ML19283B572
| ML19283B572 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/09/1979 |
| From: | Carbon M, Plesset M Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T, NUDOCS 7902260229 | |
| Download: ML19283B572 (362) | |
Text
..-
NU CLE A R R*GUL ATO RY CO MMISSIO N-l ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
,..u, m
=-w--.
---.w--e+--+e.-.m-
.--ww.-++-ge.--
..ec+--
e--
r*~~
- mh IN THE MATTER CF:
226th GENERAL MEETING
(
Place.
Washington, D. C.
Octe -
Friday, 9 February 1979 P=ges 129-491 7etecnces:
(
(2001 :47-3700 ACZ.: _uE3.1L RI?ORii tS, D'C.
OhichiRepor:en m Neem c:=ir=1 streer 790226OZA we=ies=n:: zcci pga
. MAT:CNWICE COVEUCE CAH.Y
129 I
PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE 2
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S 3
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUAPSS 4
Friday, 9 February 1979 5
6 The contents of this stenographic transcript of the 7
proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 8
Corraission's Advisory Cc=mittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS ),
9 as _ reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussione 10 recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
11 No mertber of the ACRS Staff and no participant at this 12 meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or inaccuracies 13 of. statement or data contained in this transcript.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
i 130 l
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA mp 1
i I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 [l i
3l ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS I
4 I,
5 6
226th GENERAL MEETING i
I 7'
Room 1046 8
1717 H Street, N.
W.
9 Washington, D.
C.
10 !
Friday, 9 February 1979 1
gj The 226th General Meeting of the Advisory Committee on 12 Reactor Safeguards was reconvened, pursuant to adjournment, at 8:30 a.m.
13
{
PRESENT:
34 Dr. Max W.
Carbon, Chairman 15 Dr. Milton S. Plesset, Vice Chairman 16 Mr. Jesse Ebersole, Member 17 Mr. Harold Etherington, Member Prof. William Kerr, Member 18 Dr. Stephen Lawroski, Memb er Dr. J. Carson Mark, Member j9 l Mr. William M. Mathis, Member j
Dr. Dade W.
Moeller, Member 20 ;
Dr. David Okrent, Member i
Mr. Jeremiah J.
Ray, Member Dr. Paul G. Shewmon, Member 21 Dr. Chester P. Siess, Member 22 1
23 l 24 i Ace Feucal Rewrters, Inc.
25 L
CR 2589 131 1
HOFFMAU
- l ~'"e 1
1
_P R O_.C _E _E _D.I _N _G _S
~
2 (8:30 a.m.)
I 3'
DR. CARBON:
The meeting will now core to order.
i 4
This is the second day of the 226th meeting of the Advisory i
1 5
Comnittee on Reactor Safecuards.
I The specific items for today's discussion are:
th e 6
f 7
preliminary design approval of the Fluor Power Services balance 8
of plant standard safety analysis report as it relates to the !
9 Babcock 205 standard nuclear stean supply system; reports by 10 '
the NRC staff on recent operating experience in licensing 11 plants; reports by various Sdocommittee Chairnen; and a discus-12 sion of the future schedule.
i i
13 The designated federal employee for this portion of i
14 the meeting is Mr. John C. McKinley.
A transcript of this 15 portion of the meeting is being kept, and it is requested that i
16 each speaker first identify himself and sneak with sufficient 17 clarity and volune so that he can be readily heard, 18 I now call on Dr. Siess to give the Subccmnittee 19 1 report on BOPSSAR, the Fuor balance of plant standard safety 20 !
analysis report.
I i
21 DR. MARK:
Mr. Chairman, could I ask two small ques-l 22 tions?
23 DR. CARBON:
Yes.
?
24 l DR. MARE:
We received yesterday a notice that the AceF si Reporters, Inc.
25,
NRC staf f has ditched Greene County.
I'r not sure it's t
d l
mte 2 132 l
l l
l 1
necessary to discuss it here.
As Chairman of the Greene County l 1
S ub committee, I believe --
2 I
i 3i (Laughter.)
l 4
-- or I believe I am.
5 (Laughter.)
6 DR. MARK:
Is there now reason to (
sure that there 7
isn' t anything to say anynore?
8 DR. CARBON:
I personally wouldn't recommend that on i
9 the basis of the newspaper announcenent.
10 I DR. MARK:
The other thing is that there was 150 11 pounds of uranium oxide walked of f with.
Will that cone up 12 later in the unusual events section?
13 DR. CARBON:
We had hoped to discuss that yesterday, I
l I
1,4 and we s imply didn ' t get to it.
I would comment on the moment !
15 that it has been found.
16 DR. MARK:
Maybe it belongs in the operating events 17 list.
18 DR. SHEMMOM:
We are putting it in the e:"ployees ' nost-19 1 clever award for the day.
20 I DR. MARK:
I was wondering if it was on the agenda.
I 21 It belongs properly in later reports on operating experience.
22 DR. CARBON:
Okay, fine.
We'll discuss it there.
t 23 Dave?
24 ;
DR. OKRENT:
Mr. Chairman, since Mr. Mark brought up Ace 4, al Reporters, irsc.
25 the question of Greene County, I wonder if the staff could tell I
i i
B l
mte 3 133 l
I 1
us briefly how the timing arose the way it did with regard to i
1 l
2 questions of the review of the construction permit and questions l
3i of review for esthetic situations or historic landmark situa-i 6
4 tio ns ?
I 5
MR. CROC7ER:
Dr. Okrent, I'm really not all that up l 6
on it.
As you are probably aware, we did have joint hearings l
l f
I 7
with the State of New York on Greene County.
My understanding 8
is that very recentiv the county up there that the plant is I
9 suppos ed to be located in discovered that if PASUE built a 10 t nuclear plant they won't pay taxes, that if PASNE doesn't build.
I' a nuclear plant there they 're going to build a cement plant 12 there, which days pay taxes.
l 13 This led to all the sentiment being -- a very poor j
(
i 14 econoric standpoint from their point of view, and they don' t l
15 want the plant.
I also heard the other day, though, Saat PASNE I
16 has now nade their peace with the county somehow.
This may or l
17 -
may not go the way this article says, but I don ' t have any 18 further word on it.
19 DR. CARBON:
If it's possible to get any more infor-l 20 '
nation by the time we reet this af ternoon --
l 21 MR. CROCKER:
I could certainly give it a try.
f 22,
DR. CARBOM:
Including how much roney was tossed down l
23 1 the drain.
24 !
MR. CROCKER:
I don't know if we have that, but I i
Ac.A..: Reconm. inc.
25,
can try to get it.
i A
I mte 4 134 i
l 1
MR. ETHEFINGTON:
FNy is it that a cement plant can 't l 2
stand a nuclear plant around?
I 3
MR. CROCKER:
It's not that they can ' t s tand it.
I 4
f l
think it's an either/or sort of thing.
As you recall, Greene l
4 S
County is situated sort of in the middle of several quarries t
I 6
up there, which are used for manufacturing Portland cement.
7 If the plant goes in, th ey don ' t get a new cement plant.
I#
I 8
it doesn't go in, they might get a new cement plant.
It's taken 9
them a long time to get dhat.
10 '
From the esthetic s tandpoint, if you look at that f
11 one house they found, I guess from my standpoint I'd a whole i
12 lot rather look at a nuclear plant than a cement plant out l
i 13 th ere.
(
14 (Laughter.)
l 15 DR. CARBON:
Let's go ahead with BOPSSAR.
Chet?
16 DR. SIESS:
Gentlemen, we have some naterial that's i
17,
Tab 8.1.
You also have received at some point in time the l
18 report to the ACRS by.the staff.
Because this is a standard 19 design, we get first the report from ACRS then subsequently 20 staff puts out a standard-type SER.
I 21 This is an application by an organization which is 22 now known as Fluor Power Services, Incorporated, formerly 23 known as Fluor Pioneer, Incorporated.
Even they don' t always 24 l remember their correct name.
It is imnortant that it is, Ace I al Reoorters, Inc. !
25 '
however, the s ame company.
~
mte 5 135 l
I Thev re asking for preliminary design approval of the {
1 2 ;I standard balance of plant design, called BOPSSAR; also, a plant i
2 I safe ty analysis report to be used with the Babcock 205 standard i'
1 4
NSSS design, which is described in a cocunent called BSAR 205.
I 5
I believe our standard procedure, the las t time we 6l did BSAR, to call it a Babcock 205 design and the report is a 7
BSAR.
I'll probably use BSAR instead of Babcock.
l 8
We reviewed the BSAR 205 report in August of 1977.
l i
9 Ue reviewed a Fluor Pioneer, Incorporated, BOPSSAR, and the 10 interf ace with RESAR-41 in July 1977.
So w e have seen this 11 balance of plant design before the interface with RESAR-41, 12 A PBA has been issued for BOPSSAR, BSAR 41.
Whatwe'relookingl l
(
13 at is a PBA application for BOPSSAR-Babcock.
l 1
14 The design, as you would expect, is generally very j
15 similar to the design m looked at for RESAR.
There are dif-16 ferences.
Thare are different interfaces to accommodate.
17 RESAR-41 is a four-loop plant.
Of course, a B&W NSSS is 18 escentially a two-loop type plant, and daere are scme inter-19 l face differences.
There's also a dif ference in the spent fuel i
i 20 i storage.
They're using a Babcock & Wilcox spent fuel rack, t
21 essentially putting them in a pool that I believe was designed 22 for dae Westinghouse racks.
23 So BOPSSAR-BSAR would accommodate two cores in the 24 i spent fuel pool, whereas RESAR can accommodate one.ind one-third.
Ac..L..i 9.oonm. ine. l 25 These are not very significant dif.#erences.
l
d ete 6 136 1
The staff recort has a nunber of different lis ts in 2l it, a list usually of first concerns, outstanding issues.
There l
l 3'
were only two of these at. the time the Subcommittee reviewed it.'
i 4
One of those has been resolved.
Staff will mention it, I'm i
5!
sure.
The other is quite near resolution.
The other was an I
l 6l open issue on the RESAR-30PSSAR.
It wasn't called an outstand-t 7
ing issue, but it was an issue to be decided when the utility applicant came in for the construction pernit.
We got close 8
9l enough to a resolution that we noved it over to an outstandinc i
10 !
issue on this one.
I think it will be resolved before the 11 staff issues the pernit.
12 Now, you've got a couple of tables in the report.
13 There 's a table -- there 's one very nice, long table which i
14 simply lists -- Table 11, which sirply lists what's in the 15 l scope of the balance of plant.
16 Table 12, pages 18 and 19, is quite a list, and these 17 are the najor items that have to be addressed by the utility 18 applicant when he references a BOPSSAR.
These are things that 19 cannot bc decided on the
,c r dochet, but will have to be decided 20 j when they get a construction permit.
That list is the same as I
21 the one for RESAR down to Item 26, and there are three items 22 added.
And they're not really ccepletely new items.
23 l1 l
Table 1.1-3 and 1-4 are a little dif ferent.
1-3 is 24 li headed " Matters to be addressed by utility applicant in order Ace 6 al Recorters, Inc. l3 25 to supcort the BOPSSAR design. "
These aren't inter facing l
t mte 7 13/
t i
1 utility matters; these are sort of outstanding issues that l
2 can't be settled until you get a utility involved in the corpu,!
L 3'
tation.
And the staf f will mention these.
That Table 1-3 is t
4 the same thing in RESAR.
It's a little too identical to the I
5!
RESAR lis t, because it has the s teel-concrete friction cuestion I
i 6l still listed there, where it's also listed as an outstanding l
7l issue.when, as I say, it has been moved from that. table.
I 8
Table 1-4 is new.
It wasn't in the RESAR report, the' 9
BOPSSAR-RESAR, and it says matters can be reviewed at the FDA 10 I stage.
It turned out that that isn' t really what the s ta f f Il me ant.
It's matters to be reviewed at either an FDA, final 12 design approval, or the operating license stace.
But they're 13 matters that cannot really -- either can't be or don ' t have 14 to be settled until they get to the enerating license stage.
15 There are things like fire protection which have 16 been re-reviewed, sort of, from the BOPSSAR-RESAR since the 17 position of fire protection' firned up.
ATWS is not settled, 18 of course.
It's chiefly an USSS cuestion, but there are inter-19 l faces.
And what the staf f did on the BOPSSAR-RESAR was simply l
.20 '
issue in the PDA that the interface recuirements would be met.
I 21 The Subecmmittee met here on the 26 th of January, 22 Siess, Mathis and Ray.
There's a sunnary of the Subcornittee 23 neeting in Tab 8.1.
We reviewed the two outstanding items.
24 { We discussed the items in Tables 1-3 and 1-4.
We also had Ace 4 al Rooorms, Inc. l 25 i
sone presentations on certain items.
Two of ther were not
I mte 8 138 l
l 1
major changes or even sicnificant changes fron what we had j
2 heard in the BOPSSAR-RESAR review.
But I thoucht thev would 3l l
benefit the new Sdocommittee merbers.
i 4'
There were presentations on the physical separation i
l 5
of the safety-related eculpment and related to fire protection 6l! and sabotage, et cetera.
It was a very interesting presenta-l 7
tion.
The Committee did not rerember all the details of BOPSSAR i
8 f rom the previous review.
l 9
I recommend that we hear it to day.
It's not very 10 '
long.
It 's about ten minutes.
II Applicant discussed that numerous provisions had
[
12 been made in the design for keeping down occupational ' radiation '
13 exposures for decontamination, decomrizsioning, maintenance, i
l ld inspection and operation.
I believe we had heard the same 1
15 story on RESAR.
Again, it is, tentatively at least, scheduled 16 for presentation today.
I think we have that on the schedule.
17 We did not discuss -- ch, we heard a presentation on 18 the outstanding issue number one, which has to do with the 19 '
coefficient of friction between the steel and concrete, to l
20 keep the containment shell from rotating in the event of an i
21 earthquake.
Tests have been made, but the final recort isn't i
i 22 in.
But we had a briefing on where the problem comes from, thel i
l i
23 !
method for solving it.
As some of you may remember, this came l
24 l up on soPSSAr-RESAR, it came up on Cherokee Perkins.
Ace-F al Reporters, tr*C.
25 l I raised a cuestion and suggested that the s ta f f i
1
nte 9 139 1
ought to recuire some tests.
They did.
The tes ts were financed i
i 2
jointly by Fluor, TVA and Duke, and they 're all reviewing the l
3 test results, and so forth.
i I
4 We heard a presentation on dhat.
They are prepared l
i S
to present it to the full Committee.
That 's your option.
I i
m 6
would suggest that mos t of you nay no u be as interested in it I
7 as I was.
i 8
MR. ETHERINGTON:
What scale were these tests run at? !
t 9
DR. SIESS:
These reallv weren't scale.
There was i
i 10 '
about a two foot scuare piece of steel, a concrete cast on it 11 or cast under it, as the case may be, uith grouting, loaded 12 this way and they pull.
Very ni ce, simple friction tests; I
i i3 wet, dry, all the things that went into it.
i 14 Especially interesting was one where they put the l
I 15 steel plate and allowed the grout to come up beneath it, like i
1-6 it would be in a major portion of the construction.
