ML18282A342

Summary of Teleconference to Discuss NuScale Power, LLC Responses to Requests for Additional Information Associated with the NuScale Design Certification Application

ML18282A342
Person / Time
Site:	NuScale
Issue date:	10/10/2018
From:	Getachew Tesfaye NRC/NRO/DLSE/LB1
To:	Samson Lee NRC/NRO/DLSE/LB1
Tesfaye G / NRO / 415-8013
References
Download: ML18282A342 (7)

Text

October 10, 2018 MEMORANDUM TO: Samuel S. Lee, Chief Licensing Branch 1 Division of Licensing, Siting, and Environmental Analysis Office of New Reactors FROM: Getachew Tesfaye, Senior Project Manager /RA/

Licensing Branch 1 Division of Licensing, Siting, and Environmental Analysis Office of New Reactors

SUMMARY

OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2018, CATEGORY 1 PUBLIC TELECONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE NUSCALE POWER, LLC RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE NUSCALE DESIGN CERTIFICATION APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a Category 1 public teleconference on September 11, 2018, to discuss responses to the NRC staffs requests for additional information associated with the NuScale Power, LLC (NuScale) design certification application. Participants included personnel from NuScale and members the general public.

The public meeting notice dated September 11, 2018, can be found in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems under Accession No. ML18254A056. This meeting notice was also posted on the NRC public website.

Enclosed is the meeting agenda (Enclosure 1), list of participants (Enclosure 2), and overview (Enclosure 3).

Docket No.52-048

Enclosures:

1. Meeting Agenda

2. List of Attendees

3. Meeting Overview cc w/encl.: DC NuScale Power, LLC Listserv CONTACT: Getachew Tesfaye NRO/DLSE 301-415-8013

ML18282A342 NRO-002 OFFICE DLSE/LB1:PM DLSE/LB1:PM DLSE /LB1:LA DLSE/RPAC DNRL/LB1:PM NAME GTesfaye PChowdhury* MMoore EStutzcage

• GTesfaye (signed)

DATE 10/05/2018 10/09/2018 10/10/2018 10/09/2018 10/10/2018 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CATEGORY 1 PUBLIC TELECONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE NUSCALE POWER, LLC RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE NUSCALE DESIGN CERTIFICATION APPLICATION MEETING AGENDA September 11, 2018 1:00 - 1:15 PM Introductions and Identification of topics 1:15 - 2:20 PM Discussion of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staffs Questions regarding NuScale Power LLCs Responses to Requests for Additional Information (RAI) Nos. 9253, 9294, 9302, 9281, and related RAIs 2:20 - 2:30 PM Public Comments/Questions 2:30 PM Meeting Closure Enclosure 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CATEGORY 1 PUBLIC TELECONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE NUSCALE POWER, LLC RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE NUSCALE DESIGN CERTIFICATION APPLICATION LIST OF ATTENDEES September 11, 2018 Name Organization Prosanta Chowdhury U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Gregory Cranston NRC Samuel Lee NRC Andy Campbell NRC Michael Dudek NRC Sean Meighan NRC Edward Stutzcage NRC Zachary Gran NRC Richard Clement NRC Stephen Williams NRC Michelle Hart NRC Carrie Fosaaen NuScale Power, LLC (NuScale)

Elizabeth English NuScale Jim Osborn NuScale Jon Bristol NuScale Paul Guinn NuScale Russell Goff NuScale Zack Rad NuScale Jennie Wike NuScale Sarah Fields Member of the public Enclosure 2

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OVERVIEW OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2018, TELECONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE NUSCALE POWER, LLC RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE NUSCALE DESIGN CERTIFICATION APPLICATION The purpose of this teleconference was to discuss the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs review of NuScale Power LLCs (NuScale) responses to Requests for Additional Information (RAI) Nos. 9253, 9294, 9302, 9281, 9534, 9239, 8750, and 9267.

The following is the summary of the NRC staffs feedback and agreed upon next steps for the resolution of the remaining issues.

1. RAI No. 9253, Question11.01-2 (Sub Question 1):

a. NRC Feedback: The 2nd paragraph in NuScales response does not provide the information requested under Question 1.b. The answer addresses a question discussed with NuScale previously concerning RAI 8750 that the Branch Technical Position (BTP) 11-6 liquid tank rupture analysis will not be performed by NuScale because the plant design prevents the liquid effluent release with a steel lined dike. This information fits the response for RAI No. 8750, however, it does not address the additional step of providing an inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) to provide verification that the dike exists and will prevent the described tank rupture from becoming a liquid release to the environment. This information, including the ITAAC should be included as a replacement response to RAI No. 8750 to close out RAI No. 8750.

b. Next Step: The NRC staff acknowledged receipt of NuScales supplemental response to eRAI No. 9253, as discussed at the exit meeting on July 31, 2018, for NRCs Gaseous and Liquid Effluent (GALE) Replacement Methodology Audit.

