ML20059L204
| ML20059L204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200001 |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1994 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9402030276 | |
| Download: ML20059L204 (65) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:M8WWWWWWW%TMWW6W6?MWWWWWrVtV;t%%;t gV;VWWWggiggi
~0At!SMirAl ~::
Occument Control Cest. 016 Phillips fe 2 & 3 .CVA?4CEO COPY '0: The Public Occutent occm 9 2 E 3 : ATE: //-1//V
/ g
/
j FROM: SECY Corresponcence & Recores Branen ; 3 6 b Attacned are c:otes of a Comission meeting transcript and relatec meeting cocument(s ) . They are teing forwarced for entry on the Daily Accession List and h g g placement in the Public Occument Room. No other cistribution is recuested or a reouirec. f "eeting
Title:
/Nu.; fi[<f mo f1Co o 77 [l D6J/k [,94 (& f y > . u 'l y&r /Y.Le m vu p a f7 /, A t.1Yn. V b "eeting Cate: I
/[.? (4 /94 Open >( Closec = . ,
h b - n ' E n g item Cescript1:n n Copies , A g Advanced DCS E to POR C3
*s
{
,f.
C {. g 1. TRANSCRIFT 1 1 g n)l l n ~:,a ,Q , S u 5
):.
b
- 2. .*
g b_ n
$ 7--
t =e ;
- R:
c =$ 'k L* c f
%== ; 4
%i I :
3 -- ; Cl
. E 9402030276 940126 - -- - --
0- - - d' PDR PT9.7 10CFR PDR ) !' ' t n
- CCR is acvanced one ccoy of each document, two of each SECY pacer. U j
CIR Branen files the original transcriot, with attacn=ents, withcut SECY k
=a: :acers. . ., , , , ,
,gp ,'
1 , U Lui a y/ 3 /M_ N NMYNYMWMM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION i k6 BRIEFING BY GE ON STATUS OF ABWR APPLICATION FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATION LOCatiOD: R0cxvIttE, MARYLAND b3tb JANUARY 26, 1994 3033 44 PAGES ( NEALR.GROSSANDCO.,INC. 1 COURT REPORTERS #WD TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 4
L., 4 i DISCLAIMER- -1 q
)
)
l This'is an unofficial transcript of'a meeting of
- j the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission hild on January 26, 1994, ;
in the Commission's office at One i White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meef:ing ~ was j open to public attendance and observation. This transcr:Lpt i has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may i contain inaccuracies.
?
i The transcript is intended solely. for genere; e t > informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, i t l's ] i not part of the formal or informal- record of decision of h the matters discussed. j Expressions of opinion in - this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or other paper-may be filed with I ( the Commission in any -proceeding 'as the result of,.or j addressed to, any staten.ent or argument contained herein, t except as the commission may authorize. i t
. l 5
X q HEAL R. GROSS - i cover eenontens Ano inAusensens taas anoes MAND AVeMUS. N.9f. JI (son)zu.44:s wAmauston.o.c. tooos ' teoriest4eco .i
A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRIEFING BY GE ON STATUS OF ABWR APPLICATION FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATION , t PUBLIC MEETING
.I Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland ,
Wednesday, January 26, 1994 I The Commission met in open session, - pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., Ivan Selin, Chairman, presiding. t COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: - IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner ' FORREST J. REMICK, Commissioner E. GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner e i
?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W_ (202)2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (20?) 2344433 w- __.
._~ ,
2 ! STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATE: AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:' l SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary I WILLIAM C. PARLER, General Counsel , i S.R. SPECKER, Vice President, GE Nuclear Energy. ' J.R. QUIRK, Project Manager, ABWR Certification _; Program, GE ! S.A. HUCIK, Manager, ABWR Projects, GE ! D..R. WILKINS, General Manager, Nuclear Services.and L Projects, GE i L l t i e i l t l l 5
.i i f
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 ,
. ~ -. . .