And it l
i 17 didn't get too good a contact surface, and was fairly repre-1 18 s enta tiva.
They have about a 15-ninute presentation on that.
19 l We did not discuss security since the Applicant told 20 the Conmittee that there was nothing new since BOPSSAR-RESAR.
f 21 The accid 6 nt control is ultimately in the scope of the utility i
22 Arbipr:At.
i 23 Now, Fluor identifies vital areas, but the Applicant 24 ! decides where he puts his control points.
He does the easy Ace 4 at Reoorters, Inc. l 25 ( calculations and so forth.
mte 10 140 1
The Comittee's concern has been -- in the past has j
2 been the things you do in the design of the plant to make it l
3 nore difficult to sabotage.
When you hear the presentation on 4
physical separation, you'll get some idea of what's going on.
l 5i Now, what I'd suggest to the Committee, th at the 6
staff discuss the significance of the outstanding issues and 7
answer any questions you night have or run down the tables.
3 8
The Appplicant is prepared to make presentations on separation, '
9 on deconta.ination, et cetera, each about ten minutes.
The i
10 i coefficient of friction might take 20 minutes, depending on 11 the nunber of cuestions you ask.
And on security, I'll leave 12 it up to the Comittee.
I don 't think there's much new to be i
13 heard.
i 14 The spokesman for the regulatory staf f is the license 15 project manager, Mr. Shell; and for the Applicant, Wade Larkin, e-1 16 vice president for engineering, and Tom Roell, the engineer.
17 18 19 20 21 22 i
23 24 \\..
Ace-F si Reporters, Inc.,
,5 ;6 s
I 1
i i
i
CR 2589 I
HOFFMAN:
jwb 141l f
- 2 That concludes my report.
~
DR. CARBON:
Are there questions?
2 3
(No response. )
l DR. CARBON:
Do subcommittee members have additional l 4
l 5
comments?
l Dr. Kerr?
l 6
PROF. KERR:
Dr. Siess, can you explain to me the j
7 hybrid system of units of the standard we're now using.a the 8
SER?
I find kilograms of primary coolant in one place, 9
I jo i gallons-per-minute in another, and square feet and degrees 11 centigrade.
i 12 DR. SIESS:
No Celsius.
13 PROF. KERR:
Is there a transition going on wnich j
\\
i ja will eventually get us to somewhere?
Or is it an "every man i
15 for himself" situation?
i i
16 DR. SIESS:
I suspect it's every man for himself, 17 and the licensing project manager in the middle.
As long as 18 it's not prolonged for a fortnight, I guess I can stand it.
i 19 '
Let me mention one other thing.
If you read the 20 report to the ACRS, you will note that there have been some i
21 little stars sprinkled around through it in the left-hand 22 margin.
23 These do two different things -- and correct me if 24 l I'm wrong.
One is it identifies the paragraph or lines that
',al Aeoorters, Inc. i Ace-F.
25 l are different than the report we got on BOPSSAR/RESAR, in some l
l i
i
2-2 jwb 142 !
I instances to save time.
Specifically, an asterisk on a 1
~~
2 [
section heading means the whole section applies, but not all 3l of these represent differences.
Some of them simply represent i
I areas that were reviewed as being different in the BOPSSAR/RESA.R.
i So if there's not an asterisk, it means that in the i 5
i staf f's opinion everything was the same as 30PSSAR/RESAR and 6,
i i
what they said before.
Or if it's different, what they said before still applies.
Is that right?
O MR. SNELL:
That's correct.
9 ge a repea n
.e spent-10 i fuel pool?
You were saying it was a Westinghouse design?
I 33 didn't understand that.
g DR. SIESS:
The applicant can correct me.
The pool j ends up having a two-core capacity, a two full-core capacity.
14 In BOPSSAR/RESAR, we saw one ada third core capacity.
In n
g BOPSSAR/RESAR, they used the Westinghouse rack design -- not g
the pool design; the rack design.
- Y 9"'
18 same pool they can get the two cores with those racks.
Is j9
.a rg ey us n
an ange ne structural 20 i
I configuration of the plant to reduce it in order to keep it 21 l!! standard for the two cores.
22 1 1
l Obviously, unless other solutions abound, standard plants may end up with compound fuel storage.
Then you might 2', li Ace Fw.<ai Reporters, Inc.
need to redesign tn,e cooling system, but right now it's not g
2-3 jwb 143 compact.
I don't know how they can get one more in there.
DR. CARSON:
Let's n.ove ahead and let me call on 2
Mr. Larkin.
3 i'
DR. SIESS:
One quick thing.
Just in case you guys don't remember -- because figure one got lef t out of the report -- this thing has the biggest spherical containment.
6 I
t I
That's sort of the way we are in Cherokee-Perkins and the TVA 7
plants, if that helps you.
8 i
t
~
DR. CARBON:
Wade?
o ng, gen-1 men.
My name is 10 I Wade Larkin.
I'm Vice President of Engineering and Construc-gj i
tion for Fluor Power Services, the progenitor of BOPSSAR.
We apologize profusely for bringing our Chicago g
weather down with us, but we are most appreciative that we're' g
9 P
Y Y
Y 15 BOPSSAR as it relates to using a Babcock 205 Nuclear Steam 16 Supply System.
18 Quickly, I'll run through a bit of history as to 19 g
nere we are.
20 (Slide.)
g This is an excerpt from the Engineering News Report g
23 ll of April 1978.
You will note that Fluor Corporation, of which !
i l
24 i we are a wholly owned subsidiary, is number three in this Am.F il Reooners, Inc.
tabulation of the largest engineers and constructors in the
~
25 l
I i
It
-n..
- ~ ~ - -... _ -. ~ ~ - -.. - ~..
2-4 jwb 144 j
world.
)
i (Slide.)
2 To give you an indication as to our scope of acti-3 vity, this is an organization chart for the Fluor Corporation l
4 i
i itself.
It has the customary board, chairman, vice chairman, and in this area here (indicating), this is the Fluor Power l
6 i
t Services Group.
This (indicating) is where BOPSSAR was 7
produced, and it is the licensing entity for BOPSSAR.
8 In this area here (indicating), this is where the 9
gas centrifuge nuclear fuel enrichment plants are designed.
The wage calcating facility; the high-density plutonium 3j repackaging systems, and so forth.
g
,~
Over here (indicating) is Daniel International.
(
13 They currently are in the process of building 11 nuclear power i
plants, they tell me, as of their last count.
15 (Slide.)
g This is breaking down the organization within Fluor Power Services itself.
These are conventional enough.
In this area here (indicating), this is where the technical 39 develop =ents of BOPSSAR occurs.
BOPSSAR II must have a 20 project management function to keep the project on schedule g
and within budget.
22 ep ec anagemen g
up sees to that.
23 !l (Slide.)
24 Ace-Feuvral Reoorters, Inc.
,5 :
Moving down one step further in the organization,
. t; 5
2-5 jwb 145 1
the highly technical systems and so forth are developed in 2
this area.
The production of the drawings and all the detailed!
3 I delineation is done here.
You can see we have appropriate 4l isolation of quality assurance and quality control.
l 5'
(Slide.)
l t
6 What is one of the main objectives of BOPSSAR?
We l
7 say it is best capsulized by this tabulation.
A customary 8
PSAR requires nine volumes to outline the details of an NSSS; f
9 nine volumes for BOPSSAR.
We recommend categorically to any 10.
clients that we have that there be an early site approval.
I 11 We say there should be about one volume for the 12 interface requirements to make the plant fit into the site, j
13 the last details at least; and one volume for the antitrust
\\
l 14 and the need for power.
i 15 We say that with a standard plant of these total 16 26 volumes, 24 of them would be complete for any client 17 referencing a standard nuclear plant such as BOPSSAR.
18 (Slide.)
19 A little more history of how we got where we are 20,
today.
You will recall that we -- although not shown on this i
21 little flow chart -- we had invoked the assistance of four 22 utilities:
Commonwealth Edison, Wisconsin Public Service, l.
23 l Northern States Power, and Texas Utilities Services.
Each of i
I 24 '
these people, in a series of three seminar periods, and a Ace F, sal Reoorters, Inc. ;
25 l month's preview of materials sent to them, had categoric input l
1
2-6 jwb I
146 i
f I
1 into the design of BOPSSAR.
2 Certainly we are still very appreciative of the i3i input we got from these people, in that they did materially I
l 4-ratchet into the design.
About 18 months ago, we were before i
5 the ACRS Full Committee on August 14 th, 1977.
Subsequent to 6
that, the SER and PDA was issued for BOPSSAR, references 7
RESAR-41.
8 Almost immediately after that, we made a decision 9
to amend BOPSSAR to include Babcock 205.
10 i (Slide.)
I 11 We then had a number of parallel-path activities.
+
12 B&W immediately assigned a. program manager.
They sent the i
i 13 information package to us.
You can appreciate what a volume l
s I
14 of material that is.
l 15 Then, on periodic times, they provide reviews and 16 comments on our design.
On a parallel-path basis, we went to 17 the NRC and discussed how this amendment would be developed for 18 them.
They agreed to how it was going to be done, and the 19 licensing process started.
20 We also have looked back, of course, at RESAR-41.
I 1
21 i We saw that the only open item that we could do anything about 22 was the coef ficient of friction study.
We knew that Duke and
~
23 TVA had a similar problem.
We asked them if they would go 24,
into a joint study with us.
They finally agreed.
Ac.4m,.re neoonm. inc. ;
25 ;
And then on October 31st, 1977, the Babcock 205 I
l f
2-7 jwb 147!
i amendment to BOPSSAR was adopted.
Immediately after we had an agreement with Duke 2
and m, we selected de Podland Cement Associadon for de 3
l study.
(Sli **)
5 We then mcved quickly through the licensing process.i 7l We continued our liaison with B&W underway.
We had some of the Q-1s on March 3rd.
PCA began its test.
We finally had all the answers back to the NRC on the 14th of April.
Duke 9
and TVA made a special trip out to PCA to observe the tests 10 '
which were done adjacent to Chicago.
11 Our liaison with B&l; continued.
We got the i
Regulatory Staff position questions, and these were answered onj
(
g July 10th, 1978.
l g
(S1id**)
15 Moving along quickly, after we had answered those g
questions, B&W ran the final mass energy flows for us.
We g
got the Q-2s from the NRC.
PCA continued its tests.
We answered the Q-2s.
Our liaison with Duke and TVA continued.
39 e had a number of meetings, both physically and over the 20 I
telephone.
g The NRC issued the report to the ACRS on our g
i 23 ;
amended BOPSSAR on December 28th, 1978.
On the same day, the l
i PCA drafted its initial final report, and we're in the process 24 Ace Feceral Reoorters. Inc. I f sharing it with the ACRS subcommittee on January 27th, 1979.
25 l
d 2-8 jwb 148 We only have one more stopping point on our flow I
1 1
chart, of course.
l 2
i i
(Slide.)
3 I
i Today we have advanced to the point wnere we're meeting with the ACRS Full Committee to share the details of I
5 i
i this amendment.
i 6
j Gentlemen, if there are no questions, we will move 7
i along to a detailed explanation and the definition of the plant.
8 Yes?
9 DR. MOELLER:
You mentioned very early that 26 10,
l volumes, something like that, only 2 of them were unique to a 33 given application?
g, I
an ear y s e appr va, yes.
13 DR. MOELLER:
And those pertain to the early site l
g "EE# v"1?
15 MF. LARF.IN:
No, there are alway: some cleanup 16 items, some interface items that need to be addressed in the
- # Y
- *^
- ~~
18 And then of course they always have to f ace up to 39 antitrust and the need for power.
It is our contention that 20 :
I once you complete those two things, referencing.the preceding 21 24 volumes, you should be home free.
g i
DR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
23 DR. SIESS:
You had 6 volumes for the early site 24 i i
AceJs al Reporters, Inc..
25 l appr val.
That included the environmental report?
I I
f i
2-9 jwb 149!
l MR. LARKIN:
Yes.
l 1
DR. CARBON:
Thank you.
2 MR. LARKIN:
Very good.
DR. SIESS:
I notice we have 11 volumes of BOPSSAR 4
I on the shelf.
5 MR. LARKIN:
But that includes two nuclear steam 0
supply systems.
Right, Tom?
MR. ROELL:
That's right.
i MR. ETHERINGTON:
Does an applicant submit all 26 volumes?
Or just reference those that are standard?
g; MR. LARKIN:
Frankly, we 've never had a client.
I g
don't know.
(Laughter.)
13
( ~
MR. ETHERINGTON:
Maybe I should ask the staff.
l 14 What's the intention there?
MR. SNELL:
I beg your pardon?
g MR. ETHERINGTON:
Is an applicant expected to submit 18 standard?
g MR. SNELL:
Reference; but for review we still need I
the pieces of paper, so we still have to basically get the volumes.
MR. ETHERINGTON:
I was just thinking about my gj basement space.
al Reporters, hx:. l Ace-F (Laug, ter. )
n l
I i
i i
0 2-10 jwb 150l l
i i
DR. CARBON:
Mr. Roell?
2 PJt. ROELL:
Good morning.
I'm going to move into j
i 3'
the agenda item on the arrangement of the standard plant.
4 (Slide.)
5 I have two general outline slides, just to orient 6l you.
This is the planned view of the standard plant.
Over 7
on the left side of the figure we have the turbine building.
8 In the center is the reactor building, which includes the i
9 shield building, and the spherical shield containment.
10 i This structure here (indicating) is the' auxiliary 11 building surrounding the reactor building.
The fuel-handling 12 building is over here; and the control complex is up at the I
13 top of the slide.
i l
14 (Slide.)
i 15 Looking at that in section, you can again see the 16 turbine building over on the left.
You can see the four eleva-17 tions in the auxiliary building here (indicating).
And you 18 can see a good view of the reactor building, including the 19 spherical containment, polar train, the NSSS, and the annulus.
20 From here down is what we call the " lower," or 21
" active annulus," which is where we have our safeguards 22 equipment located in this design.
23 l This is a section through the fuel-handling building i
2d ! over here on the right.
AceFs et Reoorters, Inc, j 25 !
DR. OKRENT:
I I
I l
I
2-11 jwb 151 I
1 MR. ROELL:
The sump is down in this area.
This section isn't cut on a right axis.
There's two safeguard 2
i 3,
sumps, and a couple of non-safeguard sumps in the design.
l l
l 4
DR. OKRENT:
Is there another figure you have that I
5 would show it?
1 i
6 MR. ROELL:
Well, this is the steel shell, and the
{
7 sumps are located in this portion of the concrete.
I don't f
l 8
have a figure in here that would show it.
I could see if l
9 we have some other general arrangements with us that would 10 I show them.
I 11 D~ <. SHEWMON:
Do you have anything to do with the i
12 condenser?
When does the specification for the condenser l
13 et in?
I
(
1 14 MR. ROELL:
That's prepared by the utility appli-l 15 cant as part of the site submission.
i 16 DR. OKRENT:
With regard to the sump, what's the i
17 interconnection between the pressure vessel cavity and the 4
18 sump region?
In other words, is there some direct connection?
