ML19325F171
| ML19325F171 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/01/1989 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8911140378 | |
| Download: ML19325F171 (73) | |
Text
~
I-i
.~
Q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY COMMIS SION j
1 i
l l
Tk(16l BRIEFING BY WESTINGHOUSE ON ADVANCED PWR PROGRAM i
i LOCatiO!1l.
ROCKVILLE MARYLAND l
Datel NOVEMBER 1, 1989 PageS 40 PAGES J
9 s
NEALR.GROSSANDCO.,INC.
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRI8ERS
?
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.
-20005 (202) 234-4433 i.
fb 691114o378 691101 I
i
.PDR-10CFR i
. PT9.'
PDC e
.,--.-....-_,.-,,.-......,,._-.,n....
,.---....,,...,.,-n
.,,.... ~..
, E
g
~
~
q q
L DISCLAIMER p
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on I
November 1, 1989, in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript s
has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
- The transcript is intended solely
- f or general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is t'
not part of ' the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect finci determination or beliefs.
No pleading c'r other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or i
k addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, I
except as the Commission may authorize.
i HEAL R. GROSS COURT RipoRTERS AND TRAN$CRISERS 1323 RNODI 15LAhD AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C.
20005 (202) 232-6600 a
e
,_,.,.._..,.__...__.-,,_,.-_,.,,,,_-,_,.,,_,,,,_._......_-....,.,,,...._-.__-,.w
W~
- l
'%v i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
, r.
h,,.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
9 BRIEFING BY WESTINGHOUSE ON ADVANCED PWR PROGRAM i
i PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Wednesday, November 1, 1989 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m.
Thomas M.
- Roberts, Commissioner, presiding.
1 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
l l
THOMAS M.
ROBERTS, Commissioner KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R. CURTISs, Commissioner l
1 l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUF, N W (202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6600
i i.
3 I
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
j SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary t:
WILLIAM C.
PARLER, General Counsel CARLO CASO, General Manager, Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division, Westinghouse BRIAN McINTYRE, Manager, Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing, Westinghouse BILL JOHNSON, Manager, Nuclear Safety D e p ii r t m e n t,.
Westinghouse BOB WIESEMANN, Manager, Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, Westinghouse 1
?
?
W l.
l l
i l.
l l-l NEAL R. GROSS l-COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
l (202) N WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
\\
l
p L
3 1
i l'
P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S l
4 2
2:31 a.m.
3 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Good afternoon, t
i 4
ladies and gentlemen.
This is our third meeting of 5
the day, hearing from vendors about advanced light 6
water reactors.
We're happy today to welcome this 7
afternoon Westinghouse.
i 8
Let me quickly say, Chairman Carr is i
9 involved in an exercise that involves simulated event
.i 10 and he wants me to assure you that his absence in no 11 way reflects his lack of interest in your presentation
?
the staff is well represented and he will 12 and he l
13 review the transcript.
14 Any opening remarks?
15 Please proceed.
1G MR. CASO:
(Slide)
Thank you very much and 17 good afternoon.
I'm Carlo caso, the General Manager 18 of the Nuclear and Advanced Technology Diviaiun of 19 Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
On my right is Bob 20 Wiesemann, who is the Manager of Regulatory and i
21 Legislative Affairs, and on my left is Bill Johnson, 22 Manager of Nuclear Safety and farther to the left is 23 Mr.
Brian McIntyre, who is the Manager of Advanced 24 Plant Safety and Licensing Design,
~h 25 I
have the responsibility within NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON O.C.20006 (202) 232 6 I
[,
4 1
Westinghouse for developing and licensing the s.
2 technology for the new evolutionary and advanced 3
plants for tomorrow as well for plants operating j
4 today.
I'm here to describe to you as well the l
5 Westinghouse advanced plant program with an emphasis i
6 on the SP/90, which is our evolutionary design, that 7
7 is currently under NRC review.
The other model, the 8
600 megawatt passive plant, the AP600 as we call it, 9
will be discussed only insofar as the AP600 design 10 certification program overlaps the SP/90 program.
11 I will also discuss our view on the role of 12 the EPRI utility requirements document and-the impact 13 of this document on the licensing process, both for 14 the evolutionary and the passive plant.
Also, very 15 importantly, I will discuss where we believe the staff 16 should place their emphasis.
17 (Slide)
Next slide, please.
18 The return of the nuclear power market in 19 the United States requires predictability in the 20 licensing process.
The vendor needs certainties that 21 the plant he designs will be licensable or no utility 22 will buy it.
The design certification process
-23 provides certainty for the vendor by having the NRC 24 review and approve the plant design prior to 25 construction.
I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRILERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON O C. 20006 (202) 232 4 600
5 i
r 4
1 The utility needs certainty that the plant
]'
2 will be allowed to operate once construction is
[
3 complete.
The recently issued standardization rule is 1.
4 a significant step toward providing the required 5
predictability by authorizing early site permits, 6
standard design approvals, and combined construction 7
operating licensing for essentially complete power 8
plant design.
There is, of course, still the need to 9
eliminate the opportunity of a hearing prior to j
10 operation that has been and is being debated in this 11 and other arenas.
12 The NRC needs certainty that the plant, as 13 constructsd, will be safe to operate.
The n'ew Part 52 14 provides this certainty' by requiring a set of 15 inspection, test, analyses and acceptance criteria to 16 be submitted, reviewed and approved as part of the 17 certified design and the COL.
Performing the tests, 18 inspections and analyses and meeting the acceptance 19 criteria provides assurance that the plant, which 1
20 incorporates the certified design, has been built and
,l 21 will operate in accordance with the design j
i 22 certification and the COL.
i 23 (Slide)
Next slide, please.
1 24 The Electric Power Research Institute, with L
25 the associated Utility Steering Committee, is j
l NEAL R. GROSS l
I COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
l (202) N WASHINGTON D.C.20006 (202) 232-6000 i
L-1
F 6
1 currently developing a comprehwnsive set of technical 2
design requirements for advanced light water reactor s.
3 These design requirwments are in the form of a 4
4 requirements documwnt which defines the technical 5
basis for improved and standardized future light water 6
reactor designs.
The ALWR. requirements are 7
essentially a consensus of the industry as to which 8
fwature should be sought in the next generation of 9
nuclear plants.
10 In addition to identify design needs, this 11 program will provide a stabilized regulatory basis for
~
i 12 future LWRs by resolving outstanding licensing issues,
]
13 defining any necessary change to reg'ulatory 14 requirement and specifying guidelines for design which i
15 provide acceptable severe accident prevention and 16 mitigation.
17 The requirements document for
- t. h e 1
, 18 evolutionary plant is near completion and is being i
19 reviewed by thw NRC.
Completion of the staff review l
20 and issuance of a safety evaluation report will 1
21 provide certainty that ti e needs of the power l
generation industry and the regulatory authorities are 22 li 1.
23 compatible.
l 24 (Slide)
Next slide, please.
h' 25 I would like to focus for a few minutes on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6600
e
[.
7 L
1 where the staff needs to place an emphasis.
While the 2
industry is moving toward certification of several 3
reactor designs, there are several issues that the
[
[
4 staff needs to complete to actually implement. the new i
i 5
Part 52.
The first item clearly in our mind relates 6
to the inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance 7
criteria.
8 Determining in advance the acceptance 9
criteria and related tests, inspections and analysis j
10 has never been required or accomplished before.
11 Substantial ef forts are underway by HUMARC tu develop 12 what will be required.
13 A matching ef fort will be needed by the NRC -
14 regulatory staff to review the industry proposal so I
15 that agreement can be reached on how to detail the 16 ITAAC.
This matter is critical to the effort to 17 eliminate a hearing at the po s t-cons truc tion, pre-18 operational stage.
If the ITAAC cannot properly 19 detail as part of the design certification or COL 20 process, an amendment to the COL would be needed and 21 such an amendment would require an opportunity for 22 hearing.
23 The next issue is a
need to resolve l
l 24 environmental impact issues.
The court decislun in a h
[
j 25 recent Limerick case means that the NRC must consider l
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) N WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 232 6600 ll
(
E 8
f l
I 1
design alternatives in connection with the NRC
'q.
