Condensate Circulating Wtr 030L - Pres, Temp & Humidity Mon. 234 - Heat Trace Sys 077 - Waste Disposal 030M - TB Supply Fans 031 - Incore Inst Rm A/C 268 - Perm. Hydro Mitigation Sys 081 - Primary Makeup Water Sys 030N - TB Exhaust Fans 041 - Layup Water Treatment Sys 270 - TB Crane & Misc Sys 098 - Foxboro IA 032 - Control Air 043 - Sampling & Wtr Quality Sys 271 - Ctmt & AB Cranes & Misc 099 - Reactor Protection Sys 033 - Service Air Sys 046B - Aux FW Ctrl Sys 261 - Plant Computer Sys 035A - Gen Hydrog Clr Sys 059 - Demin Water & Cask Decon 035B - Gen Hydrog Seal Oil 085 - Control Rod Drive Cbnt Refurb 035C - Stator Cooling Wtr 250 - Auto/Manual/Public Phone 036 - Feedwater Secondary Treatment 251 - Sound-Powered Phone 037 - Gland Seal Water Sys 040 - Station Drainage Sys 044 - Bldg Heat Sys 046A - Main Fw Ctrl Sys 047A - Turbine Control Oil 047B - Turbine Lube Oil 047C - Turbine Steam Seal 054 - Injection Wtr Sys 058 - Gen Bus Cooling sys 201 - 6.9kV Unit Pwr 203 - 480V U Unit it P Pwr S Sys 209 - TB Mtr Opr Vlv Pwr 210 - TB Ventilation Pwr 244 - Main Gen Elec 7 24kV Pwr 300 - TB Pump / Space Clrs TURNED OVER TO STARTUP C:\Nick\frags\WBN2-SU-Major-Milestones Stinson 19
Instrumentation and Controls (FSAR Chapter 7)
Crouch 20
I & C Modifications
- Reasons For Modifications
- Systems Affected
- Design
- Testing Hilmes 21
I & C Modifications
- Systems Affected
- Safety Related Actuation Systems
- Digital/Analog Platform Maintained Same as Unit 1,1 if Possible.
Possible
- Modifications To Hardware Only Made For Obsolescence of Components or to convert to 4-20 mA input/output.
- Firmware is maintained the same as Unit 1.
- Communications with other systems is transmit only
- Safetyy Related Monitoringg
- Replaced if Obsolete or If Replacement In Unit 1 is Near Term
- Non Safety Related Process Controls
- Replaced if Obsolete
- Replacement Planned on Unit 1 and is Significant for Plant Reliability Hilmes 22
Safety Related Systems
- Emergency Safety Function Actuation Unit 1 Unit 2 Platform Eagle 21 Eagle 21 Type Microprocessor Based Microprocessor Based Difference between Unit 1 and 2 Board level component replacement due to obsolescence.
Input/output set to 4-20 mA. vs. 10-50 mA. Barton Transmitters Changed to Rosemount with Exception of Filled Capillary Loops.
- S f t A Safety Actuation t ti L Logics i
Unit 1 Unit 2 Platform Westinghouse SSPS Westinghouse SSPS Type Discrete Logic Discrete Logic Difference between Unit 1 and 2 Board level component replacement due to obsolescence Hilmes 23
Safety Related Systems
- Source Range Monitors and Intermediate Ranger Monitors Unit 1 Unit 2 Platform Gamma Metrics Thermo Fisher (Gamma Metrics) 300i Type Analog With an Imbedded Processor For Shutdown Monitor (Digital Portion Same as Unit 1)
Difference between Unit 1 and 2 Updated Version of the Unit 1 Display Hardware (analog vs.
digital)
- Auxiliary Feed Water Control and Emergency Gas Treatment Unit 1 Unit 2 Platform Foxboro Spec. 200 Foxboro Spec. 200 Type Analog Analog Difference between Unit 1 and 2 Board level component replacement due to obsolescence.
Input/output set to 44-20 20 mA. vs. 10-50 10 50 mA.