19 If so, at what level, elevation, and so forth?
20 MR. ROELL:
Well, each of the safeguards sumps I
21 i communicates directly with the containment atmosphere break.
22 Then there's a penetration through the steel shell, or through !
23 1; the shield building, dcwn into the annulus area, which leads i
24 l to the decay heat removal system.
Ac.A e n.conm, ine. l 25 ll DR. OKRENT:
I guess I'm not clear.
If there were I
i l
a
2-12 jwb d
I 152 I
water building up in the vessel cavity, what level would it i
end #2 build up to before it was in communication with the sump?
2 MR. ROELL:
I don't know, offhand.
I can see our j
beg #3 l
I people are looking.
We forgot to get you an elevation.
i 4
DR. OKRENT:
Well, they can look.
MR. LARKIN:
We have a slide here, I think, that j
i l
will show this.
This is the sump area in here.
This is the slide.
8 (Slide.)
9 MR. ROELL:
We have another section which I didn't 10 I have in my set.
This is one of the two safeguard sumps right here (indicating).
Unfortunately, this slide still doesn't answer the question of the water level.
\\ 'i I believe it's lower than the bottom of the vessel, ;
14 at which point you have communication over to the part of the contaimaent which contains the sumos.
16 OR. OKRENT:
That communication is via some pene-l,e tration in the vessel cavity shield wall deliberately?
Or for that purpose?
I'm trying to understand how one decides what constitutes an " optimum communication" between the vessel cavity and the sump.
Or isn't that really an important consid -
eration?
1 23 l MR. ROELL:
I'm not sure I know the best way to 24 h Ace-F, A Remnen. Inc. l answer the question.
We designed the cavity based on a number 25 -,
i I
- - -. _., - ~. - _, -.. - -
3-13 jwb 153 i i
of considerations, such as vessel support shielding, pressure loads, and then we reviewed that design for things such as 3l communication to make sure we don't trap water in the sump
,l in there that would not get to the sump.
j i
I would say that that's more a review type of thing,'
i rather than a primary input into the cavity design.
6 DR. OKRENT:
I'm not sure what vou mean by " don't
^
7 trap water"?
MR. ROELL:
We obviously wouldn't want to trap a significant amount of the water while in the LOCA, in this 10 !
cavity, where it could not get to the sump circulation.
So j) that's one of the items that we have to review the design for.
DR. OKRENT:
How much is too much?
Is it just that 13 j
(
you would lose too much of the total volume available, like E*
- U 15 MR. ROELL:
I don't know what the numbers offhand g
are.
Perhaps you can get some better answers -- while I'm talking, they can look up the numbers.
We also have review -- there's a number of areas.
39 re y a
a ch the spraywater being held up.
One 20 1 I
would be in the refueling cavity in the containment, and also down in the vessel area.
g How would would be" critical is mostly a functicn
~
23 lh of pH control.
If you have to do, assuming a maximum water g
Ace.F v Reoorters, Inc. '
25 :
availability analysis, of the pH, and at a minimum of the pH
a 3-14 jwb, 154 1 1
to make sure that you stay within the acceptable ranges.
t 2
DR. OKRENT:
Okay, if it's convenient to provide j
i 3
more information, that's good.
If not, I'll live without it.
I 4
(Slide.)
i 5
MR. ROELL:
Now having already seen that one i
6 section, looking at the various features of the plant, I'll 7
start at the lowest elevations of the plant and work up to the 8
highest elevation.
9 The lowest elevation is the lower annulus area, 10 '
which is -25 with respect to plant grade.
This is, as I say, 11 the reactor building.
This is the concrete wall.
And this 12 is a concrete wall down through the center.
i i
13 This is in the active annulus.
This is the train
( ~
i 14 A equipment safeguards equipment located in this side of the i
15 annulus, and the train B equipment is located over in this 16 (indicating) side.
17 In the annulus, we have such things as the cooling 18 watar pumps and heat exchangers.
We have the safety injection I
19 i pumps.
We have the decay heat removal pumps and heat exchangers.
20 We have the containment spray pumps in here, and the spray heat 21 exchangers, and we also have the motor-driven auxiliary 22 feedwater pumps located in the annulus.
23 Again, these are separated by train A over here 24 (indicating), and train B over here (indicating).
Ace F,_.at Reoorters, Inc. j 25 '
Yes?
I 3
f i
A 3-15 jwb 155 DR. SHEWMON:
One of the things of particular 1
1 interest to me is the way you've laid out this plan so that j
^
2 ne an do maintenance on it to keep exposures as low as i
36 i
reasonably achievable.
As we go through the plant, would you rhow what 5
features -- or comment on some of the features vou have which l
6 j
w uld shield people doing maintenance work, or give them free 7
space to avoid a lot of burnout, or whatever?
l B
MR. ROELL:
I can try to do that.
We had a separate:
9 presentation to do that.
In the lower annulus, for example --
gi DR. SHEWMON:
You've got a separate presentation?
33 MR. ROELL:
On the ALARA features of the plant.
g That's a separate agenda item.
(
l DR. SHEWMON:
It's coming later?
14 I
k DR. SIESS:
Yes.
15 DR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
g MR. ROELL:
Just looking at this figure, the shaded g
areas are knock-out panels, quick-removal panels.
We have g
separation of high-activity items from maintenance items such j9 as valves and mDtors from Waste-storage tanks.
l DR. SHEWMON:
If it's coming later, I can wait.
g i
- Good, g
t (Slide.)
g 24 i MR. ROELL:
Moving up one elevation in the plant, AceJw.at Reoorters, Inc. l; we are now at the zero elevation, or plant grade.
We now see 25 !
i i
f i
3-16 jwb l
156l the auxiliary building as well as the reactor building in this view.
This again is the reactor building, the shield building here.
You can see the steel containment now starting to 3;
i i
4 this elevation.
develoo at l
At the zero elevation in the annulus, we have the i
t majority of the waste gas equipment, as well as the annulus 6,l I
i ventilation equipment.
Inside the containment, you can see 7
i the foundations for the reactor vessel, the in-core instru-l ment tank and the steam generators, and the reactor coolant 9
I 30 i pumps.
In the auxiliary building in'this (indicating) 3j section, we are seeing the main feedwater line existing to t
the turbine building.
g Over in this building we have some of the major g
tanks for the control and the boron recovery systems.
This g
area is the solid rad waste area with the real access to the g
drumming stations.
g Down here in the s ent-fuel building you can see the real access for the spent-fuel shipping casks, and some of g;
I the foundation walls for the spent-fuel pool.
,01 2
DR. OKRENT:
Is there any important difference in seismic design for this kind of containment, as compared to e cy n
a con a men s it easier?
Or 'arder?
Or n
23 -
i f
different?
,4,
e Ats-Fs ai Reporters, Inc.
MR. ROELL:
For a steel containment, it's certc ty g;
4
'l I
t i
3-17 jwb 157 different.
Being not a seismic analyst, I can't answer if it's!
1 i
i easier or harder.
l 1
2 Dr. Setlur could discuss that with you.
I can have 3
I I
a presentation on that, if you'd like it.
The main advantage 4
i of the spherical containment with respect to seismic is that 5
it's a wide and short structure which gives it a relatively 6,
i 7l high natural frequency.
t So it really doesn't see the seismic loads tnat a 8
cylindrical containment sees.
I'll give some numbers, and 9,.
Dr. Setlur can correct me if I'm wrong.
At the.3G design 10,
we have in this standard plant about 10 percent of the stress 33 in the containment shell is taken up by the seismic load.
Or 12 l
at.3G in a typical concrete containment, that would be about' i
13
.(,
l
~
34 percent of the allowable load.
14 l
DR. OKRENT:
Are the loads that are transmitted i
15 l
to equipment in the containment about the same?
Or are they different?
^
18 frequency of the structure, we find thar, at various elevations, 39 you get a little different flow response vector from a concrete containment.
21 Dr. Setlur?
22 l
DR. SETLUR:
The forces that the ecuipment sees is 23 1 I
a function of the foundation conditions and the soil conditions.
g Aan al AmorMrs, lM. !
If we hnve a fairly soft soil, or a medium soil, we find thar p" ;
i
3-18 jwb 158 the forces transmitted are much less as you go up in the j
structure, because of the differences in the natural frequencies.
2i 3l DR. SHEWMON:
This is much less in the sphere than i
I a cylinder?
4 I
DR. SETLUR:
I would say, yes, sir.
5 DR. OKRINT:
One more question.
How thick is the
(
6 1
concrete beneath the reactor vessel?
It's sort of built up 7
~~
8 9l DR. SETLUR:
The concrete below the containment is r
f about 2-1/2.
That is a solid block of concrete.
The mat itself 10 is about 9 feet thick.
Then we have an upper portion.
The 11 plug itself is 60 feet in diameter, and it's about 8 to 10 g
feet in height.
So we have a very solid plug down below.
l g
l And then the concrete moves up and forms a dish,
),
which supports the containment.
And it goes up to elevation 15 25.
The thickness of that concrete element which forms the 16 i
dish is about 2-1/2 to 3 feet thick.
g DR. OKRINT:
Thank you.
18 DR. SHEWMON:
What is the diameter of that dish, j9 ;
then, where this sphere gets put in?
20 DR..SETLUR:
That is 195 feet diameter containment.
g So it's on the same spherical surface as the containment.
g, MR. ROELL:
You mean this distance to this g
distance?
24 Ace.FA _ al Reporters, Inc.
DR. SHEWMON:
Yes.
3 k
hl
3-19 jwb 159 MR. ROELL:
He means the diameter across the concrete dish.
j 2
DR. SETLUR:
That would be about 130 feet in j
3l i
diameter.
I i
DR. SHEWMON:
.Thank you.
5 (Slide.)
MR. ROELL:
At elevation +25 in the plant, inside 7
the reactor building, we can again see the steel containment.
This area, we now see the NSSS located, the two steam generators, 9
and the four reactor coolant pumps, the reactor vessel, and 10 !
the spent-fuel transfer canal.
jj The pressurizers are located here in the 8th floor g
i instrument tank.
We see the steam lines existing off to the j
turbine building.
In this portion of the auxiliary building g
is the health physics area, the chemistry labs, and these are 15 1
ker and change facilities here (indicating).
16 We can still see some of the chemical volume control-g system tanks here (indicating).
And this is liquid rad waste system equipment located in this structure here (indicating).
39 n
e spent-fuel building, we can now see the 20 i
spent-fuel pcal here (indicating).
This is the fuel transfer pool where we load the fuel into the shipping casks in this g
area here (indicating).
g To clarify what was said a little earlier, in the 3
Ace.Feu,al Reoorters. Inc.1 RESAR-41 design in this particular pool, we had a total of y
j i
i,
3-20 jwb i
160 !
1-2/3 cores.
Using the B&W rack, it works out to 2 cores, 1
l 4
because the racks are modular, because you end up with a j
2 i
i 3 ll I
little different spacing between the edge of the rack and i
4[
pool.
I i
(Slide. )
5 This particular drawine is a comocsite of the 6
i
+30 level outside the reactor building, and the +59.9, which 7
is the operating floor level inside the containment.
i Here we can see the shield walls around the 9
I re ctor coolant pumps and steam generators, the ope ting 10 floor, the equipment hatch; this is the containment ventila-j) tion equipment here (indicating).
g i
In this portion of the auxiliary building, we have some of the annulus clean-up equipment, ventilation fans, we g
have the filter and demineralizers located in this portion of the building.
16 Over in the fuel-handling building, here now you I
can see the outline of the fuel-storage racks in the pool.
18 This is some of the crane area here for lifting the cask off j9 20 DR. OKRENT:
Is this containment designed to run in the purge mode at power?
MR. ROELL:
We made some design changes during the l
l l
RESAR-41 submittal to meet the requirements of the branch 24 i
Ace.Fs
' al Reoorters, Inc. !
technical position 6-4, and we have the power purging system l
3-21 jwb 161 which is basically an 8-inch line, which has safeguards isolation equipment to shut that of f in the event of a LOCA.
3l And we are not permitted to run them during cleanup.
l (Slice. )
4 i
i At the highest elevation in the plant, which is l
+75, with respect to plant grade, the highest floor elevation, 6
we're not really seeing anything new in containment; we're just looking down at the operating floor from a higher eleva-l 8
i
~
tion.
9 Outside containment in the auxiliary building, we 10 i have all of our non-safeguard ventilation equipment located up 33 on the +75 floor of the auxiliary building.
i i
And in the fuel-handling building, again we're i
13 l
1 i
I looking down just from a higher elevation at the top of the 14 I
crane bay into the spent-fuel pool, and some of the cask g
handling areas here.
l Now the next slide I'm going to show you is in the control complex, which you'll recall is located up in this portion of the plant.
39 (Slide.)
I This is a view of the +25 elevation in the control complex.
I'm shewing you this to orient you.
Dan Cole has additional slides as part of his presentation on the separa-I tion, which will show you -- the reason I picked this slide g,
Ars-F. ~lat Reporters, Inc. l is this is the +25 at the control room location.
This is the 25 !
r
3-22 jwb 162 control board here (indicating), with the safeguard racks and panels located here (indicating).
2 3l This is some non-safeguard ventilation equipment I
l in this area (indicating) in the diesel generator building, the two diesel generators for the plant.
On the floor below this, the zero elevation, we 6
I I
have the train B equipment, which is the train B cable 7
4 spreading room, train P switchgear and battery rooms on the 8
i floor below this.
9 i
The floor above this is dedicated to train A, 10 1 which is the train A spreading rooms, switchgears, and bat-33 teries.
And in the separation presentation you'll be able to 12 i
see this much more clearly.
13
(
DR. OKRENT:
If you had the design basis earthquake, which as I recall is
.3G, about what accelerations wou1d you get in the control room?
g MR. ROELL:
Dr. Setlur, do you know?
18 conditions.
j9 DR. OKRENT:
Approximately.
I'm just curious.
20 i
DR. SETLUR:
I would say an amplification factor i
of about 1. 3 to 2.
DR. OKRENT:
Between 1.3 and 2?
I DR. SETLUR:
No, about 1.3 to 1.5.
24,
f Ace Es ~..al Reporters. Inc.
DR. OKRENT:
Not much?
25,
i
3-23 jwb I
163 I
1 DR. SETLUR:
That's right.
l 2
DR. OKRENT:
Thank you.
3 (Slide.)
I 4
MR. ROELL:
Lastly, I have an artist's sketch of i
5 the completed plant.
This is the turbine building over 6
here (indicating).
7 What we've done is come around the north side of 8
the drawings.
This is the turbine building.
This is the 9
reactor building structure.
This is the control complex 10 1 located here (indicating).
11 This portion is the auxiliary building.
And over 12 in the far corner you can just see a portion of the fuel-l i
13 handling building.
('
i 14 That completes my runthrough of the general 15 arrangements.
I'll answer anymore questions you may have.
16 DR. CARSON:
Move ahead, Mr. Roell.
17 MR. ROELL:
You asked on the agenda for just a 18 short presentation on the site parameters.
19 DR. SIESS:
Mr. Chairman, the cite parameters of 20 course are the same as for the previous design.