I
' j t
2 consideration of environmental matters under NEPA, I
t 3
even if these design alternatives do not need to be G
4 considered under the Atomic Energy Act.
The intent of l
i 5
Part 52 was to preclude design considerations after a 6
design has been certified.
In light of the Limerick 7
case, it will be necessary to consider environmental i
h 8
impact of the design certification stage in order to i
9 accomplish this intent.
However,.as presently 10
- written, the NRC does not require this.
Thus, as 11 presently written, the NEPA review at the COL utage l
12 could lead to design changes, even though the plant 13 has a certified design approval, 14 This matter is currently being discussed by 15 industry lawyers with the NRC staff lawyers in the 16 context of the 3itigation challenge in Part 52 which 17 has been brought by the environmentalists.
18 The third item is the need to work out 19 emergency plan revisions.
Part 52 complicates 20 emergency planning.
The rule requires either 21 certification of an emergency plan from a state or an i
22 adequate utility plan, even though the certifications i
23 are not binding on a state and may be rescinded by a 24 new state administration.
The requirement for 25 certification is an unnecessary new requirement.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 232 4 800
).
l l '.
.5, i
9 1
Due to the requirement of en emergency plan
- t. ]
i 2
exercise prior to. operation and the court-imposed 3
requirement that there must be a hearing on the 4
- exercise, the way is open for a post-constrw. ion, 5
pre-operational hearing on emergency planning, the 6
very thing that helped bring down Shoreham and e
7 threatens Seabrook.
There is language in the court L
8 case that suggests that if the NRC had criteria for 9
accepting emergency plans and judging their adequacy, 10 such a hearing may not be needed.
Changes are needed 11 in the NRC regulations on emergency planning, or in 12 Part 52, to allow for the use of ITAAC in connection
]
13 with emergency plans and to eliminate language now 14 interpreted to require a hearing on the emergency 15 planning exercise.
l 16 In addition to these items, there are a 17 number of other issues, such as how to consolidate l
18 contentions, how to handle proprietary information, l
19 definition of the former content of the applicettion l
20 and the rule that need to be resolved in the design
,t 21 certification rulemaking and the NRC should address 1
22 these items.
l 23
- Finally, Part 52 requires the standard l
l 24 design certification to set forth the interface l
')
25 requirements to be met by those portivns of the plant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRAN3CRIBERS I
l.,
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 232-e600
p j
.r4 10 l'
for which the application does not seek certification, h~
1 Part 52 also requires that an application for a COL 3
referencing a certified design demonstrate compliance 4
with such interface requirements.
NRC regulatory 5
guidance is needed on what will be required for the 6
interface requirement and what will be necessary to L
7 demonstrate that the interface requirement has been 8
satisfactorily met.
i 9
(Slide)
Next slide.
10 The EPRI utility requirements document for 11 svolutionary plants is now being reviewed by the i
12 staff.
Methods for resolving a number of generic 13-
- issues, including severe accidents, can.best be 14 developed through review of the requirements document.
15 Completing the safety evaluation report on the 16 evolutionary utility requirements document in the very 17 near future will smooth the design certification 18 process by providing a standard approach'to resolving 19 the generic issues facing the industry.
Additionally, 20 the review and safety evaluation report for the 21 evolutionary requirements document will provide 22 insight for the development of the passive plant i
23 requirements document.
24 Emphasis should be placed on those plants
.)
25 that support the major trends in the market so as to NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOD 2 ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202)234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202)232 6000
f 11 a
1 have available certified designs of the type desired i
~
2 in the market place by the time plants are needed.
We 3
believe the market will require such reviews to be 4
completed no later than the mid '90s.
It will be 5
possible to complete these' reviews and the 6
certification of passive plants within that time, 7
provided that the NRC puta resources in this area.
8 Since we believe passive plants are what the domestic 9
market will want, the emphasis should be placed on 10 review of the passive plants.
11 The work accomplished to date on 12 evolutionary plant design needs to be captured and 13 preserved to avoid wasting the effort expended to date 14 and to provide support f'or U.S.
vendors in the 15 international market.
16 (Slide)
Next slide.
17 From a Westinghouse perspective, we believe 18 that the design programs for evolutionary plants are 19-well in hand.
The plant models are either in the 20 preliminary or final design stages.
Standard design 2 ').
approvals, either PDAs or FDAs, have either been l
22 issued or are expected to be issued in the very near i
23 future.
1 l-24 Of course, the evolutionary plant design
}
25 certification, when needed, will be subject to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
'323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, O C 20006 (202) 232-6600
[y 12 e
1 resolution of the Part 52 implementation aspects and s
l 2
of the generic technical issues which we plan to i
I:
3 address through the EPRI utility requirements i
4 document.
5 (Slide)
Next slide.
6 The passive plant progrems, the AP600, have i-7 been through.the conceptual design process and the 8
final design is on an accelerated schedule.
We 9
consider it essential to address all technical issues 10 related to the plant design as early as possible-in 11 the design program so that the resolution can be
\\
12 engineered into the design rather than added on.
The 13 licensing review basis ~ document, to be prepazed in 14 mid
'90, will serve this purpose.
15 We believe that there will be a market for 16.
the passive plant in the United States within the next
-17 ten years, and this view is supported by the recent 18 Department of Energy awards for design certification 19 to be completed by the end of 1994.
20 (Slide)
Next slide.
21 A timely review of, the EPRI evolutionety 22 plant requirements document and a speedy issuance of 23 the SER will benefit both the e.ulutionary and the 24 passive plant programs through the iesulution of 25 generic issues and common requirements.
This will lay NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) m WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600 9
\\'
8 4
I'
~
13 s
e, 1
.the groundwork for the staff review of the passive g-2 plant requirements document which is expected tc begin
-3' in mid-1990.
By establishing these methods of 4
resolt. tion and requirements
- now, they can be 5
engineered into plant designs rather than added at a 6
later date.
l 7
(Slide)
Next slide.
8 Westinghouse has two plants in our 9
standardization program.
The first is a 1300 megawatt
\\
10 evolutionary design, the RESAR SP/90, that has been 11 under NRC review since 1983.
It was designed and 12 submitted for review prior to the EPRI utility i
13 requirements document.
In fact, many of the items in f:}
E 14 the utility requirements were developed from features, 15 in the SP/90.
For issues such as severe accident that 16 have developed since the SP/90 was submitted for 17 review, Westinghouse intends to meet the EPRI utility 18 requirements document.
19 The NRC review has progressed to the point 20 that we believe the preliminary design approval can be 21 issued to Westinghouse in April of 1990.
I will talk
'22 more about the PDA and the SP/90 in a few minutes.
23 (Slide)
Next slide.
24 The first module of the SP/90 Reference
--)
25 Safety Analysis Report was submitted for NRC review in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVCNUE, N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D C. A006 (202) 232 6600
([
14
[
u 1
1983.
Since that
- timw, we have submitted the l
2 remaining safety analysis report modules, including j
r 3
two PRA modules in 1987.
We have since responded to a i
I 4
number of requests for additional information and havw i
5 updated the RESAR in response to staff comments.
Ww 6
have met with the ACRS subcommittew fivw times and we 7
will meet with them again the day after tomorrow to l
8 discuss open issuws.
Ww have made onw presentation to 9
the full ACRS and in Dwcwmbwr 1987 we briefed you un i
10 the design fwatures of thw SP/90.
The NRC has issued
[
11 thrwe draft safety wvaluation reports, i
3,2 We believe.- that with few wxceptions all l
l g
13 technical issues rwieted to the SP/90 design have been 11 resolved and that we are in a position to ruewive thw i
15 PDA for the SP/90 in April of 1990 using the process i
16 that I will describe latwr.
17 (Slide)
Next slidu, i
13 The second plant in the Westinghouse
[
19 standardization program is a 600 megawatt passivu 20
- design, the AP600, that is being co-funded by the 21 Department of Energy.
The conceptual dweign for this t
i 22 plant is complete and the final design effort will 23 commence on January 1, 1990.
Thw final design of this 24 plant will be developed in conciert with the EPRI 25 utility requirements for passive plants.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS t323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUL N W (3(g) m WASHINGTO'd, D C 20005 (202) 232 6 i
c
l 15
.o l
=
{
1 (Slide)
Next slidw.