Hilmes 24
Safety Related Systems
- Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feed Water Speed Control Unit 1 Unit 2 Platform Woodward EGM Woodward EGM Type Analog Analog Difference between Unit 1 and 2 Input/output set to 4-20 4 20 mA.
mA vs.
vs 10 10-50 50 mA.
mA
- Misc Safety Related Control Unit 1 Unit 2 Platform G-Mac, Robert Shaw Foxboro Spec. 200 Type Analog Analog Difference between Unit 1 and 2 Input 4-20 mA. vs. 10-50 mA.
Hilmes 25
Safety Related Monitoring
- Containment High Range Radiation monitors
- Changed to digital RM-1000 monitors
- No digital communications to other systems
- Common Q - Post Accident Monitoring System (PAMS)
- New system replaces Unit 1 ICCM-86 ICCM 86 (Functionally equivalent to Unit 1)
- Based on ABB-AC160 platform
- Includes Two Independent Trains Consisting of:
- Core Exit Thermal Couples
- Saturation Monitor
- Digital Communications is Uni-directional via Two Barriers
- Maintenance Test Panel (qualified isolation device)
- Data Diode (added for cyber security)
Hilmes 26
Non Safety Related Systems
- Rod Position Indication (CERPI)
- Same System Installed in Unit 1
- Newer Flat Panel Displays
- Loose Part Monitoring
- Westinghouse Digital Metal Impact Monitoring System DMMSDMMS-DX DX System.
System
- Unit 1 to replace next outage
- Turbine Servo Valve Control and Indication
- Controls Match Unit 1
- Change from turbine impulse pressure to turbine inlet pressure
- Change from 2 to 4 channels of pressure input to process control system
- Eagle Interlocks and AMSAC stays 2 channels, no change Hilmes 27
Non Safety Related Systems
- Annunciator System
- Updated hardware and operating system (DOS to Windows) vs. Unit 1
- Reactor Coolant Pump and Turbine Generator vibration monitoring
- Updated hardware (Functionally equivalent to Unit 1)
- Feed Pumps Thrust Trip 2 out of 3 Coincidence
- Containment Hydrogen Monitor
- Downgraded to non safety-related
- Single instead of dual monitors
- New hardware is microprocessor
- AMSAC - Match Unit 1 Hilmes 28
Non Safety Related Control
- Process Control
- Original design for Unit 1 and 2 - Analog Foxboro H-Line, Bailey (G-Mac), and Robert Shaw
- New design is Foxboro Intelligent Automation (I/A)
- Fault Tolerant Distributed Control System (DCS)
- 15 Redundant Control Processor Pairs (CP)
- Redundant Power Sources to Each CP Pair
- Redundant data bus
- For critical parameters, processors are hardwired to signal input and do not rely on the data bus for information
- Interface for Operators Remains Control Stations
- Redundant Sensor Algorithms Where Practical
- Design is Segmented To Minimize Impact on Loss of a CP Pair or the Network
- Auxiliary Control Room Not Connected to Network Except for Maintenance Hilmes 29
Segmentation of Digital Control System Hilmes 30
ICS Change Review
- Hardware
- Change from a ring type network to a mesh network
- Updated servers, CPUs etc. due to equipment obsolescence
- Unit U it 1 is i in i process off upgrading di tot match t h Unit U it 2
- Software
- U2 software is based on U1 software. Small differences due to the CPU-type
- Same basic applications exist on both U1 and U2 (SPDS, BISI, calorimetrics, etc.)
- Interfaces to External System
- U2 ICS gathers data from same systems as U1
- Systems Include
- Ronan annunciator
- Eagle-21
- ICCM / Common-Q Q
- Bentley-Nevada vibration monitoring
- CERPI Hilmes 31
Process Computer Hilmes 32
ICS Change Review
- Security
- Intrusion detection and firewalls
- Firewalls isolate control systems from ICS
- Intrusion Detection System (IDS) monitors traffic at various layers of the network
- Data Diodes isolate traffic from the external network.
