ML20035H084
| ML20035H084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200002 |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1993 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9305030093 | |
| Download: ML20035H084 (82) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION 51 oot 5 I 3l BRIEFING BY ABB-CE ON STATUS OF SYSTEM 80+
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATION
.J00Et 02.
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND b3Ib.
APRIL 23, 1993 Pages 56 PAGES NEALR.CROSSANDCO.,INC.
COURT REPORTERS AND TRAWSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
~930030$9$930423 c,
i PDR ADOCK 05200002 T
t t
DISCLAIMER.
i i
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of
[
i the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on April 23, 1993, in the Commission's office at one White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
i The transcript is intended solely for general 4
r informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is i
not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do.not necessarily reflect final determination j
or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the commission in any proceeding f as the result of, or i
addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, j
except as the Commission may Authorise.
l
.-5 i
g e
NEAL R. GROS $
count eteoefft$ AND TRAM $Cittitt 1313 RHoDI ttLAHO AY9 hut M.W.
(202) 234-4433
. WASHINetoN, D.C. 2000$
' (202) 732-6600
.l 1
1
[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BRIEFING BY ABB-CE ON STATUS OF SYSTEM 80+ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATION i
PUBLIC MEETING t
Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Friday, April 23, 1993 The Commission met in open
- session, pursuant to
- notice, at 2:00 p.m.,
Ivan
- Selin, Chairman, presiding.
1 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R.
CUKTISS, Commissioner FORREST J. REMICK, Commissioner E. GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHtNGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
.. - i
~_.
-l 2
j STAFF AND PRESENTERS AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
{
SAMUEL J.
CHILK, Secretary WILLIAM C.
PARLER, General Counsel 4
DOCTOR RICHARD SLEMBER, President, ABB U.S.
Power t
Plant Segment ROBERT NEWMAN, President, ABB-CE Nuclear Systems REGIS MATZIE, Vice President, Nuclear Systems Business Development CHARLES BRINKMAN, Acting Director, Nuclear Systems I
I Licensing i
i i
I
\\
I a
(
f i
a I
6 l
l l
1.
1 l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
{
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
l (202)2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l
t
i 3
i 1
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S r
2 2:00 p.m.
3 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Good afternoon, ladies i
4 and gentlemen.
c 5
The Commission is pleased to welcome i
6 representatives from Asea Brown Boveri, Combustion 7
Engineering to brief the Commission on the status of 8
the System 80+ application for design certification.
9 We consider that design certification of the 10 evolutionary advanced light water reactors to be of i
11 the highest priority and we know that you and the l
12 staff have been working closely to resolve both 13 technical and policy issues.
We look forward to 14 hearing your views on the status of the review of the
+
15 System 80+ evolutionary design.
16 Commissioners, do you have any comments?
17 Fine.
18 Doctor Slember, you may begin, please.
i 19 DOCTOR SLEMBER:
Thank you.
.[
20 Good afternoon.
We appreciate this i
21 opportunity to address the Commission on the status of l
22 the System 80+
certification application.
I am i
23 Richard Slember, President ABB's United States power l
t 24 plant businesses.
25 At the table with me today are Robert l
l l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C, 20305 (202) 2344433 j
i
..I
i 4
1 Newman at my right, President of ABB's Combustion 2
Engineering Nuclear Systems.
Regis Matzie, on my i
i 3
- left, is Vice President of Nuclear Systems 4
Development, and Charles Brinkman, Director of Nuclear 5
Systems Licensing, next to Bob Newman.
L 6
I would like to also acknowledge Sterling 7
Franks, Director of the Light Water Reactor Safety and f
8 Technology at the Department of Energy, who is the co-9 sponsor of this certification effort.
Sterling is j
i 10 back here.
11 We last had the opportunity to address the i
12 assembled Commission in early April last year.
Since 1
i 13 that time there has been some organizational changes 14 which may be of interest to you.
Bob Newman and his 15 counterparts in Nuclear Services, Nuclear Fuel and 16 Nuclear Systems now report directly to me.
And within 17 ABB, the worldwide responsibility for the nuclear i
i 18 systems, the nuclear fuel and the nuclear services 19 businesses areas are all now assigned to the United 20 States.
Just as the rest of the world looks to the' I
21 United States for leadership in nuclear technology and i
22 regulation, so within ABB, the company looks to its l
23 U.S.
sector for leadership in nuclear power.
j 24 As you know, there are 15 operating 25 reactors in the United States whose nuclear steam i
NEAL R. GROSS t
(
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
I (M) 2M433 WASHWGTON. D C. 20M5 (M) 2M433 f
5 I
supply systems were designed and fabricated by ABB-l 2
Combustion Engineering.
Another four are under i
l 3
construction in the Republic of Korea and there is one 4
partially completed plant in Washington State which 5
references a valid final design approval FDA which 6
would greatly facilitate issuance of an operating 7
license should its owners choose to finish 8
construction.
9 Our topic
- today, however, is ABB's 10 evolutionary 1350 megawatt advanced light water.
t 11 reactor, System 80+,
and its status as we see it in
?
12 the design certification process.
I will ask.Regis 13 and Charlie to provide the details on how we are doing 14 and Bob to update you on the commercial activity 1
15 related to System 80+.
-l 16 I would first like to acknowledge that our 17 design certification effort has been cosponsored by l
18 the Department of Energy.
I believe that design l
L 19 certification is the most important of DOE's new plant
[
20 nuclear programs because the biggest area of t
21 uncertainty is whether a new plant can be licansed 22 without the imposition of new requirements which, of I
23 course, means redesign, delays and increased costs.
24 This program is absolutely essential for new plant l
25 sales in this country and, in reality, to maintain I
e NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
i I
6 1
American leadership in nuclear power and its 2
regulation in the world.
i 3
Last April, ABB-CE management told you I
4 that ABB-CE was a believer that the Part 52 licensing i
5 process represented the most significant opportunity 6
for standardization enhancement and licensing i
7 stability in the last two decades.
It is certainly 8
more than an opinion.
We are dedicated to that 9
proposition. We are putting our resources behind that l
I 10 belief. Because of that dedication, ABB-CE management f
f 11 told you last April that it was committed to do i
12 whatever was necessary to achieve design certification 13 in accordance with SECY-91-161 schedules. We departed
}
14 that briefing with the understanding that the 15 Commission was similarly committed.
I'm pleased to
{
16 report that the progress that has been achieved on the 17 System 80+ application in the last year is ample 18 evidence that both ABB-CE and the NRC were truly 19 serious in meeting those ambitious goals.
20 A year ago, ABB-CE had just completed 21 responses to apprcximately 1500 requests for 22 additional information from the NRC staff.
The f
l 23 staff's role in evaluating those responses and f
24 assembling its draft safety evaluation report, DSER, 25 was just beginning. Through much work and dedication,
{
NEAL R. GROSS i
f COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
7-l 1
the NRC staff essentially maintained the SECY-91-161 2
schedule for issuance of the DSER in September 1992.
3 Immediately, ABB-CE set to work to close out the open 4
items identified in the DSER with high quality j
5 submittals.
That process continues today and we
+
6 believe we are approaching final approval.
We are 7
pleased with the NRC staff's very professional effort 8
on our application.
t f
9 During the past year, we have achieved i
10 several areas of major progress.
We are the first I
11 applicant to implement the new radiological source 12 term technology.
We have successfully addressed the i
13 severe accidents issue by demonstrating the robustness
^
14 of the System 80+ design features and we are well i
15 along in obtaining NRC staff approval of specific 16 design features for our Nuplex 80+ advanced control 17 room.
We have completed a
probabilistic risk l
18 assessment which has been used in both design f
19 development and evaluation and which documents more 20 than two orders of magnitude improvement in safety:
21 over previous designs. We have reached agreement with 22 the staff on seismic methods for enveloping l
23 earthquakes and soil conditions for the majority of I
i 24 sites in the United States.
Finally, we have gained j
25 agreement with the staff on content and details for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 PHODE (SLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20305 (202) 2344433 l
8 1
ITAAC so that we can now efficiently complete our tier 2
1 submittals.
It's been a most productive year.
3 Let me now turn to Regis to amplify on i
4 these accomplishments and to discuss other technical 5
issues.
I will have some concluding remarks at the 6
end of our presentation.
7 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Thank
- you, Doctor 8
Slember.
9 DOCTOR SLEMBER:
Regis?
I 10 MR. MATZIE:
I would like to start my 11 discussion by reviewing the major program milestones 12 that we have achieved on the System 80+ design r
13 certification program.
I 14 Our first submittal on the CESSAR-DC was 15 in November 1987 with the final submittal in March of 16 1991.
We made these modular submittals to our safety 17 analysis report to remain consistent with the 18 development of the EPRI advanced light water reactor 19 utility requirements document.
Since that time, we 20 have responded to all the requests for additional 21 information, completing those submittals in May of 22 1992 and a draft safety evaluation report was issued 23 by the staff in September of 1992, essentially in 24 accordance with the SECY-91-161 schedule.
We and the j
25 staff are working on closing all the open items that NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D_C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i
9 1
resulted from this draf t safety evaluation report. and 2
we are currently scheduled to complete those closure l
3 of the draft safety evaluation report open items at j
4 the end of June 1993.
j 5
On the slide that you're looking at now, i
6 I'm showing a
schedule for the rest of the f
7 certification program.