I suggest 21 that if some of the committee maybe weren't familiar with them,,
22 that there be a presentation on that.
I could be overruled.
23 JR. CARBON:
Let's go ahead with it.
Make it as 24 quick as reasonable.
Ace-Ft.at Reporters, Inc.
25 (Slide.)
a 3-24 jwb l
164!
l 1
MR. ROELL:
I have the site design parameters.
We l
4 2
have assumed, to design our standard plant listed on this i
i 3 !
table.
You can see a tornado.
We've designed it for the l
l 4
Region I tornado, which is the nost limiting in the United 5
States.
I 6
For a design-basis wind speed we picked the fastest 7
miles, 130 miles per hour, 30 feet above grade.
8 For temperature, the dry bulb is -30 to +105 range.
9 Limiting wet bulb shows 81* Fahrenheit.
Surface water i
10 i temperature is 95 Fanrenheit, with a 100 degree post-LOCA I
11 limit.
12 DR. MOELLER:
Can you give us, as you go along, l
1 1
( ';
13 with, if any, limitations this would give you?
14 MR. ROELL:
I have some maps with these shaded, if 15 you'd like to see them.
16 For meteorology, you have -- that's a typo.
That 17 should be a 650-meter site boundary.
Normally, we were using 18 about 2 x 10-3 seconds per cubic meter for the accident
-5 19 meteorology.
It's 2 x 10 for the annual average.
20 DR. SHEWMON:
Before you leave that, what conks i
21 out at 160* Fahrenheit, er -31?
I take it the top cooling 22 towers aren't part of your concern?
23 MR. ROELL:
The cooling towers are not.
These 24,
temperatures are assumptions primarily in the ventilation Ace-Fwral Reporters, Inc. !
i 25 j system and chiller packages that we have, you know, to maintain i
l i
3-25 jwb I
165 the environmental conditions.
I If you had a colder temperature, why we would have I
2 to provide a bigger heater -- preheater, air preheater.
The 3
important temperature is this wet bulb.
That's your surface l
4 i
i end # 3 temperature.
5 i
beg #4 6l As we mentioned already, the seismic design value l
was a.3G level of seismic input.
For flood level, we assumed 7
i that flood would be a 00 plant grade for the general design l
8 1
i of the structures.
We can cake in the plant design a flood i
9 up to +10 feet, if you look at structural considerations.
10 I To do this, part of the utility applicant's appli-jj cation would have to provide specific measurements for assuring:
g that certain doors are closed, and penetrations into the k_/
outside of a plant would be closed for any flood higher than
),
thet.
He would have to provide other protection to keep g
the effects of the flood from the plant structures.
g 18 I have some maps which show the effects of some 39 f these parameters on the siteability of the plant.
These 20 l I
shaded areas are significant, in that it's within these areas g
1 that some of these values could be exceeded.
g I
6 To state it the other way, outside these areas we l
23 have no records; these values are not exceeded.
Within the 24 i Ace Fewsi Reoorters Inc. l shaded areas, there may or may not be.
It requires a little 25 I
i i
t
4-26 jwb 166 I I
i more careful site investigation.
But a 135-mile-an-hour l
j i
wind speed, there's only concern there alonc the exposed j
2j 3
coastal regions along the Gulf Coast and along Cape Hateras.
l 4l DR. SHEWMON:
Is there any shading up in Washington S
up there?
Or is that just mountains?
I i
HR. MATHIS:
That's Pugeot Sounc.
6 DR. SHEWMON:
Pcgeot Sound comes right down the l
i 7
middle of the Cascade Mountains, if that's right.
8 (Slide.)
9, I
jo,
MR. ROELL:
For the dry bulb temperature, the 11
-30* temperature is exceeded in the most northern regions of 12 the United States, and the +105 " is a problem in some of the I
desert southwest are s of the United States.
That's not l
13 t'-
ja especially limiting, as I say; not all sites in this area are i
15 excluded by these criteria.
It's just that some of them would 16 be.
It requires careful site investigation.
17 (Slide.)
18 The 81 wet bulb is exceeded at some sites along the 39 j Gulf Coast, and in many sites throughout the State of Florida.
l 20 j That's about the most limiting site parameter.
I DR. CARBON:
May I ask here, are the committee i
21 22 members truly greatly interested in more detail along this line?
23 l!
i 24 (No response. )
Ac.A.e neconm. inc. !
DR. CARSON:
Let's dispense with more of that.
25 l i
l i
l
4-27 jwb I
167' 1
MR. ROELL:
I just have one more, which was the 2
seismic, which looks something like that.
j 3l-(Slide.)
I 4
The.3G.
5; DR. CARBON:
Are there any questions of Mr. Roell?
I 6
(No response.)
7 DR. CARSON:
Thank you.
8 Let's move ahead to the staff report.
Now anything 9
you can do to eliminate less important material we'll welcome.
10 '
11R. SNELL:
On the outstanding issues, they're 11 very brief.
12 The design analysis for the containment pressure, 13 staff just received the report this week.
It was discussed ls 14 in the sWocommittee, and we feel that we will have that i
15 finished and reviewed before we issue the PDA.
We haven't 1-6 cracked it yet, so we don't know exactly what's all in, but 17 we don't expect any earth-shaking news.
13 The second one is the starting voltage of B&W 19 motors.
We received a letter from the applicant which said 20 that they will supply the mo' tors, that the criteria will be 1
21 louer.
That item is now resolved.
22 DR. SIESS:
You received a letter from whom?
i 1
0 23 !,
MR. SNELL:
The applicant.
4 i
24 ;
DR. SIESS:
I thought B&W supplied that.
Ace Fs,,41 Reporters, Inc.,
25 l MR. SNELL:
Fluor got the letter from B&W, and they i
4-28 jwb 168 l
re-sent it.
I' I
i i
DR. CARBON:
So two is resolved, and one is what?
MR. SNELL:
One is still open.
DR. SIESS:
It will be resolved before you issue --
4{i i
MR. SNELL:
It will be resolved before the PDA, yes.
s DR. CARBON:
Very good.
7 Do you want to continue with the next agenda item?
8
- i MR. SNELL:
The chilosochv the staff has for decidinc 9
the items that we addressed in the CP and FDA for operating i
licenses is fairly simple,
))
The CP items are generally interface requirements g
I that are delineated here; that the utility applicant is 13 t
referencing BOPSSAR to supply additional information.
g Table 1.3 is a further enumeration of items which 15 we wish a utility applicant to provide some specific interface 3
information on.
The items which the staff feels can only be inf rmati n t be obtained because of the specific information 18 on the design, or particular equipment, those which we would 39 all w t be resolved or be suppliedat the operating license 20 review.
In both of these cases where we want the applicant to supply information for either the CP or the operating g
I license, the information which Fluor has supplied as preliminary 24 AceJeoeral Reporters. Inc. '
25,
we have reviewed and accepted that basic concept.
i i
l l
4-29 jwh 169 i
1 We are in fact checking to see that the utility l
l l
2 l applicant supplies the connecting information to the standards l
i 3 i that Fluor has described.
4 Tables 1.3 and 1.4, I'll entertain any questiens I
I the Committee has.
They are fairly self-explanatory.
l 5
f 6
References are given to the particular section.
I DR. MOELLER:
In Table 1.4, you mentioned item 6, 7
the radioactive waste gas decay tank rupture at accident.
My i
8 question didn' t really relate to the accident so much as the 9
10 '
fact that in the LER report, you notice on operating tanks, 11 that inadvertent valves are opened in these tanks, or are 12 depressurized.
13 Is there anything being done in this design to j
ja prevent human error, or to maybe retard the impact of human 15 error on releasing the contents of these tanks?
16 Maybe that's for the applicant.
17 MR. SNELL:
I think the applicant should answer la that.
19 DR. MOELLER:
But you haven't checked it in any 20 1 specific way?
I 21 ;
MR. SNELL:
In this application, we didn't re-review' l
22 l a lot of these areas, because they were not changed.
I didn't n
23 h do the initial review, so I really can' t answer that.
l' 24 DR. MOELLER:
Well, let me ask the applicant.
As Ace-Feceral Reporters, Inc. l' 25,
I say, I notice in the LERs that all too frequently in operating i
4-30 jwb 170 i
l i
plants someone inadvertently opens a valve, or for some I
i reason the gas decay tanks are being discharged.
I wonder if you had looked at it at this stage, or 3-you're going to wait until the final design stage?
4 i
i MR. LARKIN:
We think that we have addressed that.
6l If you can wait maybe till the break, we can dig up the I
specifics for you.
We think that we can show you.
l l
DR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
I'd ljke to hear that.
8 I
DR. CARSON:
Other questions by the Committee?
9; ar n, do you have any response to anything 10 !
I that the staff has said so far on outstanding items, or this 33 philosophy?
i MR. LARKIN:
No, we have no comment.
g DR. CARBON:
Thank you.
Go ahead, IIr. Snell.
MR. SNELL:
The next item, we don't have the staff g
people here yet.
They were going to come -- the people are g
g ing to come and be able to give a presentation on the 18 interdependent instrumentation controls.
We can put it off 39,
l till a bit later.
Thev're coing to be here around 10:00 20 1 o' clock, because we jumped ahead fairly fast.
DR. SIESS:
I might mention for the Committee, that I
23.i was an item addressed in our letter on BOPSSAR/RESAR.
It was n
addressed to the staff, and it was suggested that they try to 24,
1 Ace Foceral Reporters, Inc. !
f rmalize the method used to review the coordination of 25 I
4-31 jwb 171 l
1 independent instrumentation and control on the NSSS and BOP 2
and incorporate it in the standard review plan.
j i
3l I -- and I don't think any of us, at least in the i
l a
subcommittee meeting, really knew what we meant by that t
5 paragraph.
The staff did say that they had improved their 6
methods of review by putting something in the standard format. l l
7j So if there's anybody here that knows what that 8
means, I'd appreciate it.
DR. CARBON:
Perhaps at this point, if there are 9
10 ;
no questions, and if the staff people aren't here, let's take 11 a 10-minute break and then we'll come back, and either move 12 ahead with that, or begin the technical presentations.
(,
j3 (Brief recess.)
14 DR. CARBON:
Let's move ahead with the applicant's 15 technical presentation.
16 Mr. Roell?
17 MR. ROELL:
Okay.
Would you like at this time to hear a presentation on the c6ntainment sliding and the coeffi-18 cient of friction test program?
j9 i
I DR. CARBON:
Was that scheduled at a particular 20 i i
time?
21 MR. ROELL:
It appears in Item 3 on your agenda.
l 22 l 23 l, Would you like to do that before we move into the remainder?
l' I
24 :
DR. CARBON:
I'm sorry?
Where did you say it was i
Ace-Feceral Reporters, Inc. ;
scheduled?
25 j
a 4-32 jwb 172 l
l l
1 MR. ROELL:
It's scheduled under Item 3 of the i
2l agenda.
I was wondering if you'd like to hear that now.
l 3f DR. CARBON:
Yes.
l 4
MR. ROELL:
Okay, Dr. Stelur will present the i
5 coefficient of friction program results.
i 6
DR. SETLUR:
My name is A. V.
Setlur.
i i
I 7
(Laughter.)
j i
8 DR. SETLUR:
The reason why I said that, in the I
i 9
last transcript I said "A.V.
Setlur," and I was -- it came 10 l out as A-v-i Setlur.
11 Today I would like to give you a brief description 12 of the analysis for safety against sliding of the containment.
i k
13 During a seismic event, enertia forces are set up i
i 14 within the containment structure, the internals in the entire !
15 reactor building.
i 16 These forces are distributed along the height, 17 depending upon the soil conditions and the mass distrihution 18 within the structure.
19 The forces can be looked upon as having a horizontal 20 !
component, or a horizontal resultant, and a vertical resultant..
i 21 (Slide.)
22 The horizontal component of the forces is represented 23 in this diagram as FH and the vertical component is F and B,
24 the gravity load of the structure is represented as W.
Ace-Feceral Reporters, Inc. l 25 l The force distribution is such that in general the i
l i
4-33 jwb 173 1
1 force F is excentric to the center of the sphere.
If we H
2 take the resultant of all these forces, we can look upon it i
i 3;
as a single resultant force acting at some point within the l
i 4l containment supporting system.
5 The forces of resistance, might be normal component 6,
of the reaction which passes through the center of the sphere l
7' and a tangential component of resistance, s
This tangential component of resistance is due to 9
several things, one of which is the coefficient of friction 10 '
between the steel and the concrete interface.
11 I mentioned several forces come into play.
One is i
12 the bond stress that may be created between the steel and the I
13 concrete interface, the interlocking forces that may be j
u i
14 coming through the welding beads and the concrete forming an i
15 interlocking pattern and the coefficient of friction.
16 In our analysis, we have taken the entire force as 17 being resisted by the coefficient of friction.
If we now talk 18 about the factor of safety against sliding, then the factor of 19 safety is defined as the resisting force divided by the 20 applied forces.
The resisting force is mu x the normal force, 21 and the applied forces are the tangential component of F R" 22 If we remove the normal component out of the picture; 23 h then the factor of safety against sliding can be written in i
24 h terms of the available coefficient of friction between the Ace Feceral Reporters, Inc.
25 '
concrete and the steel.
And the coefficient of friction l
I 1
i
e 4-34 jwb 174 I
l i
required to prevent sliding, which is mu sub bar.
j 2
During our review of the BOPSSAR or RESAR-41, and l
l 3
subsequent NRC meetings, we committed to perform the tests i
between the steel and concrete interface to obtain the l
4 l
coefficient of friction.
5 i
i 6,
Similar questions were asked of the other two i
applicants, Duke and TVA.
And as Mr. Larkin pointed out, we l
7 8
to a joint testing program to determine this coefficient l
went l
of friction.
9 1
10 ;
(Slide.)
11 The major objectives 'of the test program were to i
12 confirm the NRC accepted value of.525 for the coefficient of
(,
13 friction between.the wetted interface of concrete and steel, I
ja as being conservative.
And since values were being obtained j
13 to justify the use of a coefficient of friction higher than I
16
.525, if such values existed.
17 These were.the major objectives.
During our discus-l 18 sions with the three parties and the staff, we arrived at a 19,
scope of the testing.
20 (Slide.)
t l
21 The scope consisted of testing 15 specimens.
The 22 specimens were such that we would test under wet conditions, 23 !, dry conditions, and between grout and steel under wet condi-i I
24 tions.
I Ace-Fecerne Reconers, Inc. l 25 j Also, the variable of normal compresive stress would
4-35 jwb 175 i
i 1
1 be brought into t..e picture by testing the wet condition, and three different levels of normal compressive stresses.
l 2
3 Each of the series, there were three specimens used 4
in order to account for any variability in testing or in the l
I l
5 concrete.
So the test consisted of 15 different specimens i
6i to be tested under various conditions.
I'll take a few minutes now to show you the test 7
end #4 program by means of slides.
g 9
10 '
11 f
12
(
13 s
1 14 l
15 16 17 18 19 20 1
21 t
22 23 24 '
AceJecersi Aeoorters, Inc.