L 2
This schedule rwflects the overlap of thw
(
3 remaining SP/90 PDA vffort with the program we have 4
committed to as part of our AP600 DOE contract.
f 5
The first AP600 submittal the NRC will 6
receive from us will bw the licensing review basis
[
7 document in mid-1990.
We wapect the LRB to bw L
8 approved by October 1990.
It is imperative that the
[
[
9 LRB be approved early in the program to watablish thw 10 basis of subsequent design and safwty analysis 11 efforts.
12 Thw Standard Safety Analysis Report, ITAAC 13 and PRA reports will be submitted in mid-1992.
14 We feel that the successful conclusion of 15 the SP/90 review early in 1990 will make available 16 necessary staff resources for the work to be 17 accomplished on the AP600.
The AP500 final design 18 approval is targwted for the end of 1993 and the 19 design certification for the end of 1994.
20 (Slide)
Nwxt slide.
21 The SP/90 intermediatw design is c oinple t e.
i 22
.The SP/90 was developed as a part of a contract that 23 included over $150 million in development costs shared 24 by five Japanese utilities, the Japanese governmeent, 25 the MITI organization, Mitsubishi Heavy Industriws and NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) YM WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 232 0000 f
16 r
1 Westinghousw.
The design work for a total plant, i
t' )
(
2 including verification testing of major components, l
i 3
was completed as of March 1987.
Since the SP/90 i
I L
4 design was considered whwn thw EPRI evolutionary plant 5
requirements documwnt was developed, the SP/90 meets i
6 most of the requirements, such as thw items listed on j
7 the overhead.
Specifically, incrwased margins, 8
dedicated safety systems, use of PRA and rvduced 9
dependence on operator actions.
10 The SP/90 is an evolutionary plant that 11 builds directly on present day plant design, with 12 enhancements in safety, improvwments in plant 13 performance and reducwd generating costs.
No 14 additional development efforts are required.
We 15 bwlieve that the primary market for large evolutionary 16 plants like the SP/90 will be in the international 17 arena.
18 (Slide)
Next slide.
19 We have received thrwe draft safety 20 evaluation reports on the SP/90.
We er.pect the draft 21 SER on the PRA next month.
We have responded to 22 requests for additional information on the FRA a r.d 23 have met with the staff and their contractor to 24 discuss the PRA results.
25 It is anticipated that no additional major NEAL R. GROSS CoV9T REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(302) py WASHINGTON. D C 20006 (202) 232 4 000
rc
~
i,o 27 r
1 items will be identified in the PRA draft SER beyond 2
the severe accident issues alrwady known.
The only 3
remaining draft SER is our approach to thw unresolved 4
safety issuws and gunwric safety issuem.
At this 5
time, we expect to rwceive that rwport warly in 1990.
6 (Slide)
Next slide.
t 7
There have bwwn a tota'. of 107 open issues 8
in the thrwe draft SERs that wt. vw received to date.
9' Of these, we consider that we have clost.d 87 by wither 10 revising the safety analysis report or providing i
11 additional clarifying information.
That leaves 20
[
h 12 issues ' remaining.
These can bw categorized as j
13 requiring additional effort to resolve, usw of new'
[
-]
14 methodologies not yet reviewed by the staff and issues i
15 where thw NRC review is not complete.
A selected few 16 of the severe accident issues that have not been 17 resolved fall into this group.
18 This is a sufficiently small number of open 19 issues to give us confidence that we will be able to 20 resolve them without serious disruption.
Based on 21, what we know, we do not expect a large number of i
22 additional open issues from either the backend PRA or 23 USI/GSI draf t SERs.
24 (Slide)
Next slide.
1 25 We were asked by the staff to provide our l
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENVE, N W WASHINGTON DC 2000b (202) 232-6000 (202) N
(,
18 i
i perspective of a preliminary dvsign approval.
Given 2
the changes that have occurred in standard plant 3
licensing since we originally appliwd for thw SP/90 l
r 4
PDA in 1983, the staff quwstions what value it would 5
have.
After some careful thought, we camw up with 1
6 four items that we believe a PDA addrwsses.
7 First, it documents the reviww that has been 8
completed and is specific about what needs to bw 4
9 comp 1wted to receivw the final design approval.
In 10 the case of the SP/90, considerable effort has bwen t
11 expended in getting this far.
Wwstinghouse has spent 12 over 400 man months.
Without formalizing what has
[
been done'so Iar, we will have to spend consid' rablu l
13
}
w 14 duplicate time and effort for the FDA.
i 15 The PDA also provides us with a preliminary 16 evaluation by the staff of the SP/90 safety analysis i
17 and design features.
j 18 (Slide)
Next slide.
19 In the severe accident area, the EPRI i
20 utilit/ requirements document is still being reviewed by s
21 thw staff.
We believe that the best approach is for i
i 22 us to wait until t.h e EPRI utility requiremants 23 documwnt SER is issued and take advantayw of the 1
1 24 effort and insight that is provided for the SP/90.
-]
I 25 (Slide)
Next slide.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
023 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 232 M00 e
o ip G
r i
1 We also see four benwfits to issuing thw l'
C.
l 2
PDA.
As mentioned previously, two of the benefits arv i
3 the preservation of thw effort we have both wxpended 4
in the SP/90 review and the formalization of thouw 5
items which have buen agrwed on.
6 Additional benefits erw:
the PDA supports 7
the present markwt for large evolutionary plants in 8
the intwrnational arena.
Evidenew of licensibility of 9
design in the country of origin is wasential in thw l
10 international market.
We plan to reference the PDA 11 and seek country-specific solutions to thw open issuws j
12 for opportunities offshore.
l
}
13
- Finally, the successful completion of thw 14 SP/90 PDA will make available additions 1 resources, l
t 15 both on the part of the staff as well as Westinghouse, 16 to work on the procedures and processes necessary to 17 implement Part 52 and to proceed with the design and j
18 certification effort for the smaller passive designs.
i 19 (Slide)
Nwxt slide.
l 20 We believe it is practical to have the SP/90 21 PDA issuwd by April 1990.
The necessary ACRS reviews 22 can be completed by that timw.
We believe that no i
23 more than two subcommittee meetings should be required j
24 and one of those is scheduled for the day after
}-
25 tomorrow.
One full committee meeting should be able NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSc".:0ERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE N W (act) 336 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (207) 232 6 L.
r 20 t
l 1
to be held by March.
We are meeting with the staff
..h i
2 tomorrow to discuss our approach to the open items and t
3 completing the RESAR reviww.
I 4
The fww severe accident issuws that are 3
5 still not resolved, in particular the need for 6
containment venting, would bw defwrred until thw FDA t
7 application.
By that
- time, thw EPRI utility
[
8 requirweents document SER will bw issued and we can 9
take advantage of thw effort expwnded in developing 10 inCustry-wide standard approaches to the swvure i
11 accident issuws.
12 In thw draft SER, thw opwn issuws which 13 cannot be resolved on a timely basis should also be 14 addressed at the FDA stage.
Therv is no bunwfit that 15 we can see to closing each of thwsw issues at the FDA i
16
- stage, i
17 (Slide)
Next slide.
1 18 In the longer term, we would like to be able
,i i
19 to incorporate the benefit of the EPRI utility i
20 requirwments document in the FDA application.
The i
E.
21 SP/90 was submitted for review prior to the EPRI 22 documents being developed.
Whila many of the SP/90 l
23 features have been incorporated into the document, 24 thwre may be features in the final document that 25 receives the SER that are worthwhile going back to 7
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENVE. N W e
(302) 2M 4433 wASHINGTot4, D C 20006 (202) 232 ee00
I.
i 21 1
incorporate in thw final SP/90 design.
2 We will submit the SP/90 for a final design 3
' approval when ww believe the market conditionw are 4
appropriate.
5 (Slidw)
Nwxt slidw.
I 6
In summary, the standardization of nuclear 7
plant design is necessary for the rwturn of thw 8
nuclear options in the United States.
The new 10 CFR r
9 Part 52 has features required to put standardization 10 into practice, although certain changes are nweded.
11 In addition, significant effort is required to 12 implement Part 52.
We bwlieve that developing the l
t l.
13 implementation processes should bw given a top 14 priority by the staff.