This schedule is our best j
8 estimate of what can be practically and effectively be 9
achieved for design certification.
It is not 10 consistent with the recent draft SECY-93-097 that you 11 have received recently.
It is approximately four P
12 months earlier.
We believe that these dates are 13 achievable with a concerted effort on both our part j
14 and on that of the staff.
Of course it is dependent 15 on our maintaining a high quality of'our submittals as i
16 I believe we have in the past.
17 (Slide)
Next slide.
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Have you discussed i
19 that difference with the staff?
20 MR. MATZIE:
We have mentioned to the 21 staff as recently as yesterday our hopes and 22 expectations that a
quicker schedule could.be t
23 achieved.
r 24 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Do they see any 25 problem on their side for matching that schedule if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
GD2) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 j
.t 10 l
1 you do your part?
2 MR. MATZIE: I guess I'd rather not answer e
3 for the staff. They realize with the magnitude of all I
4 the submittals before them there's a lot of work to 5
do.
I'm trying to focus on our schedule and how we 6
have been dealing with the staff.
7 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
But you're 8
hopeful?
i 9
MR. MATZIE:
I'm hopeful.
10 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
j 11 MR.
MATZIE:
We have made substantial t
12 progress since our last briefing a
year ago.
13 Responses to the staff request for additional 14 information on our safety analysis report have been i
15 completed and as a result of that we had revised 2,500 16 pages of the safety analysis report.
We have 17 completed all our initial responses to the draft 18 safety evaluation report and have submitted many 19 follow-up analyses.
This effort has resulted in a 20 revision of almost 9,000 pages of the safety analysis 21 report.
22 The principal remaining tasks are 23 inspections, tests, analysis and acceptance criteria 24 and structural design details in the critical parts of 25 the plant.
These will control our efforts to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l
1 l
11 l
l 1
completing all submittals by the end'of June 1993.
2 We have also answered a
number of l
i 3
questions that arose after the draft safety evaluation f
I 4
report and we believe successfully close the issues on -
5 the shutdown risk and on severe accident analysis i
6 questions.
j 7
(Slide)
Next slide, please.
i 8
The current status of our draft safety j
9 evaluation open items as of April 6,
- 1993, as l
10 indicated by NRC accounting in a letter to us, are l
11 that of the 637 open and confirmatory issues 119 are 12 resolved and closed, 234 are technically resolved and i
13 changed from open to confirmatory, and 284 remain open i
i t
14 and we are closing these on a daily basis as we work j
15 with the staff on the elements of resolution.
16 Our overall assessment is that we have i
17 made significant progress and we're continuing to make 18 significant progress in that none of the remaining i
19 open items appears to present an obstacle for final 20 design approval of System 80+ on a timely' manner.
21 (Slide)
Next slide, please.
22 Major efforts currently ongoing to t
23 complete our submittal by the end of June are, as I i
24 mentioned before, ITAAC and the associated tier 1 25 design descriptions, an integrated review of CESSAR-l j
{
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20D05 (202) 2344433 1
12 i
1 DC, our licensing application by the staff and l
2
_ management at ABB-Combustion Engineering, the 3
structural design detail of critical plan areas, human j
4 factors engineering review of features of the control 5
room and then a number of other items of less 6
magnitude listed there. Of course, all of this effort 7
results in closing the remaining draft safety 8
evaluation report issues that I mentioned earlier, the 9
284 issues.
10 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Is there agreement I
11 on, if I recall the terminology, programmatic ITAAC
[
12 and generic ITAAC issues?
13 MR. BRINKMAN:
Yes, there is.
14 COMMISSIONER REMICK: There is resolution 15 of that agreement?
16 MR. BRINKMAN:
Yes.
I 17 MR. MATZIE:
(Slide)
Next slide, please.
18 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
If he had said is there 19 disagreement, would you have said there isn't?
Is it 20 completely agreed?
l 21 MR. BRINKMAN:
I'm going to cover this a 22 little bit in my remarks, but there have been a series 23 of meetings and this has been the toughest issue of 24 the ITAAC program, but we believe we've reached 25 agreement with the staff and I don't think the staff t
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
J 13 1
would dispute that, the technical staff.
i 2
MR. MATZIE:
I would like to now review
{
3 the major items or accomplishments which we have 4
achieved significant progress, as mentioned by Doctor 5
Slember in his opening remarks.
6 The success of any new regulatory l
l 7
initiative is the application of the new technology to l
r 8
specific design.
I believe the use of a
new i
i 9
radiological source term is a good example of that.
10 We have implemented the new source term for the System r
t 11 80+ design in our design bases safety analysis dose 12 calculations and our probabilistic risk assessment' l
P 13 level 3 off-site releases and in evaluation of the j
r 14 protective action guideline compliance of our design.
f 15 The benefits of implementing the new i
16 source term technology are: one, lower doses predicted 17 for accidents; higher allowable nominal containment I
18 leakage from the containment, and this is
^
19 approximately five times that of an operating reactor, t
20 is allowable to still get acceptable doses to the 21 public; and changing the charcoal filters so that we i
22 do not take credit for them-in the safety analysis 23 which in essence allows us, if we so choose, to
]
i 24 downgrade them from safety to a non-safety status.
I
\\
25 We'll still retain them for defense in depth.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
1 14 l
1 To finish off this
- issue, there are 2
computer codes that we're currently verifying with the i
3 staff.
We are determining the final uses of the new l
4 source term in the area of equipment qualification and l
5 we expect to have approximately the same requirements 6
as currently used with the old source term for these 7
requirements on equipment qualification. We do expect
[
l 8
closure by the June 1993 date.
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Did you find any --
l 1
10 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Just --
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I'm sorry.
Please 12 go ahead.
[
t f
13 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Just for 14 clarification, the new source term, is that bLsed on 15 the NUREG-1465 or what are you using?
f 16 MR.
MATZIE:
That's exactly
- right, f
e' 17 Commissioner.
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Have you found any f
t 19 other benefits having to do with valve closure time, 20 time for operator or automatic action and so forth, I
l 21 any significant change as a result of the new source
+
22 tern?
I'm thinking of valve --
23 MR. MATZIE:
No, sir.
24 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
?
25 MR. MATZIE:
(Slide)
Next slide, please.
t
.i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
15 1
The next item where we have had a major 2
success is in the severe accident deterministic i
3 analysis.
As you may remember from our last meeting, 4
we have explicitly addressed severe accidents in our 5
design. We have been able to respond to all the DSER, 6
post-DSER severe accident questions without relying on 7
future experiments.
That is, we have addressed these 8
issues by demonstrating a robust design, not relying 9
on a lot of relatively esoteric calculations and I
10 difficult experimental calculations.
11 Our containment over pressure analysis 12 shows that the ASME Level C stress limits are not 13 exceeded for approximately 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br />. A reactor cavity s
14 wall analysis shows the ability to withstand steam 15 explosions from core debris water interaction.
Our 16 analyses shows that the reactor cavity structure can 17 withstand the most severe core concrete attack for i
18 several days and, in fact, eight days without a j
19 significant release of radioactivity.
We in the NRC
[
l 20 are continuing to review the hydrogen mitigation 21 capability of the System 80+ design.
The issue i
22 remaining is the number and location of hydrogen t
23 ignitors in our containment. We have already included i
i 24 an ignitor system and placed a set of ignitors i
25 throughout the containment. The issue remains exactly i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
r 16 1
how many and exactly where.
I t
2 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Why is' this an issue 3
since it's certainly been faced before with other 4
designs?
5 MR. MATZIE:
Other designs which have a 8
6 much smaller containment size and really do not have-i 7
to address the high levels of hydrogen generated in a 8
severe accident had an approach and a design for that.
9 We have a very large containment and we'?!e trying to 10 combat a much higher level of potentially generated 11 hydrogen.
So, it is in sort of a different regime of 12 the issue.
3 13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
So, is it the ten 14 percent concentration limit?
i 15 MR. MATZIE:
That's right, 100 percent i
16 hydrogen generation from metal water reaction with a
}
17 ten percent maximum limit.
So, that's the new regime f
18 we're working at and we're working for this much 19 larger containment than had ever been addressed before 20 with hydrogen ignitors.
21 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Intuitively it would 22 seem like with a larger volume containment you might l
l 23 have more rapid diffusion or convection.
Is that the 24 case or not, or is that the question?
25 MR. MATZIE:
To my mind, the question is i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
I 17 1
how well we've done with the containment in terms of 2
having good circulation, not having pockets, have we 3
appropriately located ignitors where we would expect i
~
4 hydrogen to build up.
Based on good engineering 5
judgment, I might add, because these kinds of things 6
are not a very exact science.
I 7
COMMISSIONER REMICK: Yes.
I see. Do you 8
see that as a major issue?
9 MR. MATZIE:
I do not.
I think it's just j
10 an issue we're really addressing now with the staff.
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
r 12 MR. MATZIE:
(Slide)
Next slide, please.
I 13 A technical area that we are leading the 14 industry in is in the human factors engineering.
The 15 issue here is state-of-the-art methods must be used 16 for control room design, but there are no established h
17 regulatory acceptance criteria.