- One wayy communications from Safetyy Systems y
Hilmes 33
I & C Changes
- Testing
- All Factory Acceptance Testing Has Been Completed
- Site Acceptance Testing in Progress
- Pre Pre-Operational Operational Testing in Development Development.
Hilmes 34
Reactor (FSAR Chapter 4)
Crouch 35
Reactor
- Same Fuel Design as Unit 1
- Fuel Type - Westinghouse RFA-2 with Zirlo clad
- Number of Assemblies - 193
- RWST and Accumulator Boron Concentration
- Differences
- U2 - No Tritium Rods
- U2 - Original Core Power of 3411 MWt - No LEFM uprate
- U2 - Original Steam Generators
- U2 - Common Q
- Thermal Conductivity
- Generic Issue
- License Condition to Follow Industry Approach Koontz 36
Auxiliary Systems (FSAR Chapter 9)
Crouch 37
Auxiliary Systems
- Shared Systems - General Design Criteria 5 Conformance
- Perform Safety Functions
- Accident in One Unit - Safe Cooldown of Second Unit
- Major Shared Systems
- Essential Raw Cooling Water
- Component Cooling Water Koontz 38
Auxiliary Systems
- Essential Raw Cooling Water
- Replaced All 8 pumps
- Meets Normal and Accident Requirements
- Component Cooling Water
- Returned Pumps to Dual Unit Configuration
- Maintenance On-line (one unit in outage) Without Entering LCO
- Demonstrated Ability to Bring Non-Accident Unit to Cold Shutdown by 46 hours5.324074e-4 days <br />0.0128 hours <br />7.60582e-5 weeks <br />1.7503e-5 months <br /> Koontz 39
Questions?
Crouch 40
Common Q PAMs Hilmes 41
Integrated Safeguards Testing (IST)
- Regulatory Guide 1.41 - Preoperational Testing of Redundant On-site Electric Power Systems to Verify Proper Load Group Assignments
- Purpose - Verify Redundant Power Sources and Load Groups are Independent of Each Other
- Demonstrate Operation of a Load Group is Not Affected by the Partial or Complete Failure of Any Other Power Source or Load Group
- Regulatory Guide 1.41 Partially Satisfied for Dual Unit Operation During Unit 1 Pre-Operational Testing
- Regulatory Guide 1.41 Testing for Unit 2 to be Conducted with Unit 1 On-line 1
Pete Olson
Integrated Safeguards Testing (IST)
Plant Electrical Design
- Four Power Trains - two for each unit
- Power Train - Diesel Generator, 6.9 Kv Shutdown Board and Lower Voltage Distribution System
- Two load groups (A and B)
- Unit 1 - 1A and 1B Unit 2 - 2A and 2B
- Four Diesels and Four 6.9 Kv Shutdown Boards in S i ffor U Service Unit i 1O Operation.
i
- Common Equipment on Unit 2 Shutdown Boards
- Unit 2 Lower Voltage Distribution System Not Totally in Service for Unit 1 Operation 2
Pete Olson
Integrated Safeguards Testing (IST)
Unit 1 Independence Test
- Tested Group/Non-Tested G / G Group
- Four Diesels and Four 6.9 Kv Shutdown Boards
- Included Lower Voltage Distribution Systems Required for Unit 1 Operation
- Unit 2 Lower Voltage Distribution Systems - Not Totally Included
- Ensure Tested Load Group Functions as Designed
- Ensure No Voltage on Non-Tested Load Group
- Demonstrates No Cross Connection between Load Groups 3