13 (Slide)
Next slide.
16 Westinghouse has standard design programs 17 that are responsive to what we see that merket neuding 18 over the next decade.
The SP/90 meets the need for
'19 large plants, which we swe as being offshore.
We 1
20 believe that the SP/90 PDA review should be wrapped up i
21 by April 1,990.
For the douwstic market, the AP600 r
22 provides a plant responsive to utility nweds, targeted 23 for certification by 1994.
I 24 We fully support the ongoing development of 25 the EPRI ALWR utility requirements document as it NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(302) m WASHINGTON. D C 20006 (202) 232-0800
t-3.
22 1
impacts both the evolutionary and passive plant i
LO l
2 designs.
l
[
h-3 Ww believe that thw EPAI utility I
r 4
rwquirements document is the appropriate vehicle to l
5 devwlop resolution betwwwn the utilities, designwrs 6
and regulators of genwric issuws, such as severe i
7 accidents, facing the industry today.
As such, we i
8 urge thw staff to place an emphasis on completing the j
i 9
SER on the evolutionary plant document and to review i
i 10 the passive plant document in a timely manner.
[
11 I appreciatw this opportunity to provide the i
12 Westinghousw viwwpoint on advanewd plant dirwetions i
13 and would be pleased to respond to any questions you 14 may have, j
i 15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Ken?
i 16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Are you in a position t
17 to provide any data on core damage frequency and 18 conditional containment failure probabilities on thw 19 SP/907 t
20 MR. CASO:
The analysis that was done did i
21 result in evaluation of the core frequency and 22 releases from the SP/90 which are in excess or smaller 23 than the requirements specified by the EPRI document 24 by about an order of magnitude.
We have not completed 25 the evaluation of external avant, waiting for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REFoRTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUL N W.
(202) 236 4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20006 (202) 232 4 600
.g
.,=.
o 23 e
1
_ evaluation that is being done generic by thw HRC.
I 2
think Bill Johnson can expand on thw specifics.
i.
3 MR. JOHNSON:
Right.
The analyswa that has t
4 bwwn prwwwntwd in the RESAR SP/90 application l
5 dwtwamine a core damagw frwquency of approxiina tely 6
1.3x10 6 and the probability of swver= relwese,
[-
(
'7 frwquwncy of severe, significant rw1wasw of 3x10-'.
i.
8 Thosw are substantial improvements relative 9
to thosw that arw typical for current plants and F
i 10 resulted from a nuinbwr of the improvwd dvsign fwaturws i
11 that had been wvolywd in the developmwnt of the SP/90 12 from its inception in '19 8 3, primarily coming from 13 reduction ist rwliance on opwrator actions, reduced 14 corw linwar powwr heating, thw placement of the core 15 lower in the overall system to reducw the effect of l
16
- LOCAs, core uncovery, improved reliabilities of 17 emwtgency feedwater systems and approved reliabilities 18 in additional systems for air to coolant pump support 19 systems.
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Now, those evaluations 21 were done only for intwrnal events though, I take it?
j.
22 MR.
JOHNSON:
That's correct..
They were 23 done --
g 24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
While awaiting t h e '--
25 MR. JOHNSON:
That's right.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (20P) N WASHINGTON. O C 20006 (202) 232m
,a 24 1
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Did you do a
0
~
2 conditional containment failure probability?
3 MR. JOHNSON:
We did not particularly do a 4
conditional containment failure probability.
We have 5
taken an approach to primarily work toward the safety 6
goal philosophivs in terms of core damagw frequwncy
[
7 and frequency of severe release.
We have prioritizwd 8
our work on absolute probability, if you will.
9 Similar to 'what you heard somewhat warlier, 1
10 in terms of conditional c o n t a i n an e n t failure 11 probabilities, they, by nature, have to exclude some t
12 sequences of particularly low probability and c
13
. theref ore 'we have primarily adopted an app' roach
{
]
14 targeted towards the safety goal type criteria.
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Can you say something I
16 about the reduced operator actions requirement of the 17 SP/90 design problem?
l 4
18 MR.
JOHNSON:
Yes.
One of the keys, for
)
i 19 example, in that regard is the elimination of switch 20 over during a large break loss of coolant from 21 injection to recirculation by yirtue of the inside 22 containment storage tank which eliminates one of the 23 areas which PRA had shown as being one of the higher 24 demands on operator action requirements, one of the j
)
25 key areas.
J NEAL R. GROSS j
COURT F1EPoRTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(BN) N WASH 6NGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 232-8000
!( '
.i o
25 1.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
To what extwnt is this l
i 2
a totally manually opwrated rwactor?
To what extwnt t
h 3
do you rely on automatic controls?
I d'
MR. JOHNSON:
For the most part, the rwactor
[
S is manually opwratud.
The control systems, huwevwr, i
L 6
as most of the advanewd control sy s t wtus, has an i
f.
7 integrated protwetion system and is microprocessor 8
- baswd, and does involyw a substantial amount of L
9 control fwatures which reduce the burden un thw 10 opwrator.
But from a fundamental standpoint, it is a i
11 manually driven machinw.
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Coluing back to thw 13 EPRI design rwquiremwnts documwnt, do I undetstand 1
that you view your i
14
.corrwetly that your design will 15 completion of your design s ubinis sions to follow thw o
16 EPRI design requirements document?
t 17 MR. CASO:
In large amount, yes.
I think it 18 does follow significantly the --
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I mean sequentially 20
- follow, i
21 MR. CASO:
No.
Ww -- wwquantially in timw?
i 22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Yes, i
23 MR.
CASO:
No.
This model was devwluped i
24 before thw EPRI requirements document won genutoted.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I understand that, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRibEM 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (302) m WASHINGTON.DC 20006 (202) 232 6 L..
26 l
1
_then you are prepared to rwspond to that though, I 2
take it.
3 MR. CASO:
Yes.
We definitely will hayw to i
4 look at the design that we have, vis-a-vis the EPRI 5
design document.
So Iar, ww identify no major 6
discrepancies betwwwn the requirements document and 7
the plant as we have it.
Dwfinitely, ww have not i
8 identified issues in terms of the safety criteria.
9 There may be some operating paramwters that may and up i
10 to be slightly different from the recommended EPRI I
11 re:guiremwnts, but no problems.
And, of course, as we 12 indicated, we still have to factor in thw severv 13 accident considerations.
14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
What is your 15 strategy with respect to deferring severe accident and I
16 open SER issues to the final design approval?
How are i
17 you dealing with that?
Isn't that postponing i
i 18 something a little bit late?
19 MR. CASO:
Well, at this point in time, we 20 have completed the, design of the plant innd there is no r
21 specific need being identified from any utility to 22 build such a plant.
We plan to proceed and to i
23 complete a design and the application for the FDA for 24 the final design approval at the time when an interest 25 is going to be expressed.
The nearest opportunity for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W 902) m WASHINGTON, D C 20005 p02) 2326
y 7
07 1.
1 application of this plant is for a plant in Japan i
l 2
which yield to site difficulties and so on, is not t.
3 something that has natured as fast as we would have 4
expected.
i 5
So at this point in time, we believe that we.
6 will benefit by having the generic discussion of the t
7 severe accident through the EPRI requirements document
[
I 8
and then backfit and evaluate the changes which we may I
9 introduce.
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Thank you.
11 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Jim?
12 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I have a number of 13 things I want to cover.
I'll begin with what I think
]
14 your message is, if I could distill it.
15 What. you're looking on the SP/90 for us to i
16 do is to issue thw PDA by April of
'90, and to 17 complete the work on the evolutionary requirements 18 document that EPRI has underway to approve that.
i 19 At the same time, I take it from what you've 20 said that you view the market for thw SP/90 or any 21 reactor of that class to be almost exclusively i
22 foreign.
In fact, of the three presenters today, I I
f 23 guwss you've made the strongest statement, that you 24 see the market for those reactors existing not in the 25 United States but in foreign countries.
And in turn, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) N WASHINGTON O C. 20006 (202) 232-6830
o i
o l
(!
1 you said that the question of prioritivs and our focus x
-)
2 On the requirements document in the passive area ought 3
to be driven by what I think you said were the 4
domestic expressions of interest that wo see emergw.