We do have a draft 18 review model which we are being evaluated against by 19 the staff.
Thus far we and the staff have agreed on 20 the basic regulatory review model.
We have been i
i 21 making progress on addressing the various steps or 22 items of that review model and we believe that in this t
23 review that we're nearing completion at this point in 24 time not only on the process but with emphasis on
]
25 approval of specific design features.
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
18 1.
The procedures required to verify. and l
2 validate the control room have not yet been agreed 3
upon, but we are working with the staff, as recently
~
4 as yesterday in fact, to address this issue.
5 (Slide)
Next slide.
6 This next picture or slide shows a picture i
7 of our dynamic prototype that is operational in 8
Windsor, Connecticut.
Thus far, it consists of five 9
of the 13 panels that will be eventually in an actual 10 advanced control room, plus the big board display at 11 the front of the control room.
The staff is currently 12 reviewing the basic design features with a view toward 13 approval as part of our design certification of these 14 basic features.
The specific areas that are being
~
15 reviewed are the control room layout, the large i
16 overview display at the front of the control room, and i
17 certain standard control panel features including 18 plant computer display hierarchy, alarm tile displays, 19 dedicated parameter displays, process controller and l
20 switch actuation of component controls.
21 (Slide)
Next slide.
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Are those panels 23 interactive now?
Do they interact?
24 MR. MATZIE:
The panels are consistently l
25 addressing the information and controls.
They do not NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433.
t
19 1
have an actual simulator connected to the panels as 2
yet. What we do is simulate certain scenarios to show 3
both the NRC staff and potential clients what the 4
response will be in terms of avents going on.
But we l
5 as yet have not connecteel to an actual simulator.
6 COMMISSIONER KEMICK:
What are you doing 7
about such things as operator or operating guidelines
-i 8
so that the potential COL holder would have guidelines 9
for developing detailed procedures? At what stage do 10 you do that if you're doing it?
1 11 MR.
MATZIE:
In terms of emergency 12 procedure guidelines, those are being submitted with 13 our application.
With respect to guidelines for 14 actual operating procedures, we view those as f
15 something that will be developed as a function of 16 time, post-certification, and we would hopefully use 17 those plus maybe something intermediate possibly 18 between guidelines and actual procedures as we 19 continue to develop the control room between its 20 current state and something we would want to offer on l
21 a plant in the United States or anywhere in the world.
22 So, we view it as a
continuing i
23 evolutionary process both in terms of guidelines and 24 certain revs of the procedural development as we 25 develop the actual remaining control room panels in NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
.p
=
20 1
the entire control room.
2 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
So, you'd see 3
developing.the general guidelines in parallel as you 4
develop the details of the control room panels and so 5
forth?
l I
6 MR. MATZIE:
That's correct, sir.
7 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Is the staff in
{
8 agreement on that approach?
t 9
MR. MATZIE: That's what we're working out i
10 with the staff, exactly how you marry the state of 11 development of the control room at the end of 12 certification but before you actually have a COL 13 applicant, where he will be developing the actual 14 implementable procedures for the plant.
It's how you 15 marry those two things and evolve that's the issue.
16 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Would the 17 development of the actual procedures be part of the 18 so-called commercial standardization or life cycle 19 standardization effort?
Does it fit into that 20 category?
21 MR. MATZIE:
I believe it does fit into r
22 that and the way we would see that happen most likely 23.
is that the lead applicant, the lead COL really sets 24 the tone and the pace for that, and that we would be 25 very hopeful as part of standardization that those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
21
~
1 would essentially be adopted by the follow-on units.
2 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I see.
3 MR. MATZIE:
Next slide, please.
4 We have explicitly used the probabilistic 5
risk desessment in our design process.
We have just 6
completed a reanalysis of our probabilistic risk 7
assessment to comply with NRC staff requests.
The I
8 major result of that reanalysis for System 80+ is a 9
continuing verification that there are over two orders 10 of magnitude improvement, that is decrease in the core I
11 damage frequency of System 80+ relative to currently i
12 operating plants.
The actual values shown on the l
13 previous slide and in your slides before you show that 4
14 the overall total core damage is on the order of 3x10 1
i' 15 events per year.
This compares to the U.S. industry 4
16 goal for advanced light water reactors of 10 events 6
l 17 per year.
18 You might note that the shutdown risk, 19 which we have explicitly addressed, is only about 30 20 percent of the total risk and, in fact, if you compare 21 on a more absolute scale the current plans, it's about t
22 two orders of magnitude below the shutdown risk of i
23 current plants.
24 COMMISSIONER REMICK: What all is included 4
25 in the external events?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
.)
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
i 22 i
i 1
MR. MATZIE:
The external events are a i
2 tornado --
l 3
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
4 MR. MATZIE:
Fire and flood.
The seismic i
5 has been excluded from the external events because the i
6 new approach that the staff desires the applicants to l
7 utilize is the seismic margins assessment rather than 8
an actual seismic PRA contribution.
Of course, the 9
reason for this is the dispute of what the seismic 10 hazards curve should be in their large range of i
11 potential seismic hazards curves.
So, an approach s
12 that we believe is very good to address this issue of l
13 this seismic margin assessment --
14 COMMISSIONER REMICK:. Just a suggestion.
i 15 In comparing different core damage frequencies by 16 different vendors around the world, it's always 17 helpful one, because many times they don't even break i
18 out external events so you don't know if they're in i
19 there or they're not, you've done that.
But it might i
20 be helpful, and just a suggestion, for external events 21 to list in a footnote what that includes so one who is l
22 reading these things coldly has a better idea.
23 DOCTOR SLEMBER:
Apples to apples.
i 24 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Apples to apples, i
25 yes.
i NEAL R. GROSS COUAT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
23 j
i 1
MR. MATZIE:
If we were to include our l
1 i
2 previous calculation of the.. seismic contribution to 3
the core damage frequency, it would increase the
~
external events up to about 1.2x10, which would raise f
4 4
5 the overall value about 30 percent, t
6 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
How about large 7
break LOCA? What percent of the internal events does i
8 that --
9 MR. MATZIE:
It is the controlling event 10 now.
Thirty five percent of the total internal core j
i 11 melt probability.
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Just before we leave 13 that, on your external events, what was the wind speed
{
14 that you used in the tornado?
Was that consistent 15 with the NUREG-46-061, the latest one?
l 16 MR. MATZIE:
Yes, sir.
17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
It was?
5 i
18 MR. MATZIE:
Yes.
19 (Slide)
Next slide, please.
j 20 We have calculated the containment P
21 integrity given a severe core damage of 99 percent, so
'22 that we do have a very robust containment that will, 23 to a very high degree, contain any potential releases
'{
l 24 from the reactor pressure boundary.
Our large off-25 site release frequency is about 2x10 events per year.
i 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
i 24 i
1 This compares with the U.S. industry goal for advanced
{
2 light water reactors of 10-6 events per year, a very
[
3 substantial margin.
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Is that the EPRI 5
definition of large off-site release?
j 6
MR. MATZIE:
That's correct.
7 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
Okay.
8 MR. MATZIE:
The resulting health effects 9
for this large release are 2x10-' per year for prompt 10 fatalities and 2x10# per year for latent fatalities.
11 Our best estimate dose at the sits boundary for the 12 first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />' is
.3 rem, which as a comparison 13 measure compares very favorably with the predictive l
14 action guideline for emergency planning of 1 rem.
L 15 (Slide)
Next slide, please..
16 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Are you as a r
17 result of that, are you requesting anything special on i
18 emergency planning, like the passive designs?
l 19 MR.
MATZIE:
We right now are not 20 requesting any change in emergency planning.
We have j
i 21 set the bases for emergency planning from the design 22 standpoint so that we should be able to pass any 23 reasonable criteria set up for a potential revision to 24 emergency planning.
We do believe that any revision 25 to emergency planning should apply to all advanced
[
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C,20005 (202) 234-4433 h
25 l
1 light water reactors, not just passive.
So, we'd be 2
hopeful that if the Commission addressed the emergency 3
planning issue in terms of revision to it, it would be 4
applicable to all future advanced light water 5
reactors.
And we believe we would fall under l
6 reasonable guidelines for that.
t 7
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Is there any reason i
8 to believe that it should be more applicable to i
9 passive plants versus evolutionary plants, assuming i
10 your calculations are correct?
11 MR. MATZIE:
Not to my knowledge.
12 Next slide, please.
l 13 The final technical issue that I would 14 like to talk to is the structural design and i
15 supporting analysis.
We have ' developed a design, 16 single design that is acceptable for the majority of 17 U.S.
sites by a very robust seismic design.
We have j
l 18 developed a
soil structure interaction analysis 1
19 methodology and had that methodology reviewed by the 20 staff.
We have performed analysis for a variety of f
i 21 seismic spectra and soil conditions to develop an 22 envelope that could be used on the majority of U.S.
23 sites.
We're currently in the process of doing i
i 24 detailed structural analysis in the critical regions 25 of the plant to verify that this seismic envelope can NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
26 1
be properly met with the design.
That analysis is
[
2 expected to be completed by the end of June 1993.