Pete Olson
Integrated Safeguards Testing (IST)
Unit 2 Independence Test
- Tested T d Group/Non-Tested G /N T d Group G
- Each Power Train (A or B) will receive testing as follows:
- Manual Safety Injection
- Loss of Offsite Power
- Safety Injection Coincident with Loss of Off-Site Power
- Will Not Disable Opposite Train Diesel
- Ensure Tested Load Group Functions as Designed
- Ensure No Voltage on Non-Tested Load Group
- Demonstrates No Cross Connection between Load Groups 4
Pete Olson
500KV SWITCHYARD SEQUOYAH 2 SEQUOYAH 1 VOLUNTEER SPARE FUTURE ROANE BREAKER BULL RUN FUTURE TO WB HYDRO 161KV SWITCHYARD, BAY 13 TO WB HYDRO 161KV SWITCHYARD, BAY 4 500KV BUS 2-1 500KV BUS 2-2 500KV BUS 2-3 5087 5097 5107 5117 5127 5017 5060 5080 5018 5088 5098 5108 5118 5128 5029 5039 5049 5089 5099 5109 5119 5129 5019 5035 5045 6127 5065 5015 6117 5025 5014 5024 5034 5044 5064 5085 5095 5105 5115 5125 5023 5033 5043 5063 5013 500KV BUS 1-1 500KV BUS 1-2 500KV BUS 1-3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5050 5070 500KV BUS 161 KV BUS 161 KV BUS 500KV BUS 819 815 865 869 GENERATOR 2 CSST C CSST D GENERATOR 1 X Y X Y MAIN 2 MAIN 1 2714 1712 2814 1812 COM STA COM STA CSST B SWGR C NC NC NC NC SWGR D CSST A X Y X Y USST 2B USST 2A USST 1B USST 1A 2612 1612 2514 1514 Y X Y X NC NC NO NO Y X Y X NO NO NC NC 2614 1614 2512 1512 6.9KV START BUS A 4000A 6.9KV START BUS B 6.9KV RCP START BUS B 6.9KV RCP START BUS A 2224 2624 2634 2222 2534 2632 2214 2212 2532 2124 2122 2524 2622 2114 2112 2522 NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO RCP BD 2D RCP BD 2C RCP BD 2B RCP BD 2A RCP BD 1D RCP BD 1C RCP BD 1B RCP BD 1A 1634 1224 1222 1534 1632 1214 1212 1532 1216 1626 1526 1126 1624 1124 1122 1524 1622 1114 1112 1522 NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC NC NO 6.9KV UNIT BD 2D 6.9KV UNIT BD 2C 6.9KV UNIT BD 2B 6.9KV UNIT BD 2A 6.9KV COMMON BD B 6.9KV COMMON BD A 6.9KV UNIT BD 1D 6.9KV UNIT BD 1C 6.9KV UNIT BD 1B 6.9KV UNIT BD 1A 1822 1814 NC NC NC 1722 1714 NC NC NC NC NC XFMR 2B XFMR 2A XFMR 1B XFMR 1A NC NC NC NC 480V UNIT BD 2B 480V UNIT BD 2A 480V UNIT BD 1B 480V UNIT BD 1A DG DG DG DG 2B-B 2A-A 1B-B 1A-A 1826 1828 1938 1924 1816 1922 1728 1726 1932 1818 1936 1914 1934 1912 1716 1718 NO NC NO NO NO NO NC NO NO NO NC NO NO NC NO NO 6.9KV SD BD 2B-B 6.9KV SD BD 2A-A 6.9KV SD BD 1B-B 6.9KV SD BD 1A-A NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 2B2-B 2B-B 2B1-B 2A2-A 2A-A 2A1-A 1B2-B 1B-B 1B1-B 1A2-A 1A-A 1A1-A LEGEND NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC NO NO NC NC NO NO NC OFFSITE POWER CKT R NC OFFSITE POWER CKT P 480V SD BD 2B2-B 480V SD BD 2B1-B 480V SD BD 2A2-A 480V SD BD 2A1-A 480V SD BD 1B2-B 480V SD BD 1B1-B 480V SD BD 1A2-A 480V SD BD 1A1-A 6.9KV START BUS B NC NO NO NC NC NC NO NC NO NC NC NC NC NO NO NC NC NC N0 NC NO NC NC NC NC NO NO NC NC NC NO NC NO NC NC NC NC NO NO NC NC NC NO NC NO NC NC NC 6.9KV START BUS A RCP START BUSES NON-SAFETY B.O.P.