3 ; 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 10:05 a.m. l 3 CHAIRMAN SELIF : I'm sorry we 're late, Mr. E 4 Specker. We'll, of course, give you the time'at the
.(
5 end of the presentation to make up. 6 In any event, we're very. pleased to have 7 you here today. The status of the ABWR. application 8 for design certification is an important point.- We're 9 getting down close to the end and we're interested in ' 10 your views of just how-close, what other. issues are 11 out, et cetera. A number of significant issues have . 12 been dealt with the first time and in some sense it's , 13 a little unfair that your application was the first. 14 because you ended up solving both generic' and specific 15 problems along the way. But I think~it's~been -- 16 certainly been- a valuabic experience for the , 17 Commission and the staff and I hope GE has also done 't [ 18 okay in this sense. h 19 I would'like to reiterate one point that 20 I've made to both GE and Combustion' Engineering. At 21 this point there is no order anymore. Well, let's 22 rephrase that. .You each have-your own airplane, you 23 have your own controller, your own runway and'your own-l 24
, gate. So, each of-the two applications is on its own ]
i 25 schedule. Neither one will affect -- once .the generic ; NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 4323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. ! (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
-1 s .; C
'l issues'were addressed almost a year ago, neither one :
2 -will affect the status of the other one. ! 3 I understand the staff will be briefing , 4 the Commission this Friday _on the overall progress of ; 5 the design certification review. So, your 6 presentation is particularly timely. 7 Commissioners, did you have any opening 8 remarks? ; 9 COMMISSIONER REMICK: No, thank you. j 10 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Mr. Specker,.thank you. , i 11 again- for coming. We look forward to your. j 12 presentation. -' 13 DOCTOR SPECKER: Okay. Thank you. It's 14 a pleasure for the GE Nuclear Energy Team to be here E 15 again today to brief you on our ABWR programs. I was , i 16 just told this is our eighth such briefing in this 17 series. 2 18 With me today are Doctor Dan Wilkins,.Who , 19 I believe you all know, and Joe Quirk, who~is the l 20 project manager of ABWR Certification. And a new face - i 21 at the table is Mr. Steve Hucik who is our recently i 22 appointed manager of ABWR Projects. Steve has about . 23 20 years of experience with GE Nuclear : Energy, .the l 24 last 12 of which have been intimately involved with , 25 the ABWR in design and project management. ^f i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS ' 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W. 3 (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 .I
)
l
- 5 i 1 (Slide) Our-agenda for today's briefing l
t 2 is shown on the next chart and should be onLthe screen l
'i 3 .here. I'll provide just a brief overview of GE's
{ r 4 overall ABWR . activities. Then : Dan Wilkins' will-
~
5 discuss the safety improvements of.the ABWR and the-6 status of the design certification activities, and Joe 7 Quirk will.. then review the design _ certification. i 8 . process issues-. If this. agenda is satisfactory, we'll t
.9 move on with a few'of my comments.-then. !
10 Since the beginning of the ABWR, which was ! 11 in.the late 1970s, GE has remained committed:to-the 12 design, the development, the testing, the licensing' ! 13 and the commercialization of the ABWR'in the U.S. and 14 internationally. We pursued this commitment with a .i
~ 15 lot of persistence and prudence. Our commitment today 16 is c r'ronger than it's ever . been 'before to see it !
17 through the~ commercialization. ; .i - 18 In Japan, the ABWR.is licensed and under. 19 construction at.the'Kashawazaki site of.TEPCO, Tokyo 20 Electric Power. Just as a progress report, I'm .j 21 pleased to report today that of the two units' .i 22 Kashawazaki 6 is now 52 percent ' complete. .K-7 is , 23 about 25 percent complete, and the construction 1 24 schedule of 51 months is being adhered to and it's " 25 right on schedule. I also would like to report in i i NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. ; (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 2344433- ;
.t 6.
1 recent months the Japanese. utilities have-announced .; i 2' plans for '11 additional BWRs over the next decade. GE- ! 3 is currently involved in preliminary studies on a , , i
'4 number of these projects and we expect to have a key
~
5 ' role as these move into final design and construction. i 6 I also wanted to update you. . As you know, 7 weEdecided late last year not to submit a bid for two- i I 8 ABWRs for the Lungmen Project in Taiwnn. This. 9 difficult decision was based on a careful assessment ~i 10 of the potential financial risk and rewards of this 1 11 project. We simply determined that it was not in the' ,i 12 best interest of either GE Nuclear Energy or GE 13 shareowners to participate in this project by :, 14 submitting a bid. We will approach any other 15 opportunity for the ABWR on a case by case basis, }
.i 16 subject to the same rigorous scrutiny of the potential ;
17 finarmial risk and rewards. We, GE Nuclear Energy, is , i 18 very strong financially andtwe-intend to stay that i 19 way. ! i
-20 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Well, that's a very. j i
21 interesting topic. We could easily spend the timeLon '
-22 that, but we are sort of. obligated to-stick to our {
I 23 agenda'. So, we'll forego asking you questions. l 24 DOCTOR SPECKER: Fine. I thought I should , 25 at least comment on it. l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS ') 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
7: 1 Switching now to the U.S.,.we GE-are very'
?
e 2 committed.to preserving the-option for nuclear power ; 3 going into the 21st Century. As a result of.that, we 4 have been very active in. the overall ' licensing , 5 certification activities and the ~ commercialization- ' 6 activities that follow on. ., 7 Just to brief you-on this, as you know i 8 we're a very active participant in NPOC's strategic 9 plan for building new nuclear plants. We've been
?