[
5 I guess the question that I have is, in view 6
of those various statwments, what's the rar,ionale for i
7 asking thw Agency to do anything on thw SP/90, 8
including issuance of thw PDA, and to go forward with 9
completion of the EPRI requirenwnts document from your i
10 perspective -- I realize there are others that have an l
11 interest in that but to complete the evolutionary F
12 requirements document, if in fact we takw as a given 13 your statemwnt that thw interest is almost exclusively 14 international in that arena?
15 MR. CASO:
Okay.
As I indicated, the work 16 for the SP/90 is for all practical purposes completed.
17 We have been working on this since 1983.
"We" means 18 Westinghouse and the NRC and the staff have been l
19 working since 1983.
And being only a few months away 20 from the completion, I feel that it is appropriate to 21 put a ribbon around all the effort that has been done P
P 22 and not waste all the effort that has been spent in 23 the last several years.
24 So we are not requesting to dedicate a very s
25 high level of effort, but we believe that we can NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $
1323 CHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W Q02) W WASH:NGToN. D C 20006 (202) 232M O
29 1
complete this undwr thw assumption that I describwd 2
previously and which will be discussed with the staff 3
in the next few days.
We can complate this effort 4
rwasonably quickly and get to the situation where we 5
have at least closed in the proper bindwr and thw 6
proper situation thw effort that has been expendvd to I
7 date.
8 As I indicatwd, while there are countries 9
internationally that do not specifically require a 10 stamp of approval from thw regulatory entitivs in thw 11 United States, there are definitely other countrivs t
12 that do not intend to dwvwlop their own specific 13 processes and' criteria and they rely heavily on thw 14 United States' approval.
And' theref ore, to have a 15 design approval will benefit in that process.
Given 16 thw fact that ww are such a short distance awey from 17 that process, I think it makes sense to do it.
t 18 The other thing is that a lot of work has 19 bewn done to complete several discussions and items.
20 And if we don't, if we're not to complete this effort, 21 this will potentially come up again in the future 22 discussion.
So I think it is of benefit for us to 23 complete this, f
24 Relative to the r equirernwn ts document for 25 evolutionary plant presented by EPRI, as you are well NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (m) m)
WASHINGTON O C. P0006 (M) 232M
F s..
30 1
aware the evolutionary requiremwnts document has bwwn 2
for all practical purposes submitted for rwview, 3
except for one volumw, the MMI, while thw submission 4
of the documwnts for thw passive plant has not 5
happwned yet.
6 second thing, it is our undwratanding that =
7 significant portion of thw evolutionary requirements 8
document is going to be utilized for the passive 9
document.
All the major principle introduction and 10 several of the chaptwrs that are not directly affweted 11 by the different safety concepts will be the same.
12 Therefore, for thesw reasons, we 'bwlieve 13 that there is a significant a'dvantage to proceed right 14 away on an expeditious basis in ordwr not to waste any 15 time to rwach the completion of the LWR.
16 The basic point bwhind the summary that you 17 presented summarizing our presentation, the basic 18 point is that I strongly feel that the success that wo 19 have had in nuc1 war area in other countrivs versus 20 some of the problems that we've experienced in this 21 country is because other countriws,had more hoinogenous 1
22 approach because of their institutional arrangements 23 which allowed them to have a much more standardized 24 process.
]
25 I believe strongly that in order to have a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 232M
31 i
1 successful return of nac1 war power, ww must movw in l
2 the direction of having a standardized process.
I do 3
not sew how we can have a standardized process if we 4
build only one or two plants becauso we will go back 5
exactly where ww were bwfor=,
where ww have a l
6 combination and permutation of four vendors and 18 AEs 7
and so many utilitiws.
t 8
I think we have to arrive to the point wharv 9
we use a plan to design a set of requirumwnts and 10 documents that arv going to bw used for many plants, 11 to the point many being definitely more than three or 12 f our -- hopef ully we ' re going to make many more than 13 that -- that will allow really to use the concept'of a
]
14 standard design.
It is for these rwasons that I 15 really belicve we have to work on the passive reactor 16 and it's for this reason that I rcally strongly feel 17 we should accelerate the effort to reach that goal.
18 The completion of the SP/90 and the 19 evaluation of the evolutionary modul is a stwp that 20 allows us to make quick progresses in the direction of 21 evaluating the passive requirements document.
22 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
- Wwil, as I say, 23 you've taken a much stronger stand than the other two 24 vendors that made presentations today that t.h e market
)
25 in the States will be for the passive generation of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W por) 3364e33 WASH'NGTON. D C 20006 (202) 232 6
f.
,v 32 i
o 1
plants, thw smaller, more modular plants that you and t
2 others are working on and not the evolutionary class 3
of plants.
I guess I'm just curious in view of the b
4 differwnce bwtwwen your position and the others.
l-5 Could you wxpand upon what's led you to that 6
conclusion in a much stronger way than the others have 7
set forth?
8 MR. CASO:
Yes.
Wwil, I hopw becausa my 9
crystal ball is shiniwr than thw other ones.
But 10 indwpendently of this capability to predict thw 11
- future, I
think it's essentially the need for 12 atandardization, commissioner.
I really believw that 13 if we have to get the benefit of standardization, wo
]
14 have to use a model of plant design that is going to 15 be utilized by swveral utilities, by many utilities.
16 I have difficulties to see the evolutionary 17 plant as being able to provide the same benefits in 18 terms of general acewptability by thw different 19 utilities and standardization that the passive plant 20 will have.
21 So, if you look at some utilities, they may 22 decide that they did not need standardization, they 23 have enough standardization within themselves to be 24 able to take a design and internalize it and use the
]
25 processes for maintenance of operation, for traininy NEAL R. GROSS COUR1 REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND HENUE. N W (202) N WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 232 6600
T
?
}
1 and whatever is newded for operating the plant and t
F 2
achieve benefits within their own operation even 1
3 though the designs are different.
I 4
But if you want to intwgrate and reach a 5
standardization that is a broadwr application, I think 6
you have to get to the point where you have a modwl 7
that has acceptance not only by a few utilities but 8
many utilities.
And in this context, I think thw 9
passive reactor offers characteristics that erw more 10 generally acceptable.
11 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Is that an 12 attractiveness that is a function of the size of the 13 reactor,'in your judgment, or the profabricated aspect 14 or the modular aspect of these plants or their passive 15 features or a combination of those?
16 MR. CAso:
Well, I would take aliuost all the 17 items you said without the pass in my mind, the 18 passive interywnes because of the newd to simplify the 19 plant once you reduce the size.
There is nothing that 20 says that you cannot reach the same level of core melt 21 frequency without using a passive, using active 22 systems.
W are designing a sizeable plant in thw 23 U.K.
which has a
similar level of core melt 24 frequencies and releases, but it has been achieved e
25 with active components.
So, you can reach the same NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBFHS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W pg) m WASHINGTON D C. 200M (202) 232 4 600
y_
(
34 l
1 level without the componwnts, so, the passive wiement L
)
2 comes in as the need for simplification.
~
3 I believe the items that lwad to this j
4 conclusion are more thw other items you muutioned.
i 5
Given thw fact that the return of nuclear puwer would 6
probably entail s different relationship between the 7
entities involved in the construction of the plant, l
8 between the vendor, the AE, the utilities, thw 9
bankers, the public utility commissions. and so en, given 10 the fact that the relation is going to be different, I l
11 think we must be in a situation where we can 12 demonstrate the capability of the plant to operate i
13 properly, to be operated on an economic manner which 14 means not only construct.ed at low price, low cost, in 15 which case intervene with modularization and the c u r. t i
16 certain and schedule certain.
But also that it has a 17 low value for operating and maintenanew, which 18 involves simplification.
So, all these items tend to 19 be tied together.
20 Now, when you look at the capabilities some 21 smaller utilities may have or the capability to i
22 collect money on the street, at Wall Street, you see 23 that the responsibility relative to the risk for the r
24 construction, for the operation, for the efficiency is
~..O 25 going to be distributed on a different basis.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVR1 REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1N3 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (302) N WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 232 6 1
35 1-I believe ~ the rwturn on nuclear power is
[
3 voing to rwquire the vendors to takw a different and 3
higher level of responsibility.