VPS IV VPS III VPS III VPS IV VPS II VPS I VPS I VPS II SAFETY RELATED - TRAIN A NO NC SAFETY RELATED - TRAIN B NO NC NO NC NO NC RMOV BD 2A1-A NC RMOV BD 2B1-B NO NC NO NC RMOV BD 1B1-B NO NC RMOV BD 1A1-A NO Reference Drawings NC RMOV BD 2B2-B NO NC RMOV BD 2A2-A NO NC RMOV BD 1B2-B NO NC RMOV BD 1A2-A NO NO C&A VENT BD B2-B NC NO C&A VENT BD 2A2-A NC NO C&A VENT BD 1B2-B NC NO C&A VENT BD 1A2-A NC 1-15E500-1-29 C&A VENT BD 2B1-B C&A VENT BD 2A1-A C&A VENT BD 1B1-B NC C&A VENT BD 1A1-A 1-15E500-2-35 NO NC NO NC NO NO NC R VENT BD 2B-B R VENT BD 2A-A R VENT BD 1B-B R VENT BD 1A-A 1-75W500-16 NO DSL AUX BD 2B1-B NC NO DSL AUX BD 2A1-A NC NO DSL AUX BD 1B1-B NC NO DSL AUX BD 1A1-A NC Watts Bar NuclearT IO N Plant NC DSL AUX BD 2B2-B NO NC DSL AUX BD 2A2-A NO NC DSL AUX BD 1B2-B NO NC DSL AUX BD 1A2-A NO RM A ElectricalODistribution System F
IN 480V-500KV Y ON L Engineer: Mark D. Bowman CAD MAINTAINED DRAWING DATE FILE NAME REVISION LEVEL 10-02-2007 WBN Electrical Distribution System 0
ACRS Subcommittee Meeting Regarding Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Status of Licensing and Inspection Docket No. 50-391 July 12, 2011 1
Agenda Topics
- Construction Completion Status
- Instrumentation and Controls
- Reactor
- Auxiliary Systems - open items
- NRC
- Status of Licensing and Construction Inspection
- Supplement 23 to SER
- Remaining Activities 2
NRR Presentation of Status of Licensing Activities 3
Status of Operating License Application
- Safety Evaluation Report
- FSAR\SRP Topics
- Generic communication items
- Corrective action program plans
- Programs
- Technical Specifications
- Supplement to Final Environmental Statement
- Material Licenses (10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70) 4
Safety Evaluation Report
- Staff review continues
- Supplements to original SER
- SSER 21 - identifies regulatory framework
- SSER 22 - FSAR Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17
- SSER 23 - FSAR Chapters 4, 7
- Project challenges
- Fire Protection Report (Section 9.5.1)
- Accident and Transient Analyses (Section 15)
- Closure of open items from SER review 5
Safety Evaluation Report
- Generic communication items
- Complete with 3 exceptions
- GLs 04-02 and GL 08-01 and BL11-01
- Corrective action program plans (Complete)
- Programs
- Security, emergency preparedness, quality assurance, and antitrust (Complete)
- Fire protection and cyber-security (Ongoing)
- Technical Specifications
- Staff proof and review Project Summary 6
Safety Evaluation Report Supplement 23 (SSER)
- For Publishing July 2011
- Chapters/Topics Covered
- 4. Reactor
- 7. Instrumentation and Controls
- Parts of other chapters
- 3. Design Criteria
- 5. Reactor Coolant and Connected Systems
- 6. Engineered Safety Features
- 9. Auxiliary Systems
- 10. Steam and Power Conversion
- 14. Initial Test program
- 21. Financial Qualifications 7
SSER 23 - Section 4, Reactor
- Fuel Design
- Unit 1 transition from Vantage 5H to RFA-2 fuel (Amendment 46; 2003)
- Unit 2 core will be all new fuel of RFA-2
- No tritium producing burnable absorber rods
- Fuel Design Bases and Functional Requirements
- Used in the nuclear design of the fuel and reactivity control systems
- Thermal performance and fuel thermal conductivity (open item)
- Mechanical performance bounded by prior analyses
- Thermal-Hydraulic Design
- Preoperational and startup test program commitments 8
SSER 23 - Sec. 7, Instrumentation & Controls Agenda
- Scope of I&C Evaluation
- Evaluation Methodology and Focus Areas
- Current Status
- Remaining Work 9
Scope of I&C Evaluation
- Watts Bar Unit 1 10 CFR 50.59 and LAR evaluations related to Chapter 7 topical areas
- FSAR Chapter 7, Amendments 92 through 103
- Evaluation of requested supporting documents
- Audits of Eagle-21 and Common Q activities 10
Safety Evaluation Methodology Three types of Evaluations, per LIC-110 instruction:
- For WB2 systems proposed to be the the same as that reviewed and approved per NUREG-0847 (Safety Evaluation Report for Watts Bar Units 1 & 2), the staff confirmed that they are, in fact, identical.