25,
I l
f
4 CR 2589 176 HOFFMAN t-5 mte 1 1 (S lide. )
f 2
The object of the test program was to simulate as 3
closely as possible the field conditions.
The steel surface l
I 4-was. cleaned and prepared according to the SSPC recuirements.
l l'
5 You will notice that Shere are some loose -- some scales so 6
attached to the steel specimen.
This is an SA-516 Grade 70 l
I 7
steel one inch thick.
8 (Slide.)
l 9
A franework was put over the steel to pour the i
l 10 '
concrete on top of the steel plate.
11 (Slide.)
12 After 22 days of curing, the steel plate and the j
i 13 concrete specimen were brought into the test lab and were i
^
(J l
14 rigged to produce XY plots of the lower as well as the slip l
1 15 values.
I I
16 (Slide. )
17 This is the test set up for the push-off test.
i 18 Vertical loads were applied by means of hydraulic rams and 19 1 horizontal load was ac_ o. lied at the steel-concrete interf ace 20 !
by means of horizontal rams.
XY plots were taken on a continu-l c
21 ous basis and recorded.
22 (Slide.)
I I
l 23 l This is the steel specimen af ter the test was made.
24 You will notice some small portions of concrete sticking onto Ace Fs, at Rerters, Inc.
I 25 j the steel surf ace.
The bond between the steel and the concrete
I mte 2 177 l 1
was first broken and then the procer interface condition was i
l 2
bro ught into play.
For the wet condition, a dike was created l
l 3l around the specimen, around the interface, and water was kept l
4 standing at the interface condition, so that we would assure a i
S wet condition between the steel and concrete.
6 DR. SHEMMON:
Let me stop on that for a minute.
I 7
have been curious as you have gone through the presentation j
8 whether you're talkinc about static or dynamic friction, and 9
when you get into this, you say to establish the proper surface I
10 I you break it loose and wet it.
II DR.
SETLUR: That's correct.
l I2 DR. SHEMMON:
But then do you end up working with I
l
(
13 static or dynamic?
i i
14 DR. SETLUR:
We were working with the static coeffi-l 15 cient of friction.
16 DR. SHEMMON:
Good.
17 DR. SETLUR:
The speciren was brought back into its 18 original position and then the push-off test was again conducted l9 to obtain the coefficient of friction.
20 DR. SHEWMON:
Staff likes to be conservative.
I just i
l 21 l wondered whether you had done that.
f i
I 22 DR.
EETLUR: We have been fairly conservative in 23 this testing procedure, first because we have not provided any l
24 '
values as such, so that this will provide an additional coeffi-A a e m u s n.co m n. w.
25 '
cient of friction.
The steel surface is a flat surface, whereas i
m
O ete 3 178 l
1 in our actual conditions we have a spherical shape, and this 1
2 would be of some help.
l l
3I The bond was totally broken, deliberately broken, l
i I
4 and the conditions, the wet conditions, were applied.
So all l
l 5
of these tended to be on the conservative side.
i
'I l
4 6 !
(Slide.)
l l
1 7
This is the surf ace of the concrete af ter the testing ;
8 The concrete was f airly scooth-surf ace and with little or no 9
air pockets.
This is in contrast to the grout specinen which 10 !
we will see in the next couple of slides.
11 (Slide. )
12 For the grout specimen, again, we tried to simulate i
!l
(,
13 as close as possible the field conditions.
In the field, the l
14 steel plate, which would be the containnent, would be the upper !
15 part, and the grout would be inserted below the steel plates.
16 To simulate that condition, the casting was made such that the 17 steel plate was at the top and the grout was poured through 18 1, the uno. er end here or until it came out of the tube at the l
19 1 higher end of the specimen.
20 The tilt was provided to sinulate, again, the spheri '
21 l cal surf ace which is seen in Ene prototype.
Holes were pro-22 ;
vided to bleed off the air, and a head of five feet or so was l
23 naintained for the grout specimen.
24 af ter the grout had been cast, seven days af terward, Ace Federal Recorrers, Inc.
25 l the pipes were cut of f and the specimen was cured in the normal i,
l mte 4 179 I
fashion.
After 28 days the specimen was out unside-down and i
2 then tested in the same procedure as was the testing for the l
3' con crete and steel interf ace was done.
1 4
(S lide. )
i r
The surface of the grout specimen was cuite differ nt f 5
i 6'
f rom that of the s teel specimen.
Air pockets are clearly seen l i
7 in this photograph.
And there were some genercil depressions l
B in these areas.
9 Even in spite of this type o f s ur f ace, the coefficient 10 l of friction between the steel and the grout surf ace was very II encouraging, and it was higher than the.525 value.
I2 '
DR. LAWPOSKI:
How much?
13 DR. SHEW"ON:
He 's holding that for later, I think.
I4 (Slide.)
l i
15 DR. SETLUR:
The progress report on the test program l 16 is as follows:
All tests have been completed and since the I
17 l Subcommittee meeting the final report has been prepared by I
18 l PCA.
Cocies of this recort have been sent to the staff for I
19 1 their review.
The results of the test confirmed that the 20 coefficient of friction between steel and concrete or grout i
21 l under both dry and wet conditions is greater daan
.525.
1 22 f Values of between.57 and.68 vere obtained by the 23 '1 1
test program.
t 24 '
(Slide.)
Ace Faceral Reporters, Inc.,
5 1
In conclusion, the containment and the internal l
i 6
.. - =..
d ite 5 180 structures have adecuate margins of safety against sliding with a coefficient of friction of.525.
Tests have shown that :
2 j
this value is conservative and higher values can be obtained.
3 I
i 4l The values higher than.525, if required, will be justified at j i
a a er a e, a er NR
's review.
l 5
2 Thank you.
6 i
DR. PLESSET (Presiding) :
Any cuestions?
l MR. ETHERINGTON :
What would be the coefficient of 8
I I
the concrete if you just poured the concrete on the steel?
9 10 i The concrete block, putting it on the steel plate?
Not poured 11 in, but made separately.
DR. SETLUR:
These are now handbook values that I canj 12
()
13 cuote.
I 14 MR. ETHERINGION:
Well, that's what I meant.
i DR. SETLUR:
These would run anywhere betveen.4 and 15
.6.
16 MR. ETHERINGTON:
One more cuestion.
On your cross-37 section of the sphere, you took a syrmetrical cross-section.
18 19 Would the loading have been different in other directions 20 i significantly?
I DR. SETLUR:
No, sir.
The value of F that was shown 21 there was the maximum value in either of the two directions.
22 MR. ETHERINGTON :
And in between?
You say eidaer of 23 24 two.
Supposing you took a direction that was not on an axis Ac.J.emi neconm, inc. l 25 l of symmetry in either direction.
mte 6 181 1
DR. SETLUR:
That is correct, sir.
MR. ETHERIUGTON :
I see.
It still is the naximum, 2 l!
4 3
richt.
DR. SHEWMON:
You showed many slides.
I would have l
4l r
i Si been interested in one slide of results.
Do vou have a slide I
I 6P or do you have a copy of the table of results that we might l
7 look at?
f 8j (S lide. )
9 DR. SETLUR:
This slide was prepared prior to the I
10 '
PCA submittal of the final report.
That 's why we have written 11 here " Interpreted by Applicants from raw data".
It shows here 12 that under wet conditions you get values of
.64,
.66,
.69, and I
(
13
.69 under dry and.68 under wet conditions.
However, there I
i 14 l is also another slide here. --
l l
l 15 (Slide.)
16
-- wherein, depending on the interpretation of the i
17 !
curves, we could obtain values that are as low as
.57.
That 18 is the reason why I said the values range from.57 to.68 or 19 1
.69.
20 !
DR. SHEWMON:
Thank you.
i 21 DR. PLESSET:
Anv other c_uestions?
22 l (No respons e. )
I l
23 l DR. PLESSET:
I believe not.
Thank you.
24 DR. SETLUR:
Thank you very nuch.
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc. '
25 l DR. PLESSET:
I think we're ready for the next i
l i
4 mte 7 182 1
pres entation.
2 MR. SNELL:
We have some fellows here for the instru,
3i menta tion and control section.
Mr. Lee of the staff was the l
l l
! reviewer for the BOPSSAR and he will give a brief presentation l 4
1 l
5 addressing that particular agenda item.
l 6
fir. LEE:
My name is IIoner Lee.
I reviewed the 7
BOPSSAR for the instrumentation and control section.
The i
I 8
method we used, when the BSAR was reviewed, we persuaded
)
9 the Applicant of the B&W to identify all of the interf ace l
10 i requirements which relate to the BOP input ins truments.
And 11 at the time we reviewed the BOPSSAR we checked against those 12 int'erf ace requirements.
I t
13 For example, the BSAR 205 reactor protection system l
t i
14 required a pump trip status as an input to the reactor protec-l 15 tion system.
So the BSAR 205 SAR was defined clearly, how many l 16 inputs per pound shall be provided, what response tine shall 17 be met, and this detail will be scecified on the BSAR 205 18 SAR.
19 Then when we reviewed the BOPSSAR, we nade sure the 20 1 BOP design well matched all these requirements.
This is the l
21 general approach we take to review the interdependent instru-22 mentation control.
23 DR. PLESSET:
Any comments on this point?
I 24 1 Yes, Dr. Mark?
Ace.Feoerei Reoorters, Inc. {
25 '
DR. MARK:
There had been a question within the i
I b
mte -
183 1
staff and the Applicant on this matter of the coefficient of j
2 f ric tio n.
We've heard presentation on it.
Is the staf f now I l
3 either satisfied or resigned to believing that it's all right 4
in this respect?
l l
i i
5 MR. SNELL:
The staff just recently received the 6
report on the testing and it is still an open iten.
We have t
7 yet to review that report.
He just got it this week.
We 8
expect to have that finished by the end of the month, in time i
9 to issue a BEA.
10 '
DR. MARK:
The kind of measurenents that have been 11 made, the observations made that you just heard about are of i
12 the kind which you think, if you agree with the findings, l
't _
13 might resolve the question?
14 MR. SNELL:
Yes, sir.
i 15 DR. PLESSET:
Any other questions?
16 (No response.)
17 DR. PLESSET:
Shall we go back to the Applicant or 18 do you want to continue for the staff?
19 j MR. SNELL:
No, that finishes the staff's presenta-l 20 {
tion.
I guess we're ready for item four of technical presenta-1 21 tions.
22 DR. PLESSET:
From the Applicant?
23 MR. SNELL:
Yes, sir.
24 !
DR. PLESSET:
Fine.
I Ace-Feceral Feeoorters, Inc. l i
25 j MR. ROELL:
Okay.
Under Item 4. -- would vou jus t
mte 9 184 1
like to take these in the order listed or do you have a parti-2 cular preference?
3 DR. CARBON (Presiding):
We might just as well.
I 4
MR. ROELL:
Okay.
Mr. Derdiger has a presentation l
5 prepared on the operating experience and, as you notice, speci-i l
6 fically on steam generator replacement.
l 7
Good morning.
MynameisJanDerdiger]
8 I am going to discuss the manner in which we at Fluor Power i
9 Se rvices feed operating experience into our designs.
I' d firs t i i
10 ' like to give you a quick overview of our program as it affectedl 11 the BOPSSAR design.
l 12 As part of our normal operating procedure, we have a 1
( s' 13 number of routine methods by which we acquire and disseminate i
14 operating information and cass this along to our design teams.
l 15 As a result, some specific BOPSSAR design provisions have 16 resulted.
17 Finally, Fluor has had experience in dealing with 18 two of the ros t current operating concerns :
the need for 19 1 additional spent fuel storage capacity and the possibility of l
20 1 steam generator replacements, neither of which will hinder the l
21 use of BOPSSAR.
l 1
22 How do we go about acquiring and disser.inating l
i l
i 23 operating feedback?
We have a group called the Nucle wr Task 24 :
Force.
This group forms the core of all of our nuclear-Ace.Feoeral Flooorters, Inc. l 6
25 :
related activities.
One of the tas force's primary charges is i
I l
mte 10 185!
l 1
to maintain our state of knowledge at a high level.
To fulfill i l
this responsibility, members of the task force regularly review l 2
?
I 3:
information available in the public domain and circulate the I
i 4
information to the appropriate persons.
In addition, we have l
l 5
had and do have members on various industry technical conmit-l 6
tees.
l 7
Another part of our feedback procram for BOPSSAR was i i
I 8
the utility review progran ?!r. Larkin discussed earlier.
l i
9 Additionally, we have had direct involvement in solving problem =
10 8 through our backfit projects, and because of our policy of 11 closely following the progress of our plants once they go i
12 into commercial operation.
I k '/
13 We believe that we are justifiably proud of the j
l 14 performance of Prairie Island and Kewaunee.
i i
1 15 (Slide. )
16 As you can see, they are among the top performing 17 units in the United States, with Prairie Island two and I
18 Kewaunee ranking second and third in the country.
These 19 rankings are based on cumulative data since the plants in the 20 list went into operation.
t 21 I would point out that Prairie Island 1 preceded 22 Prairie Island 2 and Kewaunee into operation by one year and 23 six months, respectively, and ranks twenty-second in the 24 country, in spite of the fact that during the first year of Ace Feceral Reporters. Inc.
25 operation nine months were lost due to turbine blade failure, l
I mte 11 186-189 I
i 1
a problem for which we, of course, take no credit.
~
2 (Laugh ter. )
j l
i 3'
I sl I
i l
5 I
6 61 I
7 8
f f
9 i
10 '
I i
11 12 I
13 l
s_
14 l
i 15 16 1
i 17 8
l 19 l 20 I
21 l
22 i
21 i Ace Fwal Reoorters, Inc. f 25 '
589.06.1 190 pv 1
(Slide.)
2 As I rentioned before, we have also been involved 3
in various backfit prolects.
Some of the areas involved have 4
included plant security systems upgrading, condensate colisning 5
s ys tem a ddit ion, fire hazards analysis, systems interaction 6
stucy, BWR reactor protection sys tem upgrading, unloading 7
heat-exhanger replacements, charging line vibration 8
a tt enua t ion, and spent f uel pool storage expansion.
9 DR. SHEWMON:
What is the unloading heating?
10
- 43. DERDIGER:
I am sorry?
.11 DR. 5HEWMON:
.orget it.
12 DR. MARKS I wanted to mention the systems 13 interaction study.
Are you aole to tell us some of vour 14 findings there?
k 15 MR. DERDIGER:
Tom -- I think Tom Roe 11 can talk 16 about it.
17 MR. ROELL:
The particular systems Interactions 18 study that we've listed there is the Zion study we performed at 19 the request of the Zion subcommittee.
de reported that to tne 2D s ubc o mm i tt ee in October <
I could run through some of that, if 21 you want.
There were specific plant design -- it was a study 22 based on using the LERs to determine what system interaction 23 events have occurred in the operation, and going back and 24 redoing Zion to determine susceptibility to the test.
25 DR. MARK:
Indeed, I rememoer that.
But it is the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INO. (202)347-3700
191
- 5S9.06.2 pv 1
Zion study that is re ferred to there?
2 MR. DERDIGER:
That is co.rrect.