The supplemental response to eRAI No. 9253 removed the information provided for the proposed revision/deletion of Combined License (COL) Items 2.4-1 (Design Certification Application (DCA) Section 2.4.13) and 11.2-3 (DCA Section 11.2.3.2), and related text including Table 1.8-2 in the DCA that should be addressed in the response to eRAI No. 8750. Nuscale will supplement the response to RAI No. 8750 and point to the supplemental response to RAI 9253; no ITAAC will be provided by NuScale. NRC staff will issue follow-up RAI to RAI No. 8750.

2. RAI No. 9253, Question11.01-2 (Sub Question 2):

a. NRC Staff Feedback: NuScales response included in part: FSAR Section 11.2.3.2, Table 1.8-2, and Table 11.1-1 have been revised as described in the response above and as shown in the markup provided in this response. This response again addresses RAI No. 8750 items and the associated COL Items in Chapter 2 and 11. These were not concerns in RAI No. 9253.

1 Enclosure 3

b. Next Step: See Item 2(b) above.

3. RAI No. 9239:

a. NRC Staff Feedback: Review of RAI No. 9239 response found that the applicant has not provided a new Table 11.2-8, Liquid Release Concentration Compared to 10 CFR 20 Appendix B Limits. This table used to show the compliance with 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, Note 4, Unity Calculations. This table showed compliance with all radionuclides being less than one, when ratioed with their effluent concentration limits (ECL). By changing the dilution factors for the concentration limits this calculation indicates compliance with Note 4 of Appendix B.

b. Next Step: NuScale informed the staff that the revised Table 11.2-8 was provided in response to RAI No. 9264.

4. RAI No. 9294, Question 12.03-25:

a. NRC Staff Feedback: During the July 26, 2018, teleconference, it was agreed that NuScale would include a statement(s) that ensured that all removable shielding included as part of the design would provide adequate attenuation to maintain the radiation zones specified, including for the shield plugs for the High Integrity Container (HIC) Storage and Filling room. However, the proposed design control document (DCD) markups in the in the supplemental response only addresses the shield plugs. The proposed DCD markups should also address other removable shielding included as part of the design, such as removable shielding around the Chemical and Volume Control System (CVCS) demineralizer areas. Please update the DCD to provide information ensuring that all the removable shielding, included as part of the design, is designed to maintain the radiation zones at the design basis source terms or discuss why this is not necessary.

b. Next Step: NuScale clarified that shield plugs for the HIC storage and filling room and for CVCS areas are the only removable shielding credited as part of the NuScale design. Therefore, the response was found to be acceptable.

5. RAI No. 9302 and RAI No. 9281

a. NRC Staff Feedback: In RAI 9302, Question 12.03-14, the staff asks for the applicant to update the zoning for both Drum Drier Rooms (A and B). The proposed DCA markups only reflect that Room A has a designation. Does a future revision appropriately address Drum Drier Room Bs radiation zone? Does NuScale plan to update zone maps in the responses to RAI No. 9302 and RAI No. 9281 to provide the zones for all the rooms that dont have a zone labeled, since in their revised radiation zone drawings there appears to be several rooms that are blank (such is room 030-113, which is the other blank room in the same figure as drum drier room B)?

2

b. Next Step: NuScale committed that in Revision 2 of the DCD the radiation zone maps would be colored to more clearly show radiation zone boundaries so that one can identify the radiation zones for rooms where the zoning isnt clear.

6. RAI No. 9534

a. NRC Staff Feedback: Supplemental response to RAI No. 9534 (Ch. 6) should be made consistent with Accident Source Term Topical Report. (ref. RAI No. 9224).

b. Next Step: NuScale agreed to the NRC staffs request.

7. RAI No. 9267

a. NRC Staff Feedback: Staff identified that the response to RAI No. 9264 has the more recent information on the spent resin storage tank and questioned if RAI No. 9267 needs to be supplemented to make it consistent with the response to RAI No. 9264.

b. Next Step: NuScale took action to reevaluate the two responses to determine if a supplemental response is needed for RAI No. 9267.

8. Additionally, the planned audit for design basis failed fuel fraction (DBFFF) supporting documents was discussed during this teleconference. NuScale indicated that they believed the scope of the audit should be revised to remove items that were not related to the DBFFF. NuScale also provided a table which provided a roadmap with all the RAI responses that have changes related to DBFFF.

9. A member of the public commented to the NRC staff that the discussions in the meeting was extremely complex and difficult to follow; and hoped the NRC staff would issue a summary that will be clearly understood.

3