We i
3 have had audits of the methodology thus far and we l
4 will end up having an audit of all the calculations to l
l 5
demonstrate this robustness in the July time frame.
l 6
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
What are the major i
7 elements of that envelope?
8 MR. MATZIE:
The major elements are to i
f 9
look at I believe it was three different actual 10 spectrum, spectra I should say, frequency spectra, and 11 to look at a variety of soil rock conditions.
That is 12 the plant built upon bedrock, the plant built upon t
13 different layers of soil which are on top of bedrock 14 and the characteristics of that soil are also varied 4
6 15 to have different shear wave velocities.
So, we look i
16 at a whole complement of these different combinations 17 of those parameters and we look at the resulting 18 spectra from that and then develop an envelope from 19
- that, which is very robust in terms of seismic 20 conditions of which the plant has to be able to 21 handle.
i 22 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
And how about the
[
.r 23 ground motion acceleration?
24 MR. MATZIE:
We have pegged the ground 25 motion acceleration at.3 Gs.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234M33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
27 l
1 That concludes my remarks on the technical 2
aspects that I'd like to talk about today.
I would 3
like to introduce then Mr. Charlie Brinkman who will 4
now address some of the policy issues that we feel are 5
important for the Commission to be aware of.
l i
6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Charlie, before you i
7 go ahead there, let me just go back to one issue that 8
you had on your list.
9 Is your sabotage vulnerability review the 10 standard review that you go through or is that an 11 emerging issue as a result of recent events?
12 MR. MATZIE:
It's a good question.
The 13 current situation is our reviewer was involved witit r
1' 14 those emerging events and he is just being assigned in 15 May to us.
We've had relatively little interaction I
16 thus far with him.
We've responded to DSER open 17 items, submitted them and had I think one meeting or 18 one interaction but he has been elsewhere employed in 19 the State of Pennsylvania.
20 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Your review then is 21 being driven by the recent events.
t 22 MR. MATZIE:
That's correct.
23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
24 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
But I assume you 25 have trained separation, complete separation and so NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(2c2) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2p33
~
i t
28 1
forth?
i 2
MR. MATZIE:
Yes, we do.
3 MR. NEWMAN:
That's the real advantage of
(
t 4
the spherical containment and the way we've laid out l
f 5
the auxiliary building around there as far as really 6
overwhelming not only fire and flood but sabotage for 7
a complete separation of the channels, bringing it out 8
in various locations.
9 MR. BRINKMAN:
Good afternoon.
10 (Slide)
May I have slide 17, please?
i 11 I'd like to direct my remarks to four 12 issues which are basically administrative in nature, r
i 13 but are important to the timely and correct 5
14 implementation of the design certification process and 15 any one of which could end up on the critical path.
16 Those four are the certified design descriptions in
?
17 ITAAC, the design control document, the NRC's policy 18 on metric conversion and ABB-CE's integrated review.
19 (Slide)
Slide 18, please.
20 Development and approval of the certified
[
i i
21 design description in the ITAAC has possibly turned 22 out to be the most under rated hurdle which Part 52 23 posed to a design certification applicant.
When I 24 talked to you about this last April, I thought I was 25 affording it considerable importance, but I sure had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
+
1323 HHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 l
t 29 1
a lot to learn in the next year.
2 Last April, ABB-CE met once with the staff 3
on the topic, at the time we had briefed you, and we 4
were preparing to make our first ITAAC submittal, L
5 which we did at the end of April.
The staff, however, 6
didn't think that we were abiding by the agreements i
7 that had been reached, which they thought they had 8
reached, with the lead applicant.
At that point we 9
decided to make certain we were intimately involved
?
10 with every public NRC meeting and industry meeting 11 concerning the lead plant and ITAAC, and we have done t
12 that.
F 13 Shortly after that, NUMARC organized a 14 small utility review of several lead plant ITAAC. The 15 industry reviewers suggested a considerable number of
(
16 changes from what the lead applicant and NRC thought 4
17 they might have reached agreement on.
Then, we, ABB, 18 invited the industry to come in and look at some of i
19 the ITAAC we were developing and we received guidance 20 which didn't run necessarily concurrent with what the i
21 staff and we had been pursuing.
22 Later in September, a month-long industry 23 review was held in San Jose. Again, more changes.
In 24 February of this year, NUMARC led a two week review of 25 nearly 20 System 80+ ITAAC and again a lot of changes I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
30 I
1 were recommended by the industry.
Basically the j
2 difference between the industry's point of view and j
3 the staff's point of view was -- as you recognize, I
4 necessary and sufficient are the key words and the
{
5 industry was looking for necessary and the staff was 6
looking for sufficient, I think.
So, there was sort l
l 7
of a tension there.
The industry was interested in i
8 taking out material that they thought was not 9
necessarily tier 1 material.
10 Another thing that the industry helped us
~
11 to focus on was sharpening the acceptance criteria, 12 which in many cases they felt was too ambiguous.
So, j
L 13 those were the basic differences in philosophy.
14 It took a lot of time spent in these 15 meetings, but eventually I think the NRC and the i
16 industry and the vendors all were coming to a fairly 8
17 general consensus on this.
I 18 While all that was going on, the industry 19 in a generic fashion was working to reach agreement t
20 with the NRC on what were referred to as generic or
}
I 21 programmatic ITAAC.
These were ITAAC covering such 22 issues as how to handle equipment qualification, i
23 motor-operated valves, welding and so forth.
I think 24 at one point somebody had identified as many as 23 of
\\
25 these potential programmatic ITAAC.
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2CO35 (202) 234 4433 t
r 31 l
1 The industry was concerned that the 2
acceptance criteria associated with these could not be 3
made unambiguous and therefore would be a trigger for 4
a hearing request at the point that the plant would 5
otherwise be ready to go into operation and the 6
contention would be that the acceptance criteria of f
7 the ITAAC hadn't been met.
Then you would be into a 8
dispute as to whether or not you could really 9
interpret what the acceptance criteria was.
I I
10 This developed into a real battle between 11 the staff and the industry and several people in the I
12 industry made it very clear that if these programmatic 13 ITAAC were indeed incorporated, they would not 14 consider referencing a standard design that had been.
i 15 So, we really didn't have a lot of room to maneuver.
f 16 However, about December, we all came to our senses and i
17 NRC staff management, NUMARC, General Electric and i
18 industry representatives, including ABB-CE, agreed to f
f 19 sit down in San Jose in January for as long as it took l
20 to come to agreement on generic ITAAC.
21 After two weeks, agreement was reached l
l 22
- and, in my opinion, this session represented the 23 turning point for ITAAC because success paths were now 24 identified and basically agreed upon._
l 25 Subsequent to that time, General Electric NEAL R. GROSS i
f COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
32 2
I 1
and ABB have worked together under the guidance of i
l 2
NUMARC to develop common sets of definitions and 3
general provisions which we'll use in the ITAAC.
I 4
think the last time I looked at our definition
+
5 sections we agreed on all except a couple where they t
6 were specific to one or the other of us.
7 In March, the NRC, which had put together 8
an ITAAC review team, met in Bethesda for a week to
\\
9 reach agreement on several of the lead plants' ITAACs
{
i 10 and at the end of the same month they met in the 11 District of Columbia and did the same thing for 12 of 12 our prototype ITAAC.
As a result of the agreements 13 reached with NRC management, which actively I
14 participated in those meetings after that session, 15 both sides, the NRC and ourselves, now agree that ABB r
l i
16 is in position to efficiently complete our remaining I
17 ITAAC and submit them.
We've proposed to do so in 18 three submittals beginning the end of this month and f
19 completing by June 18th, internal to ABB-CE.
This L
20 means redoing about 50 ITAAC which have already been 21 submitted and completing the remaining 25 or 30 ITAAC f
22 and subjecting all 75 or 80 of them to rigorous 23 management review.
24 Now, ITAAC has been a hard issue to get l
25 our hands on at both the NRC and at the vendors and at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20305 (202) 2344433 I
~
i 33
)
1 NUMARC, but it's not been for lack of management I
2
' attention, I can assure you.
I assure you that it's i
3 getting a
great deal of continuous' management 4
attention at ABB.
Every Monday, we have scheduled
)
5 management ITAAC review sessions and every ITAAC that 6
is ready to come to us goes through the process and if 7
we're not able to finish them we will convene another l
8 meeting that week and keep going. A lot of long hours i
l l
9 have been put into this.
-l 10 I personally, by the way, observed the l
11 NRC's management in action on this with personal 12 involvement and I'd like to acknowledge that without I
13 the substantial personal effort by Mr. Russell of your 14 staff and his team, we'd still be twisting in the wind 15 on this topic.
f 16 Today we seem to be over the process 17 hurdle and are finally in the ITAAC production mode.
l 18 (Slide)
May I have slide 19, please?
19 This next item I want to touch on quite 20 briefly.
It has to do with the design control i
21 document and I want to emphasize that I'm raising it'
[
22 only in the context of schedule, what its impact might i
23 be. on schedule.
I brought it up at the senior 24 management meeting with the NRC staff yesterday and 25 they assure me that they are not concerned about its NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
5 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 5
34 i
1 schedule implications.
I think it's not a big deal.
2 I'm afraid I'm a little jaundiced perhaps, but I think i
3 it has potential for impact:r - e,9 schedule.