3 DR. OKAE.JT:
Via tnis review arrangement that you 4
have, were any changes made in :ne Fluor a:proach either to tne 5
reliability of AC power suoplies, BC sucolies, or auxiliary 6
f eedwater systems as a result either of operational exoeriences 7
or reliaoility analyses of various systems during the past four 3
or five years?
7 MR. DERDIGER:
Tom.
10 MR. RCELL:
You mentioned. I think, three specific 11 a re a s.
If you say "over the last four or five last years,"
12 yes, there are substantial dif ferences in those areas tnet vou 13 mentioned.
If you would conpare the design of the AC and DC gs power systems on the standard plant with, for example, those we 14 s
15 provided to Kewaunee, there are significant differences.
Some of tho e are that we have gone to a f our-battery system in the s
16 17 DC po er suoply.
A number of these differences, sucn as w
IS upgraded diesel generator qualifications, are in general done 19 throughout the industry, and there are regulatory guides which 20 cover these.
21 In the auxiliary f eeddater system we now provide 22 diversity as well as redundancy, which is a change that's come 23 about for a nuncer of reasons.
de have the two motor-driven 24 pumps and the steam-driven pump.
The steem-driven pump does 25 not rely at all on AC power for its coeration.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
339.06.3 192 pv i
DR. OKRE:iT:
It does rely on DCI right?
2 MR. ROELL:
It does rely on DC.
3 DR. OKRENT:
Have you nade any chances that are 4
intended to cope with the possibility that you might have an 5
axtended loss of AC power, other than the one you mentioned?
6 For examole, on the auxiliary 35AR system there have oeen 7
studies reported oy Electriclte de France wnich sugge sts that 3
one night have a loss of some water in the primary system if 9
the primary pump seals and so forth, and there might be a need 10 f or a makeuo of water in the primary system.
Have you l ooked
.I l et tha t ouestion at all?
12 MR. ROELL:
de did look at that particular question 13 and we went back to tne reactor vendor for their analysis of 14 the possiole loss of water past the seals.
The vendor analysis 15 showed that they didn't feel that there would be any 16 significant water loss over a seriod of several days.
17 DR. OKRENT:
So there is some difference in 13 technical opinion?
19 MR. ROELLs Yes, sir.
20 DR. OKRENT:
How do you then introduce Fluor 21 judgment into this?
Do you just take what the vendor says in 22 this case?
23 VR. ROELL:
In the case of the reactor acclant Dump 24 seal, we did not attempt to duplicate that.
We don't have 25 access really to all the design information we would need to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
193 589.06.4 pv 1
try and do that.
2 DR. SHEWVON:
Did you say you went to the vendors.
3 or you went to the operating utilities?
4 MR. ROELL:
Specifically to Westinghouse when a 5
cuestion came up on their reactor coolant ouro seals.
6 DR. SHEWMON:
It would have been a little more 7
conforting if you'd have got that from your utilities when you 3
talked to them.
9 DR. OKRENT:
What's interesting is tnat it's a 10 Westinghouse reactor we're talking about in France.
.11 MR. ROELL:
Yes, sir.
12 DR. OKRENT2 dell, I won't try to resolve the 13 question now.
14 MR. DERDIGER:
I think we're ready to talk f or a s-15 couple of minutes aoout our involvement with current operating 16 concerns.
Briefly, with respect to spent-fuel storage 17 capacity, we have performed the necessary analyses tc expand 13 the spent-f uel pool storage capacity at two nuclear plants.
19 We've provided expert witnesses in suoport for public hearings 20 to our clients.
With respect to BOPSSAR, we can say that our 21 scent-f uel pool design will accommodate high-denslty racks, and 22 that's really about all that I would have to say about spent 23 f uel with regard to BOPSSAR.
24 The otner major area of concern is steam generator 25 replacement.
As you may know, our sister company. Daniel, is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
- 589.06.5 194 ov 1
handling the Surry steam ge nerator replacement.
We maintain a 2
close liaison with Daniel, and we ma<e sure that we are fully 3
inf ormed as to their progre ss and any croblems which may 4
develop.
5 Currently, Surry is down to begin the refueling 6
process and the stean generator replacement process.
There 7
really haven't begun any detailed work on the steam generator S
replacement at this time.
~
9 In addition, we nave examined 30PSSAR to determine 10 the practicalities involved in steam generator replacement for
.11 both of our vendors' designs, and we don't really see that 12 there would be any tremendous difficulties.
It is something we 13 can do for both of our designs.
We talked to B&W specifically 14 to be sure that the steam generator could be lifted and tilted s.
15 inside of containment, since it is a long steam generator.
16 And that is all I have, if there are no questions.
17 DR. CARBON:
Questions?
IS (No response.)
19 DR. CARBON:
Fine.
Thank you.
23 MR. ROELL:
The next agenda item, under Ite,4 is 21 the physical sece' ation arrangements.
Dan Cole has a 22 presentation en that.
23 MR. COLE:
Good morning, gentlemen.
My name is 24 Dan Cole, anc what I would like to talk to you about is the 25 electrical separation, carticularly with resoect to caole trays ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
.539.06.6 195 pv i
employed in the SOP 5S AR/SS AA design which ecuals or exceeds 2
IEEE-334 and Regulatory Guide 1.75, wnich ere the design 3
criteria for such concepts.
4 To snow you how we've implemented thi s, we'll start 5
with a tour of the plant again.
6 (Slide.)
7 This time we will look at particular electrical S
aspects, and we will see indications of major c aole tray 9
rottings, whicn in your handouts have oeen designated with " A" 10 or "B" for the two major safeguard trrbs and on the screen 11 they have oeen highlighted with red for trahl A and clue for 12 Train 3, an indication of caole tray risers to ucper and 13 lower elevations.
14 We'll start in the control building, which is our
( ~
15 foc al point for all of the controls mentioned and saf eguards, 16 and we will see as we proceed that we are focusing our cable 17 runs to two ma for are as, the minus-25 foot elevation of the IS reactor building which houses our F_CCS eouionent and also to 19 within containment.
20 (Slide.)
21 5 tarting in tne control cuilding at grade elevation.
22 which is 30, we have an L-shaped room; that is the endn S 23 Switchgear and motor control center room.
We see trahlP cable 24 trays within this room.
And entering into an area celow the 25 control room, known as the " trati B cable-screading area," and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, (202)347-3700
- 589.06.7 196 pv i
we have two Class i battery r oom, Battery Rcoms 5 and D.
2 de have a ma lor trav system leaving the control 3
building at elevation zero, and we will follow. in just a 4
moment on the next slide, into the auxiliary building.
This 5
tray section here is going to come over alongside and enter tne 5
diesel generator building in the diesel generator 5 room at tne 7
zero elevation and vill also come across to the minus-25 foot 3
elevation of the reactor building.
9 de see two caole trey risers coming ofI tne zero 10 e l e va t io n.
One ris er we will follow at the 25-f oot e levation 11 to the containment penetrations in the northeast corner of tne 12 containment, which is the trabi B penetra tion area.
And the 13 second riser rises to.the 75-f oot elevation of this ouilding, 14 the control building, for the B tadn, e ss e nt ia lly HVAC for tne t
15 control building.
16 (Slide.)
17 Staying at the grade elevation and moving south into 13 the auxiliary building, we will start at our match point where 19 we cane out of the control ouilding, which is right here wita 20 the B Tray section at zero, and we come acro ss, and we do enter 21 into the 3 Tray diesel generator room wnich hes a 3-nour fire 22 carrier, firewall/missilewall between the A trabY diesel 23 ge ne ra to r a nd th e B tada diesel generator.
Jo we come into tne 24 diesel generator room at elevation zero.
25 de come into the reactor ouil ding, active annulus at ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
?559.06.5 197 pv i
grade elevation, and we will follow tnis in the next slide.
We 2
drop down to the B trahi half of the lower annulus f or the ECCS 3
components.
4 We'll move over here just for a second to the west 5
side of,tne reactor building.
We see a cable tray riser 6
systen.
Th is i s A d2Lin-This is coming from the 25-f oot 7
elevation.
This services trays that de see in a moment.
On 3
- he minus-25 side of the ECCS tray eculpnent, the riser 9
penetrates, comes uo to zero, cenetrates the shield ou11 ding 3
wall, and will rise all the way up to 50.
We'll f ollow that in 11 the next series of slides.
We'll ultimately head back to the 12 control room to the control ouilding at elevation 50 or two 13 floors above the ma Jor 3 trahi ecuivalent.
14 Inside containment we have a tray ring that comes 15 out from the containment at tne plus-25 f oot elevation f or tne 16 3 trahi electrical penetration, as we will see in a moment.
A 17 similar tray ring takes a rise on a radius of the stair to tne 18 A t=da penetration, which is on the west side.
19 de see now in the fuel-handling ouilcing we have two 20 tray risers coming from tne 25-foot le vel for the HVAC 21 ec ulpme n t a nd the scent-f uel pool eccling o umps. The A train trays take 22 a rise all the way up to the 50-foot e l e va t io n. and the 3 tada unvs 23 which have a firewall between A and 3 will come to the 25-foot 24 elevation.
and we will pic k it up back in the control 25 building.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
'589.06.Y 198 ov 1
Staying within the cortion of the clant we were just 2
previously looking at but dropping down in the elevation --
3 (Slide.)
~
4
-- To minus-25, we cick uo these two risers that we 5
saw, 3 traus and A :t=ain, witn a tray ring in the lower annulus 6
f or
- he two sides.
As Mr. Roell previously cointed out, there 7
is a f ull wall with no penetrations fron the B-trata to tne 3
A-io..n sec t ion.
9 Me'11 move now to tne second major auxiliary 10 ouilding and control ou11 ding floor, whicn is elevation 25, and 11 we'll start with the control cuilding at elevation 25.
12 (Slide.)
13 This is the center and major floor of the control la building.
It contains the control ouilding and the main k-15 control panels and the safeguard racks and panels and 16 nonsafeguard HVAC equipment.
And here are the two risers that 17 we had picked up fron the z ero el e vat ion f or trahi S.
They are 13 coming out.
One is going to come up to the 75-foot and come 19 cack in this building, and the second mejor run is the run tnat 20 we will follow out to the f uel-nandling building and to the 21 saf eguard pene tration, endn 3 on the containment.
22 (Slide.)
23 Staying at elevation 25 and moving into the 24 auxiliary building, we will oick uo our two match coints.
We 25 came out in the control building, and here is our ris er, coming ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
1.99 539.06.10 pv i
up just on the aux ouildino side of the control cuiloing wall 2
at elevation 75.
We have this aa Ior tray continuation with the 3
3 trahie lectric al cenetrations and the centeinment ve ss e l. with 4
our riser up inside containment, two trays at 50-foot elevation 5
and containment for the 3 tadn section which we'll see in a 6
moment, and this is the trav riser downward on the sphere 7
radius that we had seen at elevation zero for the 3 trabi g ra de 3
celow here.
9 I n the A trahl area on the left, t h is is tne 10 electrical penetration area for the A trahi and the containment.
We ha e a similar riser to elevation 50. and a spnere radius 11 v
12 drop down to elevation zero on the left side of the reactor.
13 tle now have two riser systems coing up on this west la side of the reactor building wall in the auxiliary building 15 outside the shield wall.
This is a. riser we had continued all 15 the way from elevation zero tnat originally was down at 25-f oot 17 E CCS equipment.
la And we have now a second riser coming frc~ these 19 electrical penetrations, and we will follow that uo in just a 20 few moments to elevation 50.
21 Here is a 3 'trata run for the fuel-nandling celow 22 that' drops underneath the spent-fuel pool.
23 (Slide.)
24 Now, moving up to the third major floor of the 25 control cuilding. which is elevation 50 we are now icove the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
- Se9.06. ii 2 00 av i
control room. and we have a trahi A caole screading area above 2
the control room and the engineering saf ety features. racks and 3
panels.
4 de nave an L-snaped switchgear roo' very similar to 5
the switchgear at elevation zero; however, this is the trzdn A 6
swit chgear room.
It's two f ull floors above the trim 5 7
svitchgear room.
3 And we nave the third and the fourta Class I-A 9
battery rooms, Battery Rooms A and C.
de have a caole trav 10 systen that rings *, enters the caole-screading reo-s, and has 11 two maior exits out of the control building.
The one on your 12 rignt will ultimately lead to the fuel-handling ouiloing, and 13 the one on the left will ce the system that we will f ollow a ll 14 the way over to the reactor building containment penetrations
(_
15 and the last 25-f oot elevation.
We've been following that run endw6 16 all up the side, and we'll see it in -just a moment again.
17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 s+
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
- 589.07.1 201 gsh 1
We also have a caole tree system that penetrates 2
the building wall into the diesel generator building, the 3
diesel generator A room.
This is a major tray section 4
serving the A train die sel generator.
5 That penetration is at plus 50.
The B train 6
ecuivalent penetration was at 0 elevation.
It was on the 7
aux cuilding side with the 3-hour firewall cetween the two 3
diesels.
9 (Slide.)
10 Still at elevetion 50 and moving down into the
.11 auxiliary ouilding.
We'll start by picking up on two A 12 train match points from the control building.
The section 13 right here is ultimately heading to the fuel handling cuilding 14 as we have f ollowed it on the previous two low floors in the a xiliary building.
15 u
16 The section on the left is the A train sect ion.
17 That at 50 feet starts drooping down in elevat. ion on the 13 west side of the fuel building wall, ahead to the A train 19 electrical oenetration and containment and all the way down 20 to the last 25-f oot elevation for the A train ECCS eculpnent.
21 We've picked up now a 5C-foot elevation to tree 22 sys tems within cont ainment that are served from the A train 23 and B train penetration areas.
24 The fourth floor in tne auxiliary cuilding, elevation 25 plus 75. We really don't have anything more to lcok at here.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
'589.07.2 20 2 gsh 1
(Slide.)
2 Except orecominantly a short sectior; of the B 3
train tray over in the west section of the elevation 75.
4 for some of the essential HVA: isolation services.
And 5
the continuing riser that we started with at elevation J that will come back into the control oilling elevation at 7
75, which we'll look at right now, for the essential HVAC S
and control building.
9 (Slide.)
13 Ehis is tne top floor, whicn is not a full control 11 building sized floor, as we've seen in the lower floors.
It 12 has the A train essential HVAC.
The tray nas been coming 13 fron the 50-f oot elevation where the A train flows into 14 the control building, and this is the riser that we have
(
15 ceen following all the wav from elevation 0, which is the 1 6 8 train essential HVAC riser.
17 If we we re to take a section through the control 13 building --
19 (Slide.)
looking north, this is e.ssen tia lly what we have 20 21 looked at in tnese various slides as we work and plan.
Ze ro 22 elevation is the 3 train cable scre ading area and the 3 trains 23 whic.h give roon. The 3 train cables penetrate the control 24 roon floor on the cotton.
25 The 50-foot elevation is the train switch roo-area.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, (202)347-3700
- 589.07.3 203 sh 1
The cable screading area and these cables penetrate into the 2
control room for racks and canels and the control panels from 3
above.
4 There are two minor differences in the things we've 5
looked at through this tour of the plant compared to RESAR-41, 6
30PSSAR, and they are as follows.