10 intimately involved in the development of the advanced ~ ' 11 light .;ater reactor utility requirements documents to. l 12 Uh.:,h the ABWR fully conforms. The ABWR'is leading: 13 i.he way.in the design certification activity, as you ; 14 just mentioned, and the ABWR was selected as the 15 evolutionary de' sign for the first-of-a-kind 16 engineering program. Our goal is very straightforward ),
~
17 in all this. We intend to'have a fully- licensed, ] i 18 standardized, proven commercially competitive ABWR. 1 i
- 19. ready to go to battle in what'we think will be.the :)
1 20 very competitive electric . generation . market of.the l l 21 late ' 90s and the early 21st Century. That's our -l l 22 clear commitment and our clear goal. j 23 To achieve this goal, we're resolved to 24 obtaining an FDA for the ABWR that's free,of open. ;
)
25 issues or conditions and we're committed to working' j l NEAL R. GROSS . COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS - 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 i (202) 234-4433 i , n , - -- - . .
l' closely with the industry and the NRC to' resolve the i 2 :last of the design certification process issues so i 3 that the path will be. clear to proceed-in.the design , 4 certification rulemaking. [
. )
5 Thank you. If there are no questions on. + 6 those comments, I'll pass it on to Dan Wilkins. 4 7 CHAIRMAN SELIN: I do have a question on . 8 that, procedural. question. That is your views.on the 9 relative timing of the final design approval of the , 10 design control document, not so much the certification j 11 itself. l l 12 MR. QUIRK: I'm going to address that 13 later in the presentation. ; 14 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Okay. Fine. ; 15 DOCTOR SPECKER: Any other questions?' ~I 16 Okay. I'll turn it over to Doctor Wilkins. 17 DOCTOR WILKINS: Okay. As- we've: I 18 mentioned, we believe we're entering the home stretch .; 19 on the final design approval. I thought it might be 20 worthwhile to take a few minutes this morning and give { 21 you some of our GE perspectives on what we've- achieved 22 both in the safety area and in the process area to
^
23 date and then we'll finish up by talking -- Joe-Quirk 24 will talk about a relatively small number of remaining . 25 issues that we see before us, 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
. . - ~~ ,
9
~
-1 Let me start with a safety perspective.
2 I have noticed I have a number of acronyms in these 3 charts. I'll define them as I go. 4 (Slide) But if I could have the next 5 chart, please. 6 Perhaps the most significant change in the ; 7 ABWR relative to our past plants' is the reactor- ! 8 internal pumps, what we call the' RIPS. These are 9 really the basis of many of the--improvements in the ' 10 ABWR. They've-eliminated large pipes and many valves
.4 11 in the containment and by eliminating large pipes low 12 in the vessel they've enabled us to design the ABWR so !
13 that there is no core uncovery for any design basis l 14 event. The core always remains covered, which means 15 it doesn't go through the heat-up and cool-down cycle .! 16 of the earlier designs. ! 17 Pipes in the drywell have always been the 18 . source of major radiation in the drywell. By 19 eliminating those pipes and putting the pumps right on. l 20 the vessel we've greatly reduced the radiation fields 21 in the plant. By having ten pumps rather than our- - 22 previous two pump designs, we can maintain 100 percent - ' 23 power and flow with one pump completely out of
- i
- 24. service, which is a reliability improvement. t 25 (Slide) If I go to the next chart, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 HHODE ISi AND AVENUE, N.W. j
(?O2)2344433 - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) P344433
~.