I 4
SECY-92-287, staff proposal on form and i
5 content of the design certification rule, was the I
6 first description that we saw of the DCD.
There was i
i f
s 7
some dialogue with the industry about this and then
[
8 the staff produced 287A.
But as far as I'm aware, it l
l 9
was never publicly released.
So, we in the industry
[
10 aren't fully cognizant of what the next proposal by 11 the staff is.
But based on the understanding that was 12 gained from the original SECY, I'm concerned that 13 there is potential for some additional delays in the i
14 FDA issuance.
6 15 The DCD, as we understand it, will consist i
4 16 of all tier 1 material, plus the complete CESSAR-DC 17 less the PRA portion.
The SAR must fully reflect the 18 staff's final safety evaluation report because if the i
i 19 FSER retains any standing at all, it has been made 20 subordinate to the DCD, according to that SECY.
The l
i 21 staff therefore is proposing another review to make 22 sure that all the FSER is properly incorporated and so 23 forth.
I'm not sure they're recognizing the potential l
i 24 that this review might have on reopening the design 25 again, the technical review.
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
j (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 j
.)
j
i 35 l
1 So, our proposal is not a new one to you.
f l
2 We would recommend that the design control document be 3
divorced from issuance of the FDA.
We don't think j
4 that they're really connected.
If the review that the i
5 staff is proposing does reveal some inconsistencies,
{
i 6
they would-be administrative in nature and I think t
7 could be handled outside of reopening the FDA.
We'd 8
like to see the FDA closed out so that the. technical t
9 review is definitively complete before the staff gets i
10 involved in this consistency review.
l 11 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Before you go on to 12 your next slide, if I could ask, in 92-287, which has i
13 been released, there is a recommendation there for the 14 Commission to consider adopting as a change mechanism 15 for tier 2 the 50.109 mechanism or backfit provision 16 in 50.109.
Do you have a view on that yet?
17 MR. BRINKMAN: Well, the industry has been 18 trying to have a meeting with the NRC staff, senior
?
19 staff, and I Lelieve that's one of the topics they'd 1-20 like _ to address.
We generally are subscribing and I
21 participating with the industry on that.
So, I'd l
22 rather not get into that topic, Commissioner.
J 23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
You don't have a 24 view yet.
Is that what you're saying?
25 MR. BRINKMAN:
That's right.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASH 1NGTON, D.C. 20005 (302) 234-4433
36 I
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
i 2
MR. BRINKMAN:
(Slide)
Slide 20, please.
1 3
This next topic is one which we feel that I
4 the current policy as interpreted to us by your 5
technical staff could be very counterproductive in 6
that it creates a major expense for ABB and provides 7
no recognizable benefit to any party and certainly no 8
safety benefit.
I'm referring to the apparent i
9 imposition of the NRC's metrication policy on the 10 System 80+ design control document.
11 NRC staff has informed us that the 12 Commission's metrication policy, which was published 13 in the Federal Reaister October 7, 1992, applies to I
i 14 the design control document.
The policy makes it i
t 15 expressly clear when you read it that the Commission i
16 didn't intend to force metric units on licensees or 17 applicants.
It states that it is designed to allow 18 them to respond to market forces in determining the l
19 extent and timing for their use of the metric system.
t 20 However, the staff assumes the policy does apply in l
21 this case because design certification is a rulemaking l
22 procedure which is applicable to the staff rather than i
l 23 a licensing procedure which would be applicable to the 24 applicant.
So, the policy seems a little bit vague in 25 that area.
l NEAL R. GROSS j
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
J (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l
i l
37 1
(Slide)
Slide 21, please.
i 2
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
If I recall, was l
t 3
your letter -- it was to the EDO.
}
4 MR. BRINKMAN:.It was to the Commission.
\\
5 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
It was to the i
6 Commission?
7 MR. BRINKMAN:
Yes, sir.
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
So, it's before the 9
Commission?
10 MR. BRINKMAN:
Yes.
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
Okay.
12 MR. BRINKMAN: The design control document 13 is essentially, as I said before, the SAR which we 14 submitted over five years ago, and it has thousands 15 and thousands of units which would have to be 16 converted if we were to do this.
..There's no. purpose i
17 that we can see for doing this'other than to fulfill le this policy statement.
The cost, however, would be i
t 19
- very, very significant.
Beyond this unrequited 20 expense is the potential for delaying the FDA while.
f 21 the process is completed and thoroughly checked.
The 22 most egregious part, the most difficult part for me to 23 understand of forcing an untimely retrofit on the 24 System 80+ design, is that we designed the plant in
'l 25 English units and you reviewed it in English units.
t' t
NEAL R. GROSS
)
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
{
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 l
.. i
38 1
Thus, there's coing to have to be a disclaimer at the 2
front of the document which says that the principal 3
units should be not used and that the controlling 4
units are in parentheses following the principal i
5 units.
Seems a little silly to us.
t 6
I hope that you're going to' agree that 7
this is a terrific example of how the NRC could avoid 8
imposing unnecessary and counterproductive 9
requirements on applicants.
10 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Next, GPU is-going to 11 come in and complain that we make them change their 12 name to Five Kilometer Island.
You never know where 13 this is going to end.
14 MR.
BRINKMAN:
That's correct.
And 15 somebody will intervene to say that it wasn't 16 accurately reinterpreted.
17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Charlie, you only 18 mentioned the design cont: ol document, but I assume 19 since your SAR is to be consistent, that it would 20 require everything in your SAR to be changed too.
Is 21 that right?
22 MR. BRINKMAN:
Well, in effect, yes, sir.
23 What could happen in this -- if you carried this out 24 to extremes is we could say, " Hey, it doesn't apply to-25 us.
You've exempted us,"
and the staff will say, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
i 39 i
1 "Well, it applies to us, so we'll do the conversion. "
i 2
But, of course, we get to pay for that anyway and we 3
wouldn't be comfortable with that unless we checked I
4 it.
So, yes, sir, the net result is our SAR would be i
5 converted.
6 So, therefore, we have through the offices 7
of our outside counsel filed an exemption request with 8
the Commission, a policy exemption request.
It's a l
9 bit unusual, but that was the advice we were provided i
i 10 by the staff.
I want to clarify because we discussed i
f 11 this at yesterday's senior management meeting. I want 12 to clarify that we're not seeking an exemption for l
4 13 ourselves, we're seeking an exemption for the staff 4
t 14 because the policy statement doesn't apply to us.
i 15 COMMISSIONER REMICK: One question. Would 16 you foresee that such an exemption should be made on 17 into the future for all possible future applications I
d 18 or is it just because you already are far down the 1
19 road when the Commission came out with that policy?
20 In other words, would there be disadvantages sometime 21 in the future a new application coming in being with 22 metrication first?
Does it give you particular 23 problems on unpipe sizes and so forth or not?
24 MR.
BRINKMAN:
I think your policy 25 statement said it very well, it ought to be the market NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
40 4
1 that determines that.
If a particular applicant is 2
coming in and it's his opinion or he already has been 3
queried by a potential buyer for a metric design, I 4
^
4 think he should have the option on that.
And I'm not 5
saying that at some point in time this design might 6
not be converted to metric, but we ought to do it in 7
a very systematic controlled way and I think we ought 8
to be the ones who initiate and complete the job.
9 (Slide)
May I have slide 22, please?
10 Regis mentioned that we were about to do
[
t 11 an integrated review.
The closecut of the DSER open 12 items and the generation of supporting information for i
13 the ITAAC have created a great number of changes to f
14 the safety analysis report, CESSAR-DC.
The last two f
a 15 amendments alone added or changed over 8,000 pages.
i 16 The schedule we have been on, as you know, has been 17 vigorous to say the least.
[
i 18 Before we submit our final CESSAR-DC 1
19 amendment at the-end of June, we believe that it is l
20 necessary to do a rigorous and far reaching review of 21 our application to ensure its internal consistency.
22 Therefore, next week we will charter a team of ABB-CE l
23 personnel, Duke Engineering and Services and Stone'&
a i
24 Webster personnel to conduct a one month survey of the i
25 application documentation.
These individuals are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
i P
41' 1
going to be senior individuals on the review side that i
2 will be very familiar with the document and they will l
3 be assigned essentially full-time to this task.
In 4
the process they're going to utilize cross references I
5 which are currently being developed by cognizant i
I.
6 engineers and lead engineers that are intimately l
l 7
familiar with each of the chapters.
8 Their purpose is to assure ourselves and 9
be in a position to assure the Commission that the l
10 CESSAR-DC documentation and ultimately the design 11 control document are internally consistent.
In'the
- l
)
12 process, another prr, duct of this review is going to be 13 a very good cross 'teference syctem that we can use.
i 14 If there are no further questions, I'd i
15 like to turn to Bob Newman who intends to update you i
16 on some of the commercial developments related to i
17 System 80+.
l 18 MR. NEWMAN: Thank you very much, Charlie.
i 19 (Slide)
If I could have slide 24.
20 I think I get the prize today for coming i
21 the furthest distance for the meeting.
If I look i
22 sleepy, I am, having just returned from Taipei and' 23 Seoul.
24 I would like to first of all echo Doctor t
l 25 Slember's comments that I am very pleased with and
[
r NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
l 42 l
5 1
proud of the progress that has been made over the past 2
year by my staff and the NRC staff.