- Example: RX Pressure Interlocks for Low Temperature Overpressure Protection
- For WB2 I&C systems that are the same as WB1 systems that have been upgraded through LAR and 10 CFR 50.59 processes since the WB1 OL was granted: The staff verified that the proposed design of WB2 is in compliance with design requirements applicable to the current licensing basis for WB1.
- Example: Eagle-21 Plant Protection System portion of RPS and ESFAS
- Design features that are unique to Watts Bar Unit 2 were reviewed in accordance with current staff regulatory positions.
- Example: Common Q Digital Platform for 3 Post-Accident Monitoring Variables 11
I&C Focus Areas
- Independence between control and protection systems
- Independence/Isolation between safety and non-safety
- Effects of single random failures on accomplishment of safety functions
- Equipment Qualification for new designs (EQ, seismic, EMI/RFI)
- Compliance with NUREG 0737, and Supplement 1 (Clarification of TMI-2 Action Plan Requirements)
- Compliance with design criteria from IEEE 279-1971 and IEEE 603-1991, as applicable
- Conformance with applicable Regulatory Guides and other Industry Codes and Standards 12
RPS System Design
- NRC Staff verified through audit of the Eagle-21 configuration control documents that the system software is identical to that of WB1. Also, staff witnessed the Factory Acceptance Test.
- Hardware upgrades for WB1 were evaluated and found to still meet applicable criteria. Examples:
- Newer, more reliable power supply module design
- Analog input signal levels compatible with newer transmitters 13
Example RPS Confirmatory Items
- Demonstrate via physical test of the evaluated interface that there is one-way communication connection from Eagle-21 to the non-safety plant computer
- Demonstrate via post-modification testing that the RTD input error of 0.2 degrees F identified on Rack 2 during Factory Acceptance Test has been remedied 14
RPS Conclusions
- Contingent on the successful closure of the Confirmatory Items, the NRC staff concludes that the RPS for WB2 is the same as that for WB1 and therefore the NRC staffs conclusions regarding RPS compliance with all applicable regulatory criteria remain valid for WB2.