I don't think we--
4 it is not going to be sufficient to do what was done 5
in the '70s, wherw the vendors suppliwu the plant and 6
basically relinquished thwir responsibility.
The risk
[
7 would be much morw closely allocated to those that can i
8 control thw risk.
And to the txtent that thw supplier f
9 can control the schedule and the cost, we will have to f
10 be probably called to support thet.
11 To the extent that the availability is going 12 to be a condition in order to be able to collect money i
13 from Wall Street, then somebody will have t'o be j
14 responsible.
The user will be ' required to guarantee 15 some kind of reliability, t
16 Now, all of this requires a greater level of 17 standardization and a greater level of knowledge and i
18 capability to control.
[
19 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Let me shift to one i
20 final topic.
You've had a greater list of suggestions 21
,than the other two vendors had about the Part 52 22 process.
I asked each of them if they had any 23 suggestions or thoughts about the Part 52 procedures i
24 now that they're on the books and they've had an 25 opportunity to take a lovk at them.
Early on in your NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) W WASHINGTON. O C,20006 (202) 232 8000
36 o
1 presentation you gave us a list of areas wherv wither L ]
2 the industry or the Commission or the both of us newd i
3 to devote some additional attention.
4 There are two on that list that I guess I'd 5
like to ask you about, the inspections, tests and 6
analyses and the acceptance criteria.
You mentioned 7
that NUMhRC is working on that issue.
Do you seu thw 8
challenge there as one that rests primarily with the 9
industry in determining how to come up with thw 10 inspections, twsts and analyses that the ruiu requirss 11 or is it a quwstion of some need for clarification in 12 more detail than the rule sets forth as to exactly 13 what level of' inspections, tests and analyses wu w'ill 14 require?
15 MR.
CASO:
It cannot be the industry by 16 itself.
That's clear.
There is no way the industry 17 by itself can resolve the problem.
There is going to 18 be a need to reach a consensus between the NRC and the 19 industry on what is really needed.
There is no --
20 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I guess I thought the 21 rule was clear on that point.
22 MR. CASO:
Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I don't have Part 52 24 with me, but I gather it said something to the effect
)-
25 that we'd like to see, up front, all the inspections, NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) M33 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 232 4800
37 1
tests and analyses necessary togethwr with the i
l 2
design --
3 MR. CASO:
That's right.
4 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
nwcessary to 5
demonstrate the acceptability of thw plant.
Is thwrw 6
something that's unclear about that?
7 MR. CASO:
No, no.
It is not a matter of 8
the rule.
9 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
10 HR. CASO:
I apologizw.
But I was juct 11 going to specifically say that we don't sww the need 12 to change the rule, ww sew the need to havw a 13 significant amount of work to define what is going to 14 be included in this inspection, test and acceptanew 15 criteria.
We don't see those issues, those criteria 16 to be limited to the design process by itself.
For 17 example, one of the issues that could be included is 18 the emergency plan.
What are the criteria that one 19 would have to satisfy in order for the emergency plan 20 to be approved once the plant is built?
So, we have i
21 to define all this.
The only reason to raise it is 22 not to say, " Change the rule."
The reason to raise it 23 is there is a significant amount of work that needs to 24 be done and we'd butter get on with it 25 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W qm WASHINGTON. D C 20006 (N2) 2326
ft".
t--
e o
38 if we want to achivve thw 1
HR. CASO:
2 rwsuit by 1994.
i j
3 There is another item whwrw I said that I l
r
[
4 think there is
- t. need for -- maybe therw's going to bw I
i i
5 e nwwd for a change in the rule and that is zelated to 6
the swcond hwaring where we havw to define what 7
wxactly the second hwaring is, whethwr that is going i
[
i 8
to bw achieved with or without thw changw in thw rulv.
t 9
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Actually, the second i
i 10 arva that I was interested in had to do with the t
1 11 wmergwncy plan provisions.
In your presentation you l
12 auggwsted that we take a look at thw feasibility of 13-applying thw inspwetions, twsts and analyses auptoach i
14 to emergency planning.
So, I gather,from what you say f
15 that the acceptability of the wmergency plan could not t
16 only be presented on paper, but demonstrated in some 17 way-through a set of inspections, tests and analyses 18 up front and litigated at the COL stage.
f h.
19-I guess the question th a t.
I have is isn't
[
i 20 that what, in effect, an exercise is today?
It is a I
21 test of sorts of the emergency plan.
I'm curious t.o 22 know if you have any thoughts at this point that go 23 beyond what kind of ins pec t. ion,
tests and analysis h
i 24 that we do today.
l 25 MR. WIESEMANN:
I think the problem is that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WA$HINGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 232 6000
c 39 i
1 there is no standard at the present time.
The court
)-
2 was unable to find a standard for accepting an i
Basically, I think the staff or the 4
Commission took the position that the purpose of the t
5 test was to dwtwrmine whether the plan was acceptabla 6
or not.
So, it was sort of, "You do it, we'll look at 7
it and we'll tell you what needs to bw fixwd."
8 The approach that the court lett the door 9
open for us was that, "If you could come up in advanew 10 with what are the requirements for an acceptable 11 emergency plan."
We think that there have been enough 12 o5 them prepared it should be possible to identify 13 what are 'the elements of a succwasful emergency plan, 14 Once you've identified those wiements, to identify 15 what it is that needs to be done to demonstrate t.ha t 16 each of those elements are in place, and what are the 17 acceptance criteria by which you're going to judge 18 whether or not they are adequate or not, and once 19 that's done, then what the -- you still may want to do 20 the exwrcise because you don't want people to enter 21 into this program for the first time when it's really 22 needed.
But the plan then serves a different purpose.
23 Instead of being there to determine whether the plan 24 is acceptable or not, it's there to determine whether 25 or not the people are to demonstrate that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRt0ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (N2) N WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 232 6600
p, 40 1
people are knowledgeable about the plan and can s
2 perform the functions --
l 3
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
What you essentially 4
have to do is come up with a test that permits some 5
sort of objective evaluation.
6 MR. WIESEMANN:
Right.
7 COMMISSIONFR CURTISS:
If you come up with 8
an exercise that requires some kind of subjective 9
evaluation, I gather the court was saying that's not 10 the kind of inspection, test and analyses that we 11 normally think of when you go out and run your diesels 12 for 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> or do the kinds of inspections, tests 13 and analyses that we typically thought ofe 14 I don't want to pursue it here any further, 15 but I'd be interested, I guess, at som.* point, to hear i
16 the tnoughts of anybody on the subject of whether it's l
17 possible to come up with the kind of inspec*. ions, 18 tests and analyses in the emergency planning context 19 that do lend themswives to objective verification.
20 That's all I have, Tom.
i 21 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Well, we thank you i
22 for coming and thank you for a very interesting 23 presentation.
We'll adjourn.
24 (Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m.,
the above entit.lud
~
25 matter was adjourned.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 13n OHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W gg) m WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (m) n24M00
c; j
'o f
f CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting f
i of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Connaission entitledt t
i TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING BY VESTINGHOUSE ON ADVANCED PWR PROGRAM j
PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND f
i 9
DATE OF MEETINC NOVEMBER 1. 1989 j
were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription j
i is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the f
transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
I ffe_. _
o_,
4 i
t Reporter's namet Peter Lynch
,.e i
b l
i r
i f
i a
u HEAL R. GROSS COURT hepostgas AND TaANSCRIslR$
1333 RNoct ISLAND AY9NUG. N.W.
(308)24.M33 WASHINef0N. DL 20005 (202) 232 6600
.-,y,.
- , w w
c.
)
7.
11/1/89 SCHEDULING NOTES
Title:
Briefing by Westinghouse on Advanced PWR Program Scheduled:
2:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 1, 1989 (OPEN) l
' Duration:
Approx 1 hr f
Participants:
Westinobr:gst 60 mins
- Carlo Caso, General Manager
- Industry Perspective Nuclear and Advanced
- Westinghouse Perspective Technology Divisions
- SP/90 Status r
- Brian McIntyre, Manager Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing
- Bill Johnson, Manager Nuclear Safety Department t
e t-A,.--
w------_.~,-.m.-
--,.v
-.~_,
e-
- ~, -. -,...