We are dedicated 3
to the process of certification and we made that
~
4 commitment and I believe we are keeping it.
5 Regis and Charlie have both told you what 4
6 we have been doing and I
thought it might be l
7 appropriate for us for a few minutes to talk about why i
8 we are doing what we are doing, and that is the l
9 commercialization of System 80+.
i 10 ABB is an energy company that serves all L
11 aspects of energy throughout the world.
We firmly i
12 believe that nuclear energy is an option that should 13 be and must be utilized to meet the future energy 14 needs around the world.
To that end, I have been 15 provided the resources to do the work that we have 16 done and we are committed to finishing that task on A
17 time.
18 When we look at the timing of what we are 19 doing, some people might say, "Why are we doing this l
20 now?
Why the rush or whatever?"
But I think if we 21 look at it in the proper time scale, it is extremely I
22 important that we, both of us, maintain the schedules !
1 23 that we are in order to meet the needs of the nations 3
24 around the world.
i 25 First of all, I believe that the needs, if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D_C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
43 1
you look at the prospects of the need for energy in 2
this country, that there will be a tremendous need for 3
base loaded power somewhere very early in the next i
4 century, which means that we should start building in 5
this country very soon.
If we're talking about seven f
6 or eight year projects, which is in our intent, not 7
time tables of the past, we still need to be starting 8
around 1995, which is consistent with the schedule we i
9 are talking about.
10 It is my observation as I
travel 11 throughout the world that we in the United States, 12 rather than having been -- some people say we've been 13 sleeping for the last ten years in this country, but i
i 14 I really think that more appropriately we've properly 15 used the time that we've been given.
In doing so, I 16 believe we've come up with what I regard as the most
)
1 17 improved readily available designs ready to be built 18 now and I believe we've also done a good job in 19 straightening out the process as well.
In countries 20 lik.e Taiwan and Korea, where I spend most of my time, 21 we are still very much regarded as the teacher and the 22 leader.
Not someone who has fallen behind, -but 23 someone who is actually leading the world.
I believe 24 that's the position the United States should maintain.
25 In Taiwan today -- before I go to that, if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20305 (202) 2344433 l
44 I
1 we're going to have the option available to us in the i
2 United States, what we need to be able to do is to j
3 keep that viability alive to be able to use it other 4
places and be able to develop the designs to their 5
fullest and then have them available for standardized 6
production here in the United States.
I think that's i
f i
7 the real advantage of the overseas market today.
8 We in the United States have the luxury of 9
having readily available inexpensive natural gas and l
[
10 many other sources of energy that the rest of the 11 world simply does not have.
So, they face the crises 12 much earlier than we do.
I think the whole world 13 faces the issues of global warming and various issues l
l 14 like that which bring nuclear back into perspective.
L 15 But the ones who are facing it first are the ones l
)
16 particularly in Asia.
In Taiwan, we are presently in j
i 17 a competition with worldwide competition.
It is my I
i i
18 opinion that the U.S. designs will do extremely well l
t
.t 19 there.
The two evolutionary designs that are l
20 competing, that are in the process of final stages of i
21 certification by the Commission, will do very well 22 against the world market.
t 23 The Tai power specification actually asks t
I 24 for an advanced design which is really right down the f
l 25 lines of what we are doing in this country and i
f NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i'
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 r
45 1
incorporates probably 95 percent of the EPRI l
2 requirements.
So, they are looking to us as the 3
example in this country.
i 4
In Korea, they also are using System 80+
1 5
as a basis for their standard design and are_looking l
6 at many of the features that we use in our design to
[
r 7
be incorporated in their standard design. I guess the h
t 8
good news is that in both countries, as well as in the 9
U.K.
right now, they aren't faced with an ITAAC 10 situation.
They still have a two step licensing i
11 process and have watched us over the last year and 12 probably will stay with a two step licensing process i
l 13 for awhile.
So, the FDA becomes a very important 14 issue and obviously that's one of the reasons why l
15 we're committed to getting it done as quickly as 16 possible.
17 My observation is also that in those 18 countries in particular, as well as here, siting 19 nuclear power plants is an extremely difficult 20
- process, not only the availability of sites but 21 fighting it through once you get it.
Both of those 22 countries look to going to large size designs such as 23 we are licensing here in this country.
r 24 The U.K. is also looking to try to improve i
i 25 its process and is evaluating System 80+ also as one i
NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 y
--y+
.w.*
i 46 l
1 of its options.
BNFL has led one of the major part of 2
.the evaluations, but Nuclear' Electric, Scottish 3
Nuclear have all participated in that process and I 4
believe we will stack up very well against the rest of r
5 the world.
6 As I said, I am hopeful that we in the 7
United States will also be ready to use that option 8
sometime here in the near future.
So, there is a good 9
reason why we are doing what we are doing.
We believe 10 it is a necessary part of the energy alternatives that 11 we need to serve our utilities.
12 Thank you.
l 13 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Thank.you very much, Mr.
14 Newman.
l 15 Doctor Slember?
16 DOCTOR SLEMBER:
Okay.
I'd like to wrap l
17 up our concluding remarks.
l 18 As we've covered today, the issue of 19 schedule is again before the Commission in SECY 20 097.
I'd like to speak to that very important topic
.)
21 and emphasize that maintaining the System 80+ on a i
1 22 vigorous schedule is important, not just to ABB-CE but 23 to the U.S.
nuclear industry as well.
24 If the nuclear options remain viable for 25 the U.S.,
completion of regulatory approvals must be NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHhJGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i
47 f
1 achieved. As Bob mentioned, investors in the Far East t
2 are now in the process of deciding whether to buy a i
?
3 nuclear power plant which is designed by an American 4-firm to American standards and to American regulatory l
5 requirements.
But they would like to build their own j
6 standardization programs based on designs from a i
7 nation that completes what it starts.
We can best I
8 support the American nuclear industry by ensuring that
{
9 the evolutionary advanced light water reactor designs l
10 are approved in as timely a manner as is possible.
11 We believe that the utilities in the U.S.
j 12 will not give serious consideration to the nuclear 13 option until they see the industry making-significant j
i 4
14 progress towards the regulatory approvals necessary to
?
15 support a combined construction and operating license.
16 Dates published by the NRC in SECY-91-161 represented 17 achievable targets for the two evolutionary plant j
18 design certification applicants.
The lead plant was i
19 scheduled for final design approval about one year j
j 20 ahead of our System 80+ standard plant.
But much of I
21 that time was spent resolving, as mentioned here 4
22 today, the difficult issues of ITAAC.
We have been 23 able to keep System 80+ close to the original schedule 1
24 due to our' strong commitment to succeed and to the NRC i
25 staff's concentrated review effort.
I i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
J--
i-
.._m 4
4 l
48 1
We are now at a point where both plants 2
are at an equivalent position in the review process 3
with respect to both ITAAC and design approval.
In 4
this
- regard, we request that both plants be i
5 appropriately resourced through remainder of the 6
review process, in effect demonstrating to the world 7
that the United States has a robust licensing process.
8 As you the Commission consider what s
9 schedules to direct the staff to achieve for advanced I
10 reactor reviews in your response to SECY-93-097, 11 please bear in mind what I have said.
ABB continues 12 to stand fully committed to gaining NRC approval and 13 certification of System 80+ as soon as it can possibly 14 be accomplished.
Please do not let System 80+'s 15 schedule be unduly delayed by NRC resource limitations 16 or by schedule problems associated with other views 17 which are not within our control.
18 I really want to thank you for your 19 attention to our point of view and we'd be pleased to l
20 respond to any other questions or comments that you l
i 21 may have on this afternoon's interaction.
22 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner Rogers?
23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
Mr. Newman, i
24 what are your thoughts and how would you plan to try 1
25 to maintain standardization after certification
?
I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (M2) 234-4433 i
49 I
1 outside the United States?
In other words,.
the.
2 standardized features that will be included here in 3
the System 80+ for U.S.
certification, what is your 4
position with respect to trying to maintain that for 5
other clients worldwide?
6 MR. NEWMAN:
I think, Commissioner, that I
7 will depend somewhat on the countries. There are some 8
countries who have a stated purpose of having their 9
own standard design and building an indigenous 10 capability to produce that design, such as Korea.
In P
11 those cases, it will be, I think, their responsibility
{
12 to take and build upon what we have done and maintain
[
P P
13 their own standard licensing.
I believe in other i
14 countries such as Taiwan that you will see those i
i 15 countries stay pretty wel) tied together with j
2 16 standardization and hopefully will be able to build
{
17 through various owners groups in future the ability to 18 keep those designs standard as they go.
That, I 19 guess, will have to remain to be seen as we --
t 20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: - I mean are there any 21 thoughts that you have with respect to trying to s
22 promote that? You mentioned owners groups and things 23 of this sort, to take a more aggressive posture on j
24 that yourselves.
25 MR. NEWMAN:
I guess I really haven't i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 I
=-
~
50 i
1 thought that much about it.
I think that in most 2
cases in the discussions we've had with our Executive j
3 Steering Committee, that the utilities have viewed.
t t
4 that as their responsibility to stay with it.