I 10-1 second major area ~of improvement is . .the use of the- ) 2 FMCRDs, fine motion control rod drives, in the ABWR. . 3 These have eliminated the scram discharge volume which , { 4 has been troublesome. At.some plants in - the past ! 5 they've eliminated half of the - plumbing -inside. the 6 containment. 7 They have given us an: extra level 'of f I 8 diversity in that we can now insert the control rods- , 9 either with electric motors or hydraulically as in the 10 past-designs. Through the design of the fine motion .; 11 drive, we have designed the housing so that. you cannot ' 12 eject the drive from the vessel and that has enabled-13 us to eliminate that huge grid.of shootout steel that 14 we have below the drives in all the current plants so. -! 1 15 that it's easy to get to the drives. They're readily ; 1 accessible for maintenance. , 1 17 And finally, through design improvements 18 in both the drive and the way it's mechanically put 1 c
- 19. together, we've eliminated both the rod drop and the ,
20 rod ejection accident from the list of things we have 21 to consider. , 22 (Slide) If I go to the next chart on: the- f 23 emergency core cooling systems, we've gone to three- ' 2 4.. complete separate mechanical and electrical divisions, , 25 which is a higher level of' redundancy than we've-had NEAL R. GROSS. - COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W l (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 }
11-
'l :in past designs. .Because'of the. lack of large pipes 2 low in the vessel, . these systems' are much smaller than 3 they are on - current plants.- In spite of the fact' 4 they're smaller, they still can keep. the core covered 5 for any design basis accident. For all transient 6 events and almost all accident events,' we've achieved-7 an N-2 design, which means we can have one system out 8 for service and also be able'to have a single failure 9 and meet all the requirements,'which-'has.' opened the -
10 way for major improvements in the technical 11 ' specifications for the plant in terms of relaxing the 12 burden on the operators and stretching ot'.t of some 'of 13 the. equipment out of service times. 14 We have also in our ECCS designs greatly 15 simplified the operation of the.ECCS systems. In our 16 past designs, we've had to have the operator shift 17- realign the system for.' core cooling.or containment 18 cooling or other functions. In the way we've designed 19 these systems, there is much less. modes of operation 20 that.the operator-has to worry about. In effect, 21 we've kept the heat exchangers-in the loop all the
- 22 time so that the cooling function is always there 23 whether or not you're injecting into the vessel.
24 The fact.that we don't uncover the core 25 for any design basis event, we've eliminated the core NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
-(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
'i 12 1 spray spargers,: which were always kind of.a tricky. l 2 design element and have been:the source of maintenance 3- issues in-the field, and so they're gone. And we've , j 4 separated the ~ injection level for the reactor core
~
5 isolation cooling system and the high-pressure core 6 flooders so that if you don't have a' major drop in + l 7 water level or a major pipe break that the event will 'l 8 be handled - by the normal isolation cooling system 9 without activating the safety systems. 10 COMMISSIONER REMICK: ' Dan, what 's the ' I i 11 difference between the N+2 concept and N-2 other than' !! ll 12 N is defined differently? is there any other -- 13 DOCTOR WILKINS: Same. It's. just. j 14' basically level redundancy. 15_ (Slide) Go to the next. chart. 16 Another area that we're quite proud of the 17 improvements we made is the instrument and' control ! 18 area. We've gone to multiplexed fiber optic cabling ! r 19 networks throughout the plant which has . eliminated i 20 miles and miles of wire and cable' pulling late in the- , 21 construction process and enabled us-l to shorten the-t 22' construction. We've gone for all the. safety systems ! 23 the full digital two out of four logic and for all the' ,
'i 24 control' systems we've gone to triplicated self-testing ,
t 25 fault tolerant control systems with enough redundancy. *
.t NEAL R. GROSS-
. COURT REPORTER 3 AND TRANSCRIBERS i 1323 RHODE LAND AVENUE, N W.
.f (202) 2344433 W
. ASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 .(202) 234-4433
13 1 that if you'have a failure first of all it's announced ' -j 2 because of the se'lf-testing feature and there's enough-3 . lundancy to change the failed board on-line without 4~ getting into a scram situation. 5 We've made some improvements in the 1 6 neutron monitor and scram protection system. The 1 7 automated rod block monitor eliminates-the possibility 8 of rod withdrawal errors. And by the manner.in which_ . I 9 we hook up the control rod drives in the start-up-10 mode, we can move 26 in a gang, which has greatly l 11 reduced the start-up time for the plant. ! 4 12 The man-machine interface in'the control. .i e 13 room is another area that we're quite proud of with 14 the ABWR. It's the first plant that has been designed 15 by us at least with all the lessons of Three Mile 16 Island at the beginning. The emergency procedure 17 guidelines, which were certainly one of the most 18 important lessons learned in improvements that came 19 out of Three Mile Island, have in this plant been i 20 reflected into the whole layout and arrangement ~and : 21 choice of displays in the control room,'so-that the j
=-,
22 symptom-based approach to operating the plant during ' 23 an emergency is now not just in the procedures but the - f I 24 displays and controls in the control room have'been- ! 25 engineered to go along with those. l t NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 HHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. , (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
'14' ,
1 COMMISSIONER REMICK: . Dan, what's the 2 difference between the rod block monitor' in this 3 design in past because I thought theLpurpose was to. , 4 eliminate -- is it the number of errors that permitted-
'!4 5 it or what's.the difference because : you 've . had rod ;
6 block. monitors? 7 DOCTOR WILKINS: Joe, can you -- , 8 MR. HUCIK: This one.is. automated. 9 DOCTOR WILKINS: It's automated is ' the' - 10 main difference. 11 MR. HUCIK: This one; updates as you.go, l 12 updates so that you can actually follow and not hit t 13 the operational transients and the current one tries 14 to-go to the safety limits, whereas this one protects 15 against the operational limits and provides. a 16 continuous update as you go. 17 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. 'S o it's I 18 basically a refinement of what you've had in the._ past? 19 DOCTOR WILKINS: Yes. It continuously. f
-l 20 keeps track of how far you could move a rod without
-{ !