Let me ;o ' ac k to one o
7 slide here.
S (Slide.)
9 You'll notice that the saf eguard racks and panels la sit directly on tne concrete floor.
In the RESAR-41 BOPSSAR
.11 there was a false floor in the control room tnat had 12 actuation train C cables coming into the control room panels 13 because there is no actuation train C -- we have e l im ina t e d 14 the false floor in the control room, which is a minor
,a
('
15 improvement to, we f eel, the fire hazard aspects of our 16 design.
17 The second difference is residual heat removal 19 ooints with the low head ECCS oumps in the RE S AR-41 design 19 containment on the BSAR 205, BOPSSAR, they're in the minus 20 25-f oot elevation in the reactor building annulus.
So they're 21 outside containment and tney are located respectivelv on tne 22 left and the.right sides of the minus 25-f oct reactor 23 a nnulus.
24 Are there any cuestions?
25 DR. VARK: I expect if I had been a little sharcer on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, (202)347-3700
589.07.4 234 gsh 1
those drawings. I could have figured it out for yself.
But 2
those two trains wnicn you've shown us are clearly separated 3
at every stage.
a What is tne closest po int to whicn they cone 5
together?
6 MR. COLE: There's only one area wnere we do not 7
have e f ull 3-hour fire barrier wall between the nafor train 3
systems.
?
OR. MARK: Excuse me.
10 MR. COLE: There's only one area in the olant where 11 we de not have e. full 3-hour fire barrier well cetween the 12 two redundant actuation cable tray systems.
That's in the 13 fuel-handling buildin: in the area underneath the spent 14 fuel pool.
iie have two strains of essential HVAC and two 15 trains of spent fuel pool coo'ing pumps in the area.
t 16 They apoarently are runs; they don't cross each 17 other. One is on the top -- the horizontal seoaration is 13 on the order of 30 or 40 feet.
19 DR. MARK: Oka y.
That's as close as tney get 20 together.
And nostly, they have a fire wall oetween in 21 addition to 20 or 30 f eet acart.
22 MR. COLE: In this case, there is no firewall, out 23 they are 30 feet apert.
24 Th ank you, gentlemen.
20 ine next agenda iten is the decontanination and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
a
!589.07.5 205 gsh I
deconrissioning provisions in the standard plant design.
2 vr. Smiley?
3 MR. SMILEY: G ood morning. My name is De nnis Smiley.
4 In our RESAR-41 s uom i ss io n, there were several design 5
considerations that were used with any 5 ystem that handled 5
or processed radioactive materials.
There have been no 7
substential changes in this philosphy as aoplied to the BSAR 8
205 submission.
9 I'd like to give vou these design considerations 10 and then we'll s ee how it translates down into actual system 11 component levels.
12 The first of tnese was to minimize the exposure 13 problems by proper souioment selection, design, and 14 fabrication.
And tne second was to provide a system that i
15 was amenable to decontamination.
15 Re arding the first, minimizing the exposure 17 problems, in major cubicles tnat house conoonents with large 18 inventories of radioactivity, we strioped out the pu p and 17 the succort equipment out of the cuoicle itself.
Wher I say 20 support ecuipment. I'm talking aoout things like junction 21 boxes, valves, instrumentation.
22 These repre sent items where vo u ne ve continuing 23 maintenance being perforned on tnem, and the re's no reason 24 to encourage exposure f rom a passive tank si.tting in the 25 corner.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, (202)347-3700
!389.07.6 206 gsn 1
In the radioactive waste systems we've gone to 2
c a nned pumps.
Here, we really want to minimize the leakage.
3 It lowers the air burdens for any people who have to go in 4
the e, cuts down on tne plant releases, and additiona l?,
r 5
minimizes the contamination of tne walls.
6 Recent literature indicated that that can ce a 7
fairly substantial problen over clant life.
3 The piping nas been segregated to the maximum 7
extent possible and sloped so that we use gravity to drain 10 off the stuff rather than having coolant si.tting there
.11 plating out on the oipe itself.
12 We utilize consumable insert welding wherever that's 13 feasible.
It gives us a nice smootn interior that we want.
14 We don't have crud traps. where we build up a lot of the 15 stuff and wind up with hot spots.
16 Regarding cubicle clearance, how much space do 17 we really need to house eculpment?
People really don't build IS fat plants.
You have to justify anything you get in this 19 area.
20
.S e ' ve taken a l oo k at the maintenance, in-service 21 inspection recuirements, as we ll as eculoment removal.
22 In terms of e;uipment renovel, the major cubicles --
23 we've orovided knock-out panels.
Re all y, this amounts to 24 concre te without the rebar in there.
You can get it in there 25 and knock it down for all the recar in there to cut that away.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
- 539.07.7 207 gsh I
Within tne cubicle, we really don't exoect oeople 2
to ce sitting on pumps removing mannoles, things of this 3
sort, incurring exposures where they really shouldn't be.
4 Steam generators have gotten to be an increasingly 5
s ignif ic ant ite, in terms of plant opera tions.
The worst 5
case we know of, the y. incurred aoout two-thirds of the total 7
man-rens just in creceration, getting the thing strung 3
around the cuoicle and cuilding platf orms, all sorts of things 9
like that.
10 tie've tried to deal with some of these proolems.
11 This is really where our strengtns are. Me've taken e look 12 at maintenance and in-service inspection requirenents and 13 we've installed gratings in the cuoicles so they won't nave la to be building things in there, coming in with a lot of k.
15 carpenters and enough wood to build a small house.
15 Even where we couldn't cuite justify the use of 17 a grating, we have installed lugs in the walls so that we 13 can, in a relatively easy f ashion, drop in pre-f abricated 19 grating, or at least there's enough tnere so that you can 20 make some sort of wied attachments to it.
21 The insulation in the cubicles, it's all quick 22 releas. I gue ss that's not too uncommon.
But, again, we e
23 have sufficient grating at that maintenance level whe re we can 24 store the insulation.
it doesn't do too much good if it 25 takes you a minute to get the insulation off by three minutes ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
1589.07.3 20e gsh I
to lower it to the floor below for temporary storage.
2 We nave also brought in clean services througn the 3
cubicle wall.
There are needs for gases, oxygen, nitrogen, a
water, electricity. rather than stringing stuff all over the 5
cubicle, wnich just adds to the maintenance as well as the 6
clean-up problem.
7 We brought it in through the well so it's easily 3
a cc e ssibl e.
In spite of the designer's oest efforts, you can 9
r ally count on decontamination sometime during plant 10 e
.11 operation.
12 This runs the gamut from little hot spots on resin 13 transf er pipes to total syste, decontamination.
The s ys t e m 14 decontaninetion is a very significant e f fo rt.
It requires 15 all sorts of documentation related to systen comconents, the 16 a ll oy s, the seals, just a slew of material.
17 So when they take that on, it's really not a very 19 frivolous thing.
19 In the 80?SSAR design, we've enphas ized the 20 capability for a localized decontamination capability.
We 21 belie ve there are several advantages to that.
One of them 22 is that you mininize the distribution of the crud you've 23 just cleaned out of a tank, say.
We don't s ee any reason 24 to clean out a tank, flusn it down to a pice, purps prooably 25 another tank, and then through an evaoorator oefire it gets to e
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
S 589.07.9 2J9 gsh I
ultimate disposal.
2 That's just an awful lo t of stainle ss steel 3
scagne tti downstream, really.
4 So we've tried to deal with the problem at the 5
location.
6 The decontamination effort is going on.
7
- 37. SHEMM')N: If one had a valve or a pump he wanted 3
to decontaminate, do you have f acilities f or that within the 9
plant?
13 Would you try to set up and do it right there, or
.11 what?
12 MR. SMILEY: Well, it's highly deoendent on plant 13 o pe ra t io ns.
It depends on the level.
I f it's too high, 14 they could take It out, cut it out, and just f orget about 15 it.
16 DR. SHEWMON: It depends some on what facilities 17 you have for decentanination within your plant also.
18 MR. SMILEf: Yes, right.
They tend to be, in nost 19 cases, I think, on the no dest side.
They'd rather not f ool 20 with that. It represents a ncdest expenditure.
It's hands-on 21 operation.
There are exposures essociated with that.
22 Vy feeling is the bulk on them would say, forget 23 it.
'We' ll cut it cut and bring a new one in.
24 The second of these edvantages was sort of alluded 25 to before.
It's the material compatioility prcelem.
The ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
8 589.07.10 210 gsh 1
more conoonents you have in a system, the more problems you 2
really have with e f f ective decontamination.
3 If we can estrict this to just a few alloys.
4 we're talking about patting 7gether a decon solutior which 5
addre sses that material.
We don't dilute it with 6
something else because it has to accommodate a lot of things.
7 So we're getting a be tter solution to begin with, 3
and again, material comoetioility. Even neglecting man-rems.
9 we're talking, you know, about QA requirements, documenting 10 e ve ryth ing in the system.
It's amazing.
11 One other feature.
We were go ing to installing 12 our man-holes in the top tanks.
And the reason for doing that 13 is that we feel it really enhances our capability.
Me have 14 the normal ability to use decon solutlons in the component
(_
15 of the systen.
And having the man-hole on top, there may o
15 be many instances where this is really a suitable method.
17 de like it because it's low volume.
We don't 18 generate a lot of junk in the process, so we don't re a ll y 19 burden the rad waste systen.
23 We expect that the care that's gone into dealing 21 with the exposure problems and decontamination will really 22 addre ss the bulk of the problem assoc iated with deco-nissioning 23 Thus, e typical client would probably opt to go 24 the layaway, deferred, dismantling option.
This gives him :ne 25 benefit of a more discreet analysis of the plant.
Lock at a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
339.07.11 211 gsh 1
tank.
Should we let it decay 20 or 33 years, or should we 2
do something now so we can optimize his costs as well as 3
ninimize the radiation exposure.
4 If he's lucky, you know, both things will coincide.
5 which prooably isn't the case.
But at any rate, it provides 6
firr justification for going one route versus another.
7 Lie also f eel that in many respects, decontamination 3
will be an easier problem.
You've all but thrown out the 9
material conpatibility requirements because we'd probably 10 like a solution that really gets at some of the base metal.
Il cuts away a little of that, really doing a g ood job.
12 We're procaoly talking one-shot solutions, too.
13 We're not ge tting into a lot of rinsewater, something like 14 SDTA.
( -
15 So we f eel that if you have good operational 16 decontamination capability, you're in pre tty good shape when 17 you get to the dismantling stage.
13 Another little benefit of that localized 19 decontamination we see if that wnen you're at the end of 20 plant life, you've got something like spatial selectivity.
21 If you really can and decontaminate tanks, that means we 22 can go down into One annulus and we can say, we ll, we like 23 this part, this cuadrant.
Just clear it out.
You can lay 24 down equipment.
25 de know we have el ectro-polishing eouipment coming in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
1589.07.12 21 2 gsh 1
You may require additional demineralization or evaporation.
2 You ney ce. thinking acout oillow tanks for additional 3
rinse-water storage.
4 If we can really get in tnere and knock down those 5
things, you get a large space.
6 Th e n, a ga in, the more control you have o er placing v
7 things, the better off you are.
Electro-polishing, a lot of 8
our gcod stainless steel stuff is in there. We'd hate to 9
drag it out by the spent f uel pool and then do the work there 10 if we c an do it in olace.
11 So we f eel that there's a lot of flexibility 12 involved in a plant at this stage.
13 The basic technology, we think, is in place for 14 decommissioning and dismantling.
Some advances are recuired k-15 in the plasma. cutting technicues.
de're going to have to 16 be able to cut through thicker plate now than was done, say, 17 on Elk River.
18 de believe that _this will be just normal, of course.
19 advancement in industry, given the time scale.
20 de had a client that came in this morning and said.
21 start on a plant to mo rrow.
We'd still have on the order of 22 30 to 40 years to really accumulate the kind of nuts and 23 bolts information we think is essential toward really doing 24 a good job in dismembering a plant.
It's the most efficient 25 way, mone y-wise and e xposure-wise.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
2589.07.13 213
- sh l
In 30PS5AR, we've tried to address all the concerns 2
we know of in plant design relative to exoosure, and tried 3
not to preclude changes in the future.
4 I guess It really remains to be seen how well we've 5
done.
6 Unle ss there are additional cuestions, that's all.
7 JR. M0E LLER : How did you develop the thougnts and 3
concepts that yo u'r e enumerating? Was this cone oy one or 9
two people, or do you have an organized way of addressing 10 decontamination and decommissioning?
.11 MR. SMILEY: Well, it's. lust ceing a warm body 12 in-house, I think.
Really. you nave the formalized program.
13 We're continually ge tting the stuff passing in frcnt of 14 us.
The interesting stuff seems to take a tortuous path,
( -
15 though.
You wait more for that.
16 But the sort of unofficial routes, the y're very 17 important.
18 Steam generators, we talked to NDT people. They 19 seem to spend half their life in there and it's not covious 20 unless you get into really plant design, who knows wnat.
21 But there's an awful lot of info rmal contac t, at 22 least there is for me.
And that's relatively important.
23 DR. M0ELLER : You mentioned that you'd have 30 or 40 24 years, of course, to work out decommissioning techniques.
25 But you are trying in the design to do anything you c an to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
a
!589.07.14 214 gsh I
prepare for it.
2 MR. SMILEY: Certainly. Well, again. I forget wnen 3
the BOPSSAR was submitted.
Since then, we've nad the be nefit 4
of the Battelle studies.
de scrutinized that.
Again, there's 5
preliminary talk.
There may oe things we can do.
But at 6
this point, it's kind of laying there.
7 de made preliminary explorations like putting 8
holes in the biological shields.
So you have places for 9
the charts come dismantling time.
10 Again, it was of f of the guy's head. He said,
.11 well, it doesn't look to be a severe problem.
Again, we 12 want to take a closer look in terms of radiation levels and 13 what it really does.
14 DR. MOELLER 2 How helpful was the Battelle study 15 for you?
16 MR. SMILEY: Well. it's a very good scoping document.
17 It integrates in most of industry in its development, wnich IS I'm sure they had contacts that we didn't know about. But 19 it really said.well, the se contacts weren't really that 20 important, or it's shoved into the average and it really 21 fits there.
22 So it was a very good document, I thought.
23 DR. SHEWMON: This was their decommissioning study, 24 or what?
25 MR. SMILEY: Right. this NUREG. CRO-130 I believe ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
.589.07.15 215 gsh I
it is.
There are several.
That's th e numbe r. I believe.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
C7 2589 HOF.PMAN t8 216 i il-1 l
i I
DR. MOELLER-They have one.
The first one I guess j
2 was the pressurized water reactor, and they had the SWRs also, f
3 MR. MATHIS:
All these features that you're. planning i
I 4
to put into this design are undoubtedly going to cost some extra 1
5' money.
Do you have any feel as to what your return is on that 6
in way of reduce exposure?
7 I guess what I'm asking is, do you have any feel for l 8 I cost-benefit ratio?
9 MR. SMILEY:
Really, I think we've done a pretty good 10 '
job, you know, on keeping it el cheapo -- things like grating.