- Now, 1
t 5
obviously, the vendor, ourselves, would be very active j
-i 6
in that group also.
But all discussions we've had to 7
date with the U.S. utilities indicate that they really 8
want to have some voting rights in the ability to keep I
9 it as high a standard, to the point of in some cases 10 perhaps if someone wants to change something out, they i
11 have to get permission from the rest of the people in 12 that family of plants to do so.
13 DOCTOR SLEMBER: Yes.
If I might just add
.i 14 to that, I think a very pragmatic view of maintaining l
15 standardization says that if you have a fleet of l
16 plants out there, you really have to have a very tight 17 owner's group that almost signs up for that standard 18 design that changes -- there must almost be a.very 19 formal change review process and I think that to be t
20 effective that the international groups, I think if 21 they want to really truly standardize designs, that 22 would participate.
I don't sense any'real problem in l
l 23 doing that, but as in any case now, and let's take I
24 Taiwan as an example, the first thing they have to do,
.- l 25 whether it be ourselves or any other successful NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
- 51 i
1 vendor, is to win the contract and then it goes from i
2 there.
1 3
CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner Curtiss?
4 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I don't have any l
t 5
other questions.
I do look forward to your comments l
6 on the 92-287 and 287A, if that one is released, and l
l 7
I think it hopefully will be.
f 8
I would like to commend you for the j
9 timeliness and quality of the submittals that you've f
i 10 demonstrated over the past -- well, since we last met.
11 I have been impressed with the progress that you've 12 made.
It's obviously considerable.
There have been i
13 some tough issues and ITAAC is perhaps the toughest of l
P 14 the bunch that we all have encountered.
I urge you to I
15 keep up that same level of effort and I trust that if l
i 16 we can maintain the resource commitment on our side, 17 and I think the Commission is committed to doing that, 18 that we'll be able to proceed with the same kind of 19 progress that we've seen in the past several months.
20 DOCTOR SLEMBER:
Yes.
Just to respond to 21 that, I think we have a winner on both sides.
It's l
22 really demonstrating what was set out to be done.
23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner Remick?
25 COMMISSIONER REMICK: You didn't talk much il NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
52 1
about the instrumentation and control situation. What 2
is your situation with the common mode failure and 3
hardwired control system? Where do you stand with the
~
4 staff on those discussions?
5 MR. MATZIE:
Commissioner, we are very 6
close to completing all the associated issues with 7
that. We have incorporated some hard wire indications i
8 and controls into the plant.
That has been reviewed 9
and is basically in agreement -- we're in agreement 10 with the staff and we've done a very extensive 11 analysis of the basic Chapter 15, Chapter 6 transients 12 and there's one class of transient where now is the 13 only issue remaining on whether what we have 14 implemented thus far combats all the transients and 15 all the potential events.
So, it's down to one small 16 class which is basically large break and I think that i
17 shows very good progress and we've been working with i
18 the staff on closing that last remaining issue.
19 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
You don't see that i
i 20 as a show stopper?
21 MR. MATZIE:
I do not at this point.
I I
22 think we're well on our way to completing it.
23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I'd be curious in 24 knowing if you're prepared to comment on what is the 25 status of your PIUS submittal and so forth? Where do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
l (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 v
i 53 l
l 1
you stand on that? What kind of a schedule do you see I
2 since we are looking at our --
i 3
DOCTOR SLEMBER:
Can I come in at tne top 4
on that one, to just reinforce what I said? In a very 5
pragmatic sense, I always focus off the real world and-6 a real market that drives us.
The real opportunities j
t 7
are on the evolutionary plant, not on what I call more
_t 8
developmental plants that might be available around i
9 the turn of the century or beyond because, le
's face 10 it, many of us at this table, myself included, may be 11 dead by then.
What I'd like to see is a success and 12 I think we do have the ability of achieving-that in l
13 the short-term.
So, it would put priority clearly in 14 your thinking process on what we are covering today.
15 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Fine.
I did have 16 one final question I wrote as we were going along.
I 17 was going to ask you when you left here what was your 1
j 18 most important message to the Commission that you'd l
l 19 hope would tear out and perform, but I assume that l
1 20 that was in your final comments, the message about --
1 1
21 DOCTOR SLEMBER:
Yes.
I always wonder i
1 22 sometimes in my comments if I'm too subtle, but maybe 23 I wasn't.
]
I 24 CHAIRMAN SELIN: I wouldn't worry too much I
25 about that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 4
,9
,e r
-ry-r,-
= -
54 1
MR. NEWMAN:
Dick is not known for being 2
subtle.
3 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
I have no j
4 specific questions, but I'd like to thank you for the f
5 update.
I think it sounds very good.
6 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I have just a couple of j
I 7
comments.
I attach myself to the comments of my 8
colleagues.
i l
9 I take your exhortations about resources,
' i i
10 et cetera, to be sort of preemptive and prophylactic, j
i 11 not a description of the situation up until now.
l 12 DOCTOR SLEMBER:
That's correct.
i 13 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
In fact, I read this as 14 quite a positive report, that resources have been i
15 there and you want to make sure that we keep them 16 there in the face of the difference resource problems.
17 Well, you can be assured of that, that in fact one of 18 the things we tried to do is we told our 19 Appropriations Subcommittee the day before yesterday 20 is make sure that the resources for this program, j
21 which is as important as any program to the Commission 22 have been reserved.
I've also heard you say that the 23 staff has dug in to make sure that these first ITAAC 24 projects can be done and that it can shown that, in 4
25 fact, it is possible to do these.
In fact, I read NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234W33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i
55 i
1 your report as a kind of existence theorem, that in 2
fact Part 52 will work.
I mean that you're far enough 3
along in both the process and in the development to 4
see that if the quality of the work is there, which r
5 you said will be if the resources are there, which we l
6 say they will be, you can_see the -- I don't want to 7
say it's the tunnel, the light at the end of the 8
tunnel, but it's the runway at the end of the flight 9
path.
10 The reason I take this metaphor is, in a
11 fact, we have a situation where we have effectively 12 two airplanes coming and we assure you that there are 13 two runways, there are two gates, there are two ground i
i 14 teams and you've both been cleared for landing by air 15 traffic control.
The reason I say that is a year ago 16 we couldn't make this statement.
There were problems 17 in the other application which had to be solved for 18 you to be free.
But at this -- so, it wasn't true j
19 from the beginning that either one could take a 20 schedule independent of the other. But the Commission 21 has spent'a fair amount of time with the staff and we 22 are assured that at this point really the two 1
23 applications are quite independent in terms of 24 resourcra and in terms of substance that each one is j
i 25 going on its own schedule and accelerations or delays l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 w--
w, m
56 f
1 in one should not have an effect on the other one.
2 So, we read this, I read this as we're not j
t 3
there yet and there's still a lot of hard work to be j
4 done, but a demonstration that Part 52 with tier 1, i
5 tier 2, ITAAC, DAC, et cetera, is in fact doable.
I 6
tind, in addition to the quality of the work of your 7
submission that commissioner Curtiss referred to, just 8
that message is really a very positive message and, in 9
fact, the schedule really isn't that far off from when l
10 it was done without a real understanding of what the 11 resource implications were and what the real problems i
12 were.
It's a pretty good show.
I hope you feel you t
13 got value for the money and for the effort too.
14 Thank you very much for coming.
15 DOCTOR SLEMBER: Thank you, Commissioner.
16 (Whereupon, at 3:14 p.m.,
the above-
+
17 entitled matter was concluded.)
18 I
19 20 1
21 l
+
22 i
t l
23 l
24 I
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
. (202) 234-4433
)
i I
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
l f
TITLE OF MEETING:
BRIEFING BY ABB-CE ON STATUS OF SYSTEM 80+
APPLICATION FOR DESIGH CERTIFICATION I
PLACE OF MEETING:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING:
APRIL 23, 1993 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription 1
is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the
~
transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
l u,
h I
Reporter's name:
Peter Lynch Y
l 4
+
r n
t r
o
'9 i
e I
l NEAL R. GROSS count me,oarses Ano raAuscassens 1333 RHODE ISLAwD AVENut, N.W.
l (202) 234-4433
. WASHIN0f0N. D.C.' 20005 (202) 232-0800
n o n g
n gig i
re ns e
f en n
i i
3 g
eDo 9
n i
i r
9E B+t a
n 1
c o
n0i 3i t
f 2
s o8i u
l t
r b i
i s
r sme pm Ao eC C
imt s
B s
my B
m_
e A
t oS s
y C
S ra3 9 e6
/
l 1
I4 c2 ut r
e it NR K
, i.
ii
- l
Topics and Speakers:
l l
I o lNTRODUCTION 5 min Dr. Richard J. Slember President, ABB, Inc.
l l
U.S. Power Plant Businesses l
oTECHNICAL ISSUES STATUS 25 min Dr. Regis A. Matzie Vice-President, ABB-CE Nuclear Systems Development O PROCESS ISSUES STATUS 15 min Mr. Charles B. Brinkman Acting Director, ABB-CE Nuclear Systems Licensing oCOMMERCIALIZATION PROSPECTS 10 min Mr. Robert E. Newman, President ABB-CE Nuclear Systems o CONCLUSIONS 5 min Dr. Richard J. Slember l
Nuclear Systems h
- =
z
System 80 Major Progress Achieved o New Radiological Source Term implernented OSevere Accident issues Successfully Addressed oControl Room Design Features Approval Nearing Completion oRisk Assessments Used in Design Development and Evaluation eStructural Design Developed Which Envelops Majority of U.S. Sites olTAAC Agreements Obtained on Content and Details 1
i l
l Nuclear Systems hBB HAK Hitter 2 4/16/93
System 80 + Design Certification Program Milestones i
l l
O First CESSAR-DC Submittal November 1987 0 Final CESSAR-DC Submittal March 1991 OResponses to all RAls and Supplements May 1992 eDraft SER September 1992 0 Final CESSAR-DC Amendment June 1993 e Final SER to Commission November 1993 (est.)
o Final SER issued February 1994 (est.)
e FDA issued April 1994 (est.)
i eDesign Certification May 1995 (est.)