,-...-,.,w,.
~#..
m.
- -- - - ---~ - - --
W l WESTINGHOUSE ELacTaxc CORPORATION i
s i
u L
A PaEssNTATION TO THE i
l::
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0l#1ISSION ON THE
' WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION ADVANCED PWR PROG. RAMS RocKvILLE, 2 NovsMasa 1, 1989 i
J e
6 w
....---...--..------..-.-.._....,,,...+...-,-~.~-.--e.,,-r.-,we,.-,-.--,.,.,,..r.--,-.---.,*,
['.
~ I. '
t-WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION l,
i
(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRIEFING j
ADVANCED PWR PROGRAMS NOVEMBER 1, 1989 CARLO CASO, GENERAL MANAGER, t
NUCLEAR AND ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DIVISION I.
INTRODUCTION A. INDUSTRY PERS.PECTIVE B. WESTINGHOUSE PERSPECTIVE C. WESTINGHOUSE PLANT PROGRAM
SUMMARY
II.
SP/90 STATUS A. DESIGN
- 8. NRC REVIEW C. DIRECTIONS III. SUMARY 9
.----,.,,-,....m-_.,m,,,,,,-,-om,
..,n,,.,
, _,,,.., _,,,_mm.
..--mw.,,--
ar,,--
i,
,l l
l:
' i
_y-
,?
~
- c. '
y N
O N
I O
T I
A S
R ES OS H I.
PM D
TM RA N
Y9 CR R1 NY IP A
ORE R
M IOH TR 1
IM SE EC VE ER SN KV R
HD R
AE GA L
N C
I U
T N
SEW i!
.i:;k!
l!}il 1
- ll; li, it1l!,
s
L
..i i
LICENSING CERTAINTY W
l 1
1 l
t 1
o REQUIRED BY DOMESTIC NUCLEAR MARKET 1
i o
DESIGN CERTIFICATION LICENSABILITY OF DESIGN E
0 STANDARDIZATION RULEMAKING l
l IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGN - ITAAC LICENSABLE AFTER CONSTRUCTION i
j l
l i
1
~
k I
i i
I i
+
a
--.a.
e- - - - - -----------. - - - - -,
q l
1 l
l l
i N
i e
E W
g 3
=
M M
L M
M r
W M
W WQ w
- U.
14.
M O
QC i
W M
E 1
l M
GC 3 W
MM f3
- 1
. mE OW Ra.
W WM O
U M
18 m"
5 M
M M
J m
M MMMJ Las
>JQO u
mMWM M
>= W W J
M 3 E AC et 4.,
W I
I O
g l
I -
G A
we-eeww-=-w-we-e--ews ee
.---ee--e e--e-e, e
..w
==ew
,-swe
- *. -e--o-
--=-----.,e-e--o---o-w w,-
m
--e.- ---
ee-meme w
. owe
, = =- - - - ---o-
-ww--m-we-----m-e--een-w---=-
~
l
~
i l
EMPHASIS NEEDED W
l o
STAFF IMPLEMENTATION OF PART 52 l
ITAAC ENVIROl5tENTAL IMPACT ISSUES l
EMERGENCY PLAN PROVISIONS CERTIFICATION RULEMAKING l
PROCEDURES PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 1
FORMAT & CONTENT OF D.C.
APPLICATION FORMAT & CONTENT OF D.C.
RULE INTERFACE WITH NON-CERTIFIED
.l l
DESIGN ASPECTS l
l l
\\
_ ~
~ ~. - ~ -. ~....... ~.... -.. - -. ~... _ -.... ~ ~... - -. <. ~ -....
+~~-,n.-~...~.-.._--...+,.~.
.~ j l
e i
l l
I.'
I i
L-M A
I e
M M
U w
as W
O E
O b
W W
N
' e MM W
3W W
GB E
M WM MM
.M WM M
M ME M
W WW t
>m M I
3W
.J NW 3
M W
es af W
EL O at S.
Wb O
O 4
e G
Y
. +. -
- , =..
....,.-.,.......---...-..---,.t....-~...--.------.---w,...-r..--.-,-..,...-,----J-,--...-~..~..-.-.....-..%-x..--
--4
i l
WESTINGHOUSE PERSPECTIVE T
l.
I o
EVOLUTIONARY PLANT PROGRAMS l
MODELS DEFINED DESIGN APPROVALS NEAR COMPLETION l
i DESIGN CERTIFICATION UPON 1
i COMPLETION OF-l 1
1.
PROCEDURES-FOR IMPLEMENTATION 2.
RESOLUTION OF TECHNICAL-ISSUES (EPRI REQ DOC) i t
-i
~
l' L
l-
~ " ~
' ~ ~
+
e
< ~
.y L
WESTING l100SE PERSPECTIVE (CONT')
o PASSIVE PLANT PROGRAMS CONCEPTS DEFINED l
CERTIFICATION PROCESS INITIATED APPLICATION OF EVOLUTIONARY j
l REQUIREMENTS l
EARLY ISSUE RESOLUTION MARKET READY WITHIN NEXT DECADE I
I l
r l
I i.
.-~
J
a s5+
s a
,w.,-
+.,.+.+
=--e v - e
.,.a-r----e- - - - - --., - - -.----,- - - - - --,- ---- - -
l.*-
i g
, (
-t, k,
9 -
i l
,(
0 4
' i s,.>
[
t I
i I
i 6
l '-
)
{'
l-M W
L
.g l
M l-
. u.
M t
w-M U
I i
W
&W i
.to AC M M
M-N IdJ u
E I.
W IaJ W W iE
- 5.C n.:
Um W-
. M O M.
G 2
G3O W
L8J: Q W M
- aC M GC 3
O et 2 Ell 3J
- e
- Jc E'
CM M
W W
M OC U M
QC LaJ Ch.
3 BAJ I
I 1
1 O
no,-
e
- a v.a.n.e'..r..aw-
,.,-..,..--..,_-....-,,--.n....---,..-
,,-.,u..n--,,,,nn-,.,en a nn-m m-w w w we,- a m e--
>,,.,.,we,.e,,--v,.we, a
..p.-
4 a
a-,-
,-a c
- as 4
--%.aa-.,
.a.
s.
emam.._m_ e. a s..,=
.e--*-s,*ss a4-,,.,--u.--a-2 a.
a A
e u
4...
.y O
7 s
8 J
AC E
g M
M
>=
m E
N M
4 M
es in m.
db db g
J W
4 4
G8 o
o
>=
>= M 6
Og
>=
1 WE EE i
>W o
L m
w e-.
MM R&R M
M m
>=
aC WW n
3 M
es. J J
O db 3
. db B
O O
M C5 W
us m
W LaJ eg
)
3 W
M et es E (J L
M l:
>=
O O
O O
O.pt Mg NdL L
M e w y
..-w~eA---*-
v--.wy%., - - - - -......
,-,w--,-.---n,s.-.
. - + -
,.,--,.-w.---,
_-...~..--._,,---,.-._---,-1.-
-.,....--mm._,,..e
~
=
~
WESTINGHOUSE SP 90 PROGRAM
SUMMARY
~
~
Il 1983 ll 1984 H 1985~ 111986 ll 1987 ll 1988 l l1989 H1990L i,
l sP/MO 1
J
_ _ _a
_a u
ma i
gAsg uocutg a*
J PRA sueurtTAR.
ge 3
L oRarr sei n
l g
o g g-a gig g
y l
f I
1 l
Acas Ag A
a a g:4 l
i suecouurrTEE l
3 I
i e
4 i
g i
A Wg-Acas Fuu.
j couurtTEE W
f l
W l
l t
l j
gj J
g.
l t
couutssioN g
(
BRIEFING 3
l j
j g
j j
i l
s l
l i
l l
l l
3 g
g PDA l
6 g
g l
3 l
j g
l 4 gj FDA APPucAM :
(PENDING l
i j
CoNTRACQ j
{
L
)
\\
l 02:14 I
l i
,_ ~ ~ - ~.., -.
,______.___-_.______________.m_1____A
(___
+ - _.. -.. - - - _.
_.. ~.
... _ - _. ~ _ ~. _. _
.. - - - -.. - ~. ~....