15
ESF Actuation System Design
- The Eagle-21 portion of ESF for WB2 was found to be the same as that of WB1
- NRC staff evaluated the impact of design changes to ESF actuation system (newer hardware and system functional configuration) made to WB1 since WB1 OL was granted Examples:
- Upgrade Auxiliary Feedwater System initiation controls to Foxboro Spec 200 Analog system
- Newer, more reliable power supplies in SSPS cabinets
- Test jacks added SSPS Cabinets to facilitate surveillance testing 16
ESF Conclusions
- The Aux Feedwater Initiation and Control upgrade did not change any functional performance requirements
- The design for implementing the new equipment meets all applicable regulatory requirements
- FSAR description of ESF Actuation System Reliability and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis is functionally unchanged
- Implementation of TVAs previous commitments with regard to IE Bulletin 80-06 (ESF actions following reset of automatic initiation signals) found to be acceptable
- The Staffs previous conclusions regarding the ESF for WB1 remain valid for the WB2 design 17
Setpoint Methodology NRC Staff confirmed that WB FSAR Amendment 102 provides a description of the plant setpoint methodology that complies with applicable staff guidance for the establishment of Limiting Safety System Settings per 10 CFR 50.36:
- Regulatory Guide 1.105, Rev. 3, Setpoints for Safety-Related Instrumentation
- Regulatory Issue Summary RIS 2006-17, NRC Staff Position on the Requirements of 10 CFR 50.36, Technical Specifications, Regarding Limiting Safety System Settings during Periodic Testing and Calibration of Instrument Channels 18
Display Instrumentation Focus areas:
- Post-Accident Monitoring
- Compliance with Previous Commitments to Reg Guide 1.97
- Use of Westinghouse Common Q platform for 3 Post-Accident Variables
- Containment Hi Range Radiation Monitors
- Use of distributed plant process computer system (Integrated Computer System used to drive BISI, SPDS, TSC and Nuclear Data Links)
- Evaluation of Compliance with IE Bulletin 79-27 (Effects of Loss of non-1E I&C System Electrical Bus) 19
Control and Display System Interfaces
- Evaluation of Safety-to-Nonsafety Data Communications
- Key Safety-to-Nonsafety digital data communications links evaluated to ensure one-way communications is enforced:
- Common Q PAMS-to-ICS
- Eagle 21-to-ICS
- Other Safety-to-Nonsafety communications are implemented through simple, hard-wired isolated analog or contact closure signals
- Examples: Eagle 21-to-Foxboro ESF Actuation Sys
- Containment Hi Range Radiation monitor-to-ICS 20
Common Q Post-Accident Monitoring
- Based on an Updated Common Q Platform
- PAMS Performs Monitoring and Computations for Three Key Post-Accident Variables
- Reactor Vessel Level Indication System
- Core Exit Temperature
- Subcooling Margin Monitor
- Two Type A, Category 1 Variables
- Core Exit Temperature
- Subcooling Margin Monitor 21
Common Q Post-Accident Monitoring
- Reg. Guide 1.97, Rev 2 Type A Variables
- Those variables that provide primary information to the MCR operators to allow them to take preplanned manually controlled actions for which no automatic action is provided and that are required for safety systems to accomplish their safety functions for Chapter 15 design basis events. Primary information is information that is essential for the direct accomplishment of specified safety functions.
- Evaluation Criteria: RG 1.97 Rev. 2 and IEEE 603-1991
- Findings: Provided that satisfactory resolution of the Open Items is accomplished, NRC staff finds the proposed PAMS implementation to be acceptable.
22
Post-Accident Monitoring
- Key Open Items
- Demonstrate conformance with IEEE 603-1991.
- Demonstrate conformance with RG 1.152.
- Demonstrate conformance with RG 1.168 Rev. 1.
- Demonstrate conformance with RG 1.180 for Hi Rad Monitors
- Demonstrate conformance with RG 1.209 and IEEE 323-2003.
- Justify/mitigate deviations from normative material in the SPM.
- Describe how design supports periodic testing of the RVLIS function.
- Verify acceptability of proposed Technical Specifications.
23
Control Systems Not Required for Safety
- New distributed digital non-safety control system (where WB1 has analog controls) which was evaluated by staff per SRP Section 7.7
- Staff found there are no digital communications or interactions with safety systems
- Staff evaluated TVAs segmentation analyses and analyses of the effects of faults or power supply failures
Conclusions:
Meets regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(1) GDC-1, and GDC-13, Clause 6.3 of IEEE 603-1991 (sense and command interactions), and does not introduce new unanalyzed failures, nor increase likelihood or consequences of failures 24
Status of WB2 I&C Design Evaluation
- NRC Staff is working with the staff of TVA to address and close-out open items. Open Items Coordination meetings still regularly held.
- Staffs evaluation of the Westinghouse WINCISE In-core Instrumentation System nearing completion.
Focus is on qualification of Class 1E components and separation/isolation of 1E and non-1E components.
- Items which require completion of field tests are being identified as confirmatory items to be inspected prior to fuel load.