11 (Laughter.)
i 12 MR. SMILEY:
There's a nominal cost involving, in l
( ~
13 grating.
We're talking about moving the manholes.
We may put ;
I 14 them on the bottom, because that's the way they've done it for !
15 years.
But we want them on the top, because it really doubles 16 our capability.
17 And I'd pay for that myself probably -- it's so 18 little.
19 1 So many of the area behave like good engineers.
1 I
20 1 Tnat's the real fun in popping into it cheaply.
So we're l
I 21 pretty happy about it really.
22 I can't think of any costs relating to exposure i
23 h production that would really be significant, with the exception a
24 'i of possibiv the localized capability.
Really, we haven't Ace Feu.ral Reporters, Inc.
25 i talked about the more detailed designs, but we're going to have l
l t
il 2 I
217 !
i I
a rig that comes in there with demineralizers and filters, and 2
this is going to have to be able to get around if we really l
3' want this system to work.
l 4
Now, at that point you've got a problem, but I think l
you know, you really are decreasing 5
if you can show t1 6
exposure, that has got to be pretty good leverage.
The utilitie's i
7 listen to that, I believe.
i 8
DR. SHEWMON:
Sir, what's your title and responsibil i
9 ity in the organization?
10 !
MR. SMILEY:
I'm a private consultant right now, but 11 I should add that I was responsible for all the radiological 12 concerns on the three plants that we did build.
I was i
(j 13 responsible for all the radiological and accident analysis on j
i 14 RESAR-41, and I would guess I was there for 70 percent of the 4
15 BSAR-205.
16 So this is a relatively recent activity for me, but 17 I am fmmiliar with the plant.
I know basically what went into 18 it.
19 l DR. CARBON:
Are there questions?
I 20 I (No response.)
i 21 DR. CARBON :
Fine.
Thank you.
22 MR. SMILEY:
Thank you very much.
l PiR. ROELL:
The next item on the agenda was a systems '
23 l
24 interaction presentation.
You said "if requested" -- would you Ace.Faceral Reporters, Inc.
25 l like to do that at this time?
ji 3 218 I 1
DR. CARBON:
How long does it take?
2' MR. ROELL:
Probably about 20 minutes.
3*
DR. SHEWMON:
Dave's not here.
4 DR. CARSON:
Does anyone have an interest in the l
5 subject?
6, (No response.)
l l
7' DR. CARBON :
Let's pass that up then.
8 Let's move on then to item number 5.
i 9
MR. SNELL:
The status of the unresolved issues is 10 !
listed in Appendix C-3, and the program reference is to any of 11 the items are so indicated in the line items.
12 If there are any cuestions from the committee, we
(
13 will try ot answer them.
l t.
14 DR. CARBON:
Are there questions that anyone has?
15 DR. MOELLER:
Could we have a repeat of where they l
16 are listed?
i 1:7 MR. SNELL:
Appendix C.
That would be the very last is pages of the report.
19 DR. CARSON:
The last three pages.
20 DR. MOELLER:
Well, on the containment sprays, are 21 we correct in that the Staff had no position on additives, 22 meaning to prefer one additive versus another at the present 23 l time?
24 MR. SNELL:
Yes.
That's a fair assessment.
Ace-Feoeral Reporters. Inc.
25 j DR. MOELLER-Could you refresh my memory?
f I
a ji 4 i
2191 l
l 1
Perhaps the Applicant could -- for the system that i
3 I
2 would be used here is when the sodium hydroxide is added.
I i
3 MR. ROELL:
We have a containment spray system, which 4
includes a containment spray additive subsystem.
We have the l
5 sodium hydroxide storage,and the sodium hydroxide is added i
6 whenever the spray pumps are running by means of small positive,
7 displacement pumps which eject directly into the spray.
l 8
DR. MOELLER:
So the moment the spray starts spraying,l m
9 sodium hydroxide is injected.
There's no delay?
10 '
MR. ROELL:
That's correct.
11 DR. MOELLER:
Is that common, or is that system 12 different?
Or is that the regular way?
13 I had thought that in some systems the injection of i
i 14 the sodium hydroxide was delayed.
i 15 Can the Staff help me on that?
16 MR. CPOCKEA:
That is correct.
In many systems there 17 is a two-minute delay before the sodium hydroxide starts.
w ll, then why did you not provide for 18 DR. MOELLER:
e 19 the delay, and why I'm asking -- say you had an inadvertant 20 1 actuation of the containment spray system, you would have sodium 1
21 hydroxide then being deposited around within containment.
22 Whereas, the system that maybe had the delay would 23 1 have avoided that.
Did you consider this?
What was your 24 !
conclusion?
i Aa-L.: neoonm. anc. j 25 '
MR. ROELL:
Well, there is some inherent delay frem
ji 5 1
220 i
I 1
the time the system would be actuated until you actually spray j
2 'h the sodium hydroxide due to the start-up time sequencing and j
I 3,
the time recuired to fill the spray headers, and that's on the i
I 4
order of 45 seconds to a minute before you would deliver any-J i
5 spray into the containment.
6, DR. SHEWMON:
That misses the point, I think, though.
l 7
The question was whether, when it starts coming out, 1
8I is it water at first, cr is it sodium hydroxide solution?
i 1
9 riR. ROELL:
It's a solution containing sodium i
10 i hydroxide.
11 DR. SHEWMON:
Than would you address yourself again 12 to the point as to why you didn't opt for putting in water 13 forced so that you might have a chance of not corroding the
(-
i 14 whole upper floor of the plant?
i 15 MR. ROELL:
Well, the spray that would be coming on --
16 it wouldn't be the concentrated sodium hydroxide.
In the way 17 our system is designed, a number of plants had injected sodium 18 ! hydroxide.
When solluted, it has not been our observation that 19 j it is a large clean-up problem.
I 20 l MR. ETHERINGTON:
Would you say the clean-up system 1
21 that was loused up with water or was loused up with dilute 22 sodium?
That's really the cuestion in case you had an inadver- ;
231 tent release.
I 24 i DR. MOELLER:
And a review of LER shows that inadver-t Ac,Cai Aeoorters anc. ;
25 g tent spray actuation is not uncommon.
itil
jl 6 l
221l i
1 1
MR. ROELL:
What we've done is try to design the 2
system at the system level to prevent the inadvertent actuation !
3l by providing valves and by providing cross insulation pumps for
\\
t 4
the injection of sodium hydroxide.
l 5
DR. MOELLER:
Does the Staff have a position on this 61 in terms of preferring a delay in the in]ection?
7 MR. CROCKER:
Dr. Moeller, I don't believe we do.
We i
I 8
see these coming in, both for an immediate addition and some of l
9 them with the delay.
The ones that have delay that I've been i
i 10 ! familiar with have been because the utility was concerned about I
11 what might happen if they hosed it down.
12 I know our friends here, in the good old days when I
13 they did Kewaunee, there was a two-minute delay built into the
'x-u system, with an option for the operator to turn off the additive l 15 if it looked like -- to spray this injection of some kind -- he 16 had the option of turning it of f.
i 17 DR. SHENMON:
Whether they remember today or not, they 18 used to do it differently.
19 (Laughter.)
20 MR. CROCKER:
I don't know if they did it or if the 21 utility forced them into it on the earlier buildings.
22 MR. ROELL:
The Prairie Island-Kewaunee design did use; 23 a different method of injecting the sodium hydroxide into the i
24 l sprav water.
That was one of the sienificant changes we made to Ace Fw.ral Reoorters, Inc.
25 i the design, to address that type of a problem.
ji 7 i
222l t
I With the positive displacement pump, it is very I
2 simply to adjust the time as you so choose.
And the way we i
3
- analyzed the sump pH and the spray addition, we assumed a time 4
delav.
That doesn't mean we couldn't build the svstem with the.
i
{
5 time delay set out otherwise.
6 DR. SHEWMON:
Now is it my understanding that the 1
7 Germans don't understand why we insist having sodium hydroxide i
8 in there anyway?
They just spray and feel, at least across
~
9 the Atlantic, that that does almost a good a job.
10 i MR. CROCKER:
I have heard this Dr. Shewmon.
I don't II have any data on it.
I think the committee mentioned last 12 month that they do not use the additives in Germany.
1 i
(-,
13 DR. SHEWMON:
It might be worF. the time at sometime Id to try to chase that down, because spraying caustic soda on 15 things just can't be as nice as spraying neutral wate I0 MR. CROCKER:
I have brought that up with our people.
I7 They are supposed to be looking into it right new.
I think 18 we're trying to drum up a trip to Germany to find out just what 19 they do do or don't do.
20 (Laughter.)
2l DR. SHEMMON:
If you can find a few skiers on the 22 chaff, you micht get it done very cuickly.
23 l
( Lauchter. )
2#
MR. RAY:
Mr. Roell, can I interpret your last comment Aa Feceral Reporters, Inc.,
25 l to mean that the plant operator can adjust this system so that i
ji 8 l
223!
I it doesn't inject it immediately, he can delay it?
i i
2 MR. ROELL:
We wouldn't want the plant operator to 3
do that.
~
\\
4' MR. RAY:
I mean, when the applicant set it up, you 5
can set it up this way?
6' MR. ROELL:
Yes.
l t
7 MR. RAY:
So it doesn't have to be injected I
~
8, immediately?
l 9
MR. ROELL:
No, that's right.
It's just for the 10 purpose of the standard analysis we did for BOPSSAR.
Il MR. RAY:
It's an option that the Applicant can i
12 take.
i 13 MR. ROELL:
The logic for the start of that part l
14 being delayed.
i 15 MR. LARKIN:
We say thatour operator will know if the 16 containment spray injection is for real or not.
He's got 45 17 seconds to a minute to do something about it.
I can't imagine 18 that with redundant systems he wouldn't be able to do something 19 about it if the actuation wasn't for real.
i 20 DR. SHEWMON:
If you have a full-blown LOCA going on, 21 he may have something else to think about in these 45 seconds.
22 MR. LARKIN:
If we have a full-blown LOCA going on, 23 1 we're not going to be concerned about whether he got sodium 24 :
hydroxide in there or not.
Ace A, sas Rooorters, Inc. !
t 23 DR. SHEWMON:
Tou che'.
t I
ji 9 224 1
(Laughter.)
2 DR. SHEWMON:
I guess we then get back to what i
3l. distractions he would have while he is trying to decide whether j l
i t
4 he does or not.
l l
5 MR. ROELL:
When you go back and look at the logic I
6 in the electrical system, there's a number changes that have 7
been made into this plant from older generations of plants in 1
i i
8 terms of the fact that we have four DC systems in the logic 9
rather than two, which eliminate a lot of the spurious actuation; 10 i sources, which is only the two DC supplies to the logic.
11 DR. CARSON :
Are there further question anyone has?
i 12 (No response.)
13 DR. CARBON:
Moving ahead on the agenda, does anyone
.\\~
14 wish to have any closed security, physical security, discussion?J l'
15 I got the message pretty streagly from Chet that he 16 did not recommend it.
I 17 (No response.)
i 18 DR. CARBON:
I might mention, for the benefit of the 19 Applicant, that Dr. Siess left because he's under the weather, 20,
not because he has no interest.
He has the flu, I think.
l 21 Bill, with you being a subcommittee member, do you I
r 22 have any suggestions, or anything on any other topics, that i
23 we should cover bfore we close the meeting and caucus?
24,
MR. MACHIS:
I have nothing further to add that comes 1
Acs Arat Repornn, Inc. l 25 to mind anyway at this time I
i i
jl 10 225 I I
l 1
DR. CARBON:
Before we caucus, does the committee --
2 Dade?
I 3,
DR. MOELLER:
It went past me a little rapidly, and i
4 that was the point that we decided not to hear the report on i
l 5
systems interaction.
6 If we have the time, I,
for one, would have liked to i 7
have heard that.
8 P ROF. KERR:
Did it also go past you that this from i
9 the report on design study that they did, which has already 9
10 I been presented?
11 I'm sorry.
12 MR. ROELL:
Dr. Kerr, no.
I mentioned that in 13 response to a cuestion on the operating experience.
j i
14 The report that we're talking about here, in systems I 15 interactions, is the way we handle it in the new plant design, 16 in particular on BOPSSAR.
It's an almost identical presentation 17 that we made at the full committee meeting on the RESAR-41 18 BOPSSAR.
19 DR. MOELLER:
Oh, oka;.
20 l DR. LANROSKI:
Let's have it presented to the 21 committee.
22 MR. RAY:
I'd like to hear it.
i 23 DR. CAR 3ON:
Let's do have it.
24 l Just a minute.
What's your pleasure?
It's 11:15 Am Fsoeral Reoorters. Inc. {
25 ! and thereabouts.
Would you like to have a quick break, or i
l l
jl 11 226 I I
l l
1 shall we charge on?
l 2l DR. LAMROSKI:
How long is the presentation, 20 i
3!
minutes?
1 I
DR. CARBON:
About 20 minutes, and another 10 minutes, 4
S for us.
6, DR. LAWROSKI :
Why don't we go ahead.
l 7
DR. CARBON:
Let's charge ahead, make the 8
presentation.
9 MR. ROELL:
Dan Cole -- make the presentation on f
10 I systems interaction.
11 MR. COLE:
This discussion will be primarily geared 12 toward the aspect of systems interaction as the way we' approach 13 and analv:e, and trv to determine whether or not undesirable x
i 14 systems interactions occur in our design and as part of our 15 normal design process.
l 16 And to start off the discussion, I just want to take U
a brief moment to describe a term that I'll need to use --
IS (Slide.)
19 MR. COLE:
-- during the discussion; and it's a term 20 that we use, called " Project Team."
l 21 This is an abbreviated organization chart of the l
l 22 group that does our major plant designs and was employed on 23 the BOPSSAR for both RESAR-41 and SSAR.
It's headed by the 24 Project Manager, who has assigned to him, from the engineering Am-Faceral Reporters, tr(
25 organizations within the ccmpany, project regulatory, mechanical, i
i
jl 12 227 l
I structural engineering support services, instrumentation l
l 2
control, and electrical engineers.
l 3
And reporting to the Project Manager, on the project l
l l
4' level, is a project QA engineer, who directly recorts to the l
5 Director of the OA/QC Department.
6, This group is the term that I'll use, called " Project 7
Team."
These are the principal parties in the design of the j
l 8
project.
9 To each of the project engineers are assigned i
10 1 engineers and designers that will actually do the detailed 11 design.
j 12 (Slide.)
i
(
13 MR. COLE:
Fluor uses a systems approach to design, i
14 where,to us, a system is defined as a process function for a I
15 major structure --
16 (Slide.)
17 MR. COLE:
-- and we, in our system approach, have a 18 master systems list for all types of designs from which we i
19 i cenerate a project systems list for the particular project being l
20 ! worked on, and one was generated for BOPSSAR for both RESAR-41 21 and for BSAR-205.
22 Each system is assigned to a d.scipline for the prime 23 responsibility of design.
The responsible discipline starts 24 l as design activity by the generation of system design criteria.
AceJet.wf al Reporters, Inc.
25 '
Included in system descin criteria are system descriptions that
!