'h 6_
<y(
g e
l OW M
W 3
4M>
>t M e
M
\\
L WW E
WE M
E EW E
l M
E WM W 133 MM j
M3 OO l
O O
N GC et OW E&
4 W et W
L O
d6 ME ed O>
MC 3
J>
WM t
J WM Q>
l M
4
>d 4
WM Cl3 U W
W id OW WM M
2 3
J 14-3 M
E WN MM C
M EN 4>
E M
O M SC
> GC W
4 O
W&
WW E
e da W QW MNM oo O
O O
W O
3 e
c6 I
4 l
1 l'
i l
1 l
WESTINGHOUSE' ADVANCED PWR PROGRAM
SUMMARY
i
[1' I
sees I
teso 1
1est i
19e2 1
1993 I
too4 I
soes I
sP/90 DRAFT SER A
A A
(
suecouunTEE i
ACRS FULL A
COMMITTEE l
PDA A
~
i l
FDA 4
(PENDING W j
APPUCAMON l
l APSOO i
EARLY SAFETY A............ A REVIEW i
i LICENSING M
REVIEW BASIS t
SUBMITTAL 3
FINAL DESIGN i
1 1
APPROVAL l
1 j
DESIGN i
1 l
s 1
CERTIFICATION "j
l' 01:14 l
)
[
1 k
I i
-...-3.
..-3.x
.y
SP/90 INTERMEDIATE DESIGN IS COMPLETE o
INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION o
HIGHER RATED OUTPUT j
I o
PRA BASED DESIGN o
CONVENTIONAL SAFETY SYSTEM CONCEPTS i
o DEDICATED SAFETY SYSTEMS
.i l
l 0
INCREASED MARGIN
-i i
l l
i I
l a
i
L l
g
.[
l
~
SP/90 INTERMEDIATE. DESIGN IS COMPLETE o
STATE-OF-THE-ART DIGITAL CONTROL i
AND PROTECTION SYSTEMS l
l 0
REDUCED OPERATOR ACTIONS l:
I o
NO FURTHER TE$ TING OR DEVELOPMENT i
o AVAILABLE IN VERY NEAR FUTURE AV F
0 N LWR DESIGN i
j I
1 f
i l
l l
l i
t l
.i i
SP/90 REVIEW STATUS W l l
l PRA FRONT END DRAFT SER 3/21/88 i
l t
AUXILIARY REVIEW DRAFT SER 6/10/88 l
SYSTEMS REVIEW DRAFT SER 3/9/89
~
PRA BACK END
- DRAFT SER i
EXPECTED 11/89 1
i USI/GSI RESOLUTIONS, DRAFT SER j
& REG CONFORMANCE EXPECTED EARLY l
1990 4
1 i
4 i
i
e
\\
~
s
. m W
N O
W e4 m!$
NMm M
U C3 1
- E as W
E O
M E
W N
O M
U W
W W
t m-as m
CD ed aC O
W O
W m
C5
.4 E
W u
W 6
W 4
O JMW D
E M
Q m
S W
EWJ W
m et C aC E
M S
b W
W M
O A.
C3 E
SC M
W MgM M'
3 mE 5
ES E
M M.
m.
W MM v
- = = =
en D
4>
WO4 4
J uW m
ME-to of I
O M SC W
>>W W
CD i
l b
3 W W aC 3
l W
M aC e
as E M m
J 1
M N4 m
D (n
4 4m M
U2O M
l JW OC LaJ uJ O
l u og Z E ag l..
l
?
g i
- ~
-}
Ow"
~
WESTINGHOUSE PF.RSPECTIVE 0F PDA FOR RE5AR-SP/90
~
l COMPLETED WITH A. CLEAR INDICATION 1
o DOCUMENTS THE REVIEW THAT HAS BEEN OF WHAT ACTIONS NEED TO DE
~ '
COMPLETED FOR FDA/DC o
" PRELIMINARY" NRC STAFF SAFETY EVALUATION OF DESIGN FEATURES i
i l
l i
i i
l f
l i
.. -.~
J
~
l l
l WESTINGROUSE PERSPECTIVE 0F PDA FOR RESAR SP/90 (CONT')
l 0
" PRELIMINARY" NRC STAFF SAFETY l
EVALUATION OF SAFETY ANALYSES o
PROVIDES FOR RESOLUTION OF " SEVERE ACCIDENT ISSUES" AFTER EPRI-UTILITY REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT SAFETY EVALUATION O
L.
____...__m_
_m-
r 4
i BENEFITS OF SP/90 PDA COMPLETION I
l 0
PRESERVES EXPENDITURE OF EFFORT l
INVESTED l
0 FORMALIZES AGREEMENTS REACHED TO l
DATE o
SUPPORTS MARKET FOR LARGE PLANTS, OFFSHORE l
i O
ALLOWS STAFF TO FOCUS ON PART 52 IMPLEMENTATION i
i i
t
l'
~*
~
ir.
[-
0 9
A 9
AD 1
DF F
O L
OT-I T
R S
P STE M
A WNU EES A
IDS R
Y G
B VII O
E EC R
V A-RCR P
ID AE
~
TP S
S 0
C RED 9
E0 CR
/
J9 AEN P
B /.
VE S
OP EEP S
TSO M
E RE YLRR EU GPEE TS EMFF S
TOEE RI ACDD A
R E
T N
S o
0 jl:
Fi;
,!l;l lll!\\
!l l!i
!!i j;i l!,
l i
SP/90 PROGRAM (CONT')
1 1
l 0
LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES 1
INCORPORATE BENEFITS OF EPRI l
l UTILITY REQUIREMENTS IN FDA I
i FDA/DC PROGRAM BASED ON MARKET l~
NEEDS i
l i
t i
I l
l r ; !
- !; t 1!
!E!
i
~
)(T J
Y EK S
S I
I E
N SC O
SN I
EA T
CS A
OS T
RI N
Y PA E
R N
M A
NE E
~
l OR L
t I
P lu TR M
S AA I
Z E~
IL 2
DC 5
RU AN R
D F
NO C
AT T
0 SL 1
A NC GI o
.. i;!:
i ii;i!i:ll;i!ll!I l\\I l!!ill\\!l
!i i
...4:
i g
b o
j.
1 W
bd m
E eg W.
i W
D
' m.
- p==
m m
gn-i t--
m m' th.
WE E
M S. W aC J
W d
EMW e
z3 LD m M >g -
3 m et WMM M
W
. aC. l AC m.g g
aC J
M E0 W W l==
O O &-
G4E y
, gh M
' b Ch.
bE G I"" W w
M WMW
.O MWW mm AC W
>=
es.
WW W
O JH t
aC 4M CD as C3 g3 MdM M GC J
I
==
2O ll> J ll> W MME RH O
>=
OJ
-a 3 O i
as aC J
aC J
M M
m mW
&OM G-M H
ll>
b AC 3
3 WM o
(
O N GC
==J mm e C3 3 O
MGO llll3 3
%WM
&O b OE W 3&
ME&
46 W A= AC Wm
.i EW M AC O
O O
i==mW W AC 3 at:
..,..-.r
..--,,-,-w-,,e.-w.-,.--%.-,4
-w....w-ww...---re
..---mmw e. w
.b=,
w w w,wv, ye
,--oc y
N N N N h htVfYk W h h kf% %0Vff t f1VW k k kff p p g g g y
[ Oocument control Desk. 016 Phillips TRANSMITTAL TO:
ll :
ADVANCED COPY TO:'
The Public Document Rocm
// /7/f f fif.
DATE:
- ,:t i FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch J lL
\\
i Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting i: i !
4 [i document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and pl6 cement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or l t 5 L required.
Meeting
Title:
b A
e' w P
l Au d #d_,
u ij l Meeting Date:
//// /
Open d Closed i
- L l! !
Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS l i 5
to PDR Cg j
'8 b
f
[
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 l
?
a/%w Mu
![.
I iwhrd
-: c e
f t
e 2'
- t t
'" t t
[
V L
t 2
t t
2 3.
b cc 2
j t 2t 4
g E p i L
- I t
$E L
9 3
5.
i!
Ofo *
- ~
E.
&~
a 3 l
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper, C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY t
papers.
.d/A6
__S Y
h bY Y
____$$lYlYa
>