I l
Euciear systems Agg l
,y..w~_,.,%.4
..... + -
-.._,,y_-,--
e v.~
.m..,.-..,,,,r.r.~,.--~m,#.,.w
, _, - ~ ~..
...-seu,.,.~.+-w.-
+,
....s
.si
..... ~,...
,-o,.~,,..-.._.._m
_.,m
6.
l Progress Since Last Briefing i
1 OResponses to Staff Questions (RAl's) o Completed Supplemental Reports o Revised CESSAR-DC (2500 pages) eResponses to Draft Safety Evaluation Report::
o Completed initial Responses eSubmitted Follow-On Analyses e Revised CESSAR-DC (8800 pages) o Remaining Tasks (e.g., ITAAC, Structural Design) scheduled for June 30,1993 e Post-DSER Questions from Staff:
eResponded to Shutdown Risk Questions oResponded to Severe Accident Analysis Questions Nuclear Systems hhh RAK Rittar2 4/16/93
Current Status of DSER Review (AS of April 6,1993) oDSER includes 637 open and confirmatory issues:
0119 are resolved and closed 0 234 at e achnically resolved and changed from open to confirm.n 3ry 0 284 remain open O Overall assessment:
OSignificant progress has been made ONone of the remaining open items appears to present an obstacle to final design approval of System 80 +
i Nuclear Systems hBh hAK Ritter2 4/16/93
Ongoing Tasks eTier 1 Design Descriptions and ITAAC eintegrated Review of CESSAR-DC 0 Structural Design Detail o Human Factors Engineering Review of Control Room Features o Additional Issues:
oNew Source Term implementation OSevere Accident Design Features Cost-Benefit Analysis ointersystem LOCA Design Review oleak-Before-Break Analysis on New Systems oSabotage Vulnerability Review eClosure of Remaining DSER issues Nuclear Systems h
RAK Hitter 2 4MG/93
New Radiological Source Term e lssue:
Application of the New Source Term Technology to a Specific Design oStatus:
elmplemented for System 80 + :
o Design Basis Safety Analysis o Probabilistic Risk Assessment eProtective Action Guideline compliance o Benefits:
o Lower doses predicted for accidents e Higher allowable normal containment leakage rate eCharcoal filters not required for the subsphere and annulus ventilation system o Computer code verification is ongoing eEnvironment for Equipment Qualification not yet finalized OExpect closure of issues by June 1993 Nuclear Systems h
RAK Ritter2 4/16/93
Severe Accident Deterministic Analysis Olssue:
oRespond to post-DSER severe accident questions without relying on future experiments (i.e., address issues by demonstrating robust design features) o Status:
OContainment overpressure analysis shows that ASME Level C stress limit is not exceeded for approximately 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> oReactor cavity wall analysis shows ability to withstand steam explosion from core debris - water interaction o Analysis shows that reactor cavity structure can withstand the most severe core-concrete attack for several days without a significant release of radioactivity oNRC Staff continuing review of hydrogen mitigation capability Nuclear Systems h
RAK Ritter2 4/16/93 m.,
~
Human Factors Engineering elssue:
OState-of-the-art methods must be used for control room design, but there are no established regulatory acceptance criteria e Status:
o Agreement on the regulatory review model has been achieved l
ONRC review is nearing completion with emphasis on approval of specific design features o Detail required for verification and validation of procedures is not yet agreed upon l
Nuclear Systems h
RAK nittet2 4/16/93 i
~-
Human Factors Engineering (Cont.)
eFinal Design Approval Will Close Review of:
oControl Room Layout OLarge Overhead Display eStandard Control Panel Features oplant computer display hierarchy o alarm tile displays odedicated parameter displays o multiple-parameter displays oprocess controllers and push-button switches for component controls olTAAC will inciude:
o design process for remaing panels o verification and validation of the complete control room Nuclear Systems h
- :==
Probabilistic Risk Assessment O Major Results for System 80 + :
oMore than two orders magnitude improvement (decrease) in core damage frequency Core Damage Frequency:
-Internal Events:
1.7 E-6 events / year
-External Events:
0.3 E-6
-Shutdown Risk:
0.8 E Total:
2.8 E-6 events / year Nuclear Systems hhB RAK Ritter2 4/16/93
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Cont.)
oContainment Integrity, given a severely damaged core, is 99%
o Large offsite release frequency is 1.9E-8 events / year OHealth effects:
eThe probability of exceeding one prompt fatality is 2.1E-9 per year oThe probability of exceeding one latent fatality is 2.0E-7 per year eThe Best-Estimate Dose at Site Boundary for the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> is 0.3 rem (Protective Action Guideline for Emergency Planning is 1 rem)
Nuclear Systems hhB RAK Hitter 2 4/16/93
Structural Design Olssue:
o Provide single plant design that is acceptable for majority of U.S. sites o Status:
l oSeismic soil structure interaction analysis methodology established o Analyses performed for variety of seismic spectra and l
soil conditions to develop design envelope oStructural Analyses ongoing for critical regions of plant l
l ADB Nuclear Systems pqgp p
~? r? ~.
.3
Significant Process issues eDD/ITAAC Form and Content, including Supporting Information eDesign Control Document Form, Content, and Review Process oMetrication of Design Control Document eintegrated Review of System 80+ Documentation A It B Nuclear Systems pqgplp
.~ ~ ~T2
ITAAC Progress o April 1992 Ten Pilot ITAAC Submitted eJune 1992 Nine Pilot ITAAC Resubmitted oJanuary 1993 Forty-Seven ITAAC Submitted o February 1993 Two-Week Industry ITAAC Review o March 1993 Twelve Prototype ITAAC Submitted and Reviewed e April 1993 Agreement Reached on ITAAC Content and Details oJune 1993 Target for Completion of All ITAAC Submittals ARR Nuclear Systems 9%gplp
Design Control Document l
O DCD per SECY-92-287 Expected to Consist Of:
o Tier 1 oCertified Design Descriptions olTAAC ointerface Requirements and Site Parameters oTier 2 eCESSAR-DC (Less PRA) amended to conform to FSER OStaff Plans an independent consistency review:
oSchedule delays oNew issues o ABB-CE requests that the DCD be issued after the FDA and prior to the notice of proposed rulemaking for the Design Certification Rule I
A It Nuclear Systems pqgp RAK flitter 2 4/16/93
Metrication of Design Control Document eNRC Policy Statement:
l e Effective January 7,1993 eRecognizes there is no safety benefit associated with metric conversion ois not applicable to licensees and applicants, only to the NRC itself l
l l
Nuclear Systems hhB RAK Ritter2 4/16/93
+-
Metricatiors of Design Control Document (Cont.)
olmpact if Applied to System 80 + Design Control Document:
oWould require thousands of conversions e Complete reprint and review of CESSAR-DC eWould have major cost and schedule ramifications oWould have potential for requiring substantial re-evaluation of the System 80 + design eWould have no positive benefit to safety o Solution:
Exempt Design Certification Proceedings from Metrication Policy Statement Requirements Nuclear Systems hBB HAK Ritter2 4/16/93
Integrated Review of CESSAR-DC OScope :
O Regulatory issues ele Bulletins and Generic Letters o Regulatory Guides oUSls and GSis oTMI Rule (10CFR50.34f) o SECY-93-087 and SECY-90-016 e Global issues o Chapter 14 Initial Test Program eChapters 6 and 15 Safety Analysis oTechnical Specifications OProbabalistic Risk Assessment olTAAC o Major features of structures, systems, and components
. Nuclear Systems hhB RAK Ritter2 4/16/93
l~
Integrated Review of CESSAR-DC (Cont.)
e Process:
oPerformed by senior engineering and project personnel eSchedule:
l e Technical review completed by early June oSAR Amendments completed by June 30 o Products:
oCross reference database e Accurate and consistent SAR Nuclear Systems hBB RAK Ritter2 W16S3
System 80 l
Commercialization l
Prospects 1
eTaiwan e Korea i
l l
oUnited Kingdom l
l eUnited States I
Nuclear Systems hBB RAK Ritter2 4/16/93
.+
- - ~
.. ~. -
Conclusion e Licensing System 80 + has required a significant effort and commitment by both NRC and ABB-CE o Review is near completion, but continued emphasis on resource commitment and schedules will be required Nuclear Systems hhl RAK Ritter2 4/16/93
....,