25
Remaining Work
- Complete the evaluation of the new WB2 In-core Instrumentation System (WINCISE) to ensure compliance with applicable codes and standards
- Evaluate proposed WB2 instrument-related Technical Specifications, when submitted
- Continue close-out of remaining Open Items and support Region-II Office with identification of Confirmatory Items and other inspection-related items required prior to fuel load 26
SSER 23 - Other Partial Sections
- 3.9.5 Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals
- Materials are consistent with those of the RVI components in WBN Unit 1 and are acceptable with respect to structural integrity and corrosion resistance
- WBN Unit 2 used nickel-based Alloy X-750 bolts. Open item for TVA to justify not replacing clevis insert bolts
- ASME Sections II and XI for design and inspection provide adequate assurance
- 3.10 Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Seismic Cat. I Mechanical and Electrical Equipment
- No substantive changes from that approved for Unit 1 27
SSER 23 - Other Partial Sections
- 5.4.3 Residual Heat Removal System
- Provides required redundancy in components and design features
- Provided an analysis in 1991, comparing the major systems related to natural circulation cooldown of WBN to those of Diablo Canyon, Unit 1, which showed that the systems adequately provide for natural circulation, boration, cooldown, and depressurization. (BTP RSB 5-1)
- 5.4.5 Reactor Coolant System Vents (II.B.1)
- RCS vent system is acceptable, pending verification of the installation of the RCS vent system 28
SSER 23 - Other Partial Sections
- 6.1.1 - ESF Metallic Materials
- pH and chemistry controls adequate
- Adequate controls on selection of materials
- 9.1.3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System 29
SSER 23 - Other Partial Sections
- 9.2.1 Essential Raw Cooling Water System (ERCW)
- 9.2.2 Component Cooling System (CCS)
- 9.2.5 Ultimate Heat Sink
- 10.2.2 Turbine Disk Integrity 30
Region II Presentation of Status of Construction Inspection Activities 31
Status of Inspection Program
- Completed 2010 End-of-Cycle review
- 14 Non-cited Violations issued in 2010
- Potential substantive cross-cutting issue due to 4 findings with the same cross-cutting aspect
- Currently issued 6 Violations through May 2011
- RII expended 14,700 staff hours on the project in 2010
- Utilizing temporary resident inspectors for 2 positions
- Filled position of Pre-operational testing Team Leader and added another senior project inspector
- Public meeting with TVA on updated schedule 32
Inspection Activities
- Established 6-7 week inspection report frequency
- Maintaining routine inspections of controls to ensure construction activities do not adversely impact Unit 1
- PI&R focused inspection on item closure
- Closed eight CAP/SPs (including CAP sub-issues)
- Closed 94 of approx. 500 open inspection items
- Challenge: Inspecting a large number of open items prior to fuel load.
33
Upcoming/Ongoing Inspections
- Assessing the ability of TVA to dedicate commercial grade items (CGI) in accordance with 10CFR50 and ensure that CGIs will perform their safety function
- System preoperational testing inspections (IMC 2513)
- Review revised schedule for system turn-over dates: ensure inspection resources available for preoperational testing
- Training NRC staff for pre-operational testing inspection
- Assessing the scope and schedule for our inspection of supporting programs - RP, EP, security, etc.
- Resolution of Heinemann circuit breaker seismic qualification violation 34
Conclusions
- Construction inspections are continuing; violations identified have been Severity Level IV or minor
- RII has adequate inspection resources
- Amount of inspection has increased consistent with increase in safety-related construction activities 35
Project Summary of Watts Bar Unit 2 Remaining Activities 36
Project Status
- Staff review continuing, with some delays
- Future Milestones
- SER and FES-OL complete by March 2012
- Complete ACRS review and provide decision
- Conduct hearing and ASLB provide decision
- Operational readiness assessment
- Certification of as-built construction 37
Expectations for Next Meeting
- Scheduled for October 2011
- Accident and Transient Analyses
- Radioactive waste Management
- Radiation Protection
- Cyber-Security Program 38