21 getting; in trouble and then make sure you can't go. .l l 22 past that. i
~!
23 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. Thank'you. -L I 24 . DOCTOR WILKINS: (Slide)- Next_ chart.. , j i 25- On the ATWS events, we've made another. l 1
.[
NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. l (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 - (202) 2344433
~f -
}
t 15 if major step forward in that in additionLto having the' 2 control rods. can go in _- either. electrically or 3 . hydraulically, we have retained the standby liquid -l 4 control system' which can ~ inject boron ~and ~ that is .
~
5 automatic in th'e ABWR. When we look at station 6 blackout, we now have three diesel generators plus'the 7 diversity of a. gas turbine generator which _ gives a. 8 backup means of electrical protection against loss of . 9 off-site power. 10 (Slide) Next chart. 11 Finally in the severe accident area,'we 12 have provisions for AC independent water' addition to~ i 13 the vessel as a feature that goes .well beyond , 14 requirements, but we felt was an easy and prudent 15 thing to do in this design. We've also designed, even ; 16 though our probabilistic risk assessments tell' us the
.i 17 probability of core damage in the.ABWR is extremely ,
18 low, down in the 10" range, we have arbitrarily '[ i 19 designed such that ' if you just. assume a core melt 20 -without worrying about how it happens, we've' designed 21 so that the_ lower drywell would be flooded and any-t 22 core debris would Lland in the water in the lower 23 drywell' and provided a containment over _ pressure i
- 24. protection feature to ensure that you do not have a' 25 catastrophic or uncontrolled failure of the NEAL R. GROSS [
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W k (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 ~ f
16 1 containment. . 2 Those two features combined give us a : 3 capability where in .the event of a core melt we , 4 believe there would be no observable off-site health 5 effects. The dose off-site would be less than 25 rem 6 at a mile, or at a half a mile. 7 One other feature that I should mention is 8 if you put all this together the ABWR is designed to ; 9 handle any design basis event for 72 hours without
;p 4
10 operator action. That was one of the objectives of 11 our effort on the passive plant designs and when we 12 looked at the ABWR we found with relatively few' 13 additional automation steps we could achieve the same-14 goal in the ABWR and we've, in f act, taken those steps' J 15 and done that. - 16 So, we look at the ABWR as a major
- 17 technological and safety step forward from our past.
18 .I mentioned core damage frequency in the 10 4 range. ] 19 We believe it will have a capacity factor capability . t 20 of 85 percent. We look to occupational - exposure 21 annually to be below 100 man rem. We look for . 22 significant reductions- in rad- waste volume and we 1 1 23 believe that the ABWR is going to be .th e - most i 1 4 24 economically competitive BWR we've ever had in the , ,i I 25 market. So, we're quite pleased at this point with. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 - (202) 2344433
17' r(
-1 .how far we've come with it.
- 1 2 Let me shif t and . talk a little abou't the-- [
3 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Dan, before you , 4 leave that, I assume your core damage frequency of 10 4 i i 5 is for internal initiators 'only, not including. i i 6 external ~ initiators. 7 DOCTOR WILKINS: It's -- 8 MR. QUIRK: Let's see. Our commitment is .i 9 104 , including external events and 25 rem in a .. half.' i 10 mile, both internal and external. Now, Dan said 10 4 11 and I think that's an internal. event. ;
~;
12 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Yes. Even 10 4,'the-13 return frequency on pretty large earthquakes is much -!
.14 smaller than that. I don't know how you can make your i
15 claim of 104 on an external, but we'll pass on that'at , 16 the moment.
- t 17 DOCTOR WILKINS: This is designed for a- '
18 very high seismic region in Japan. 19 COMMISSIONER REMICK: But your-U.S. design 20 is for .5 g, .3 g? 21 MR. QUIRK: .3 g, yes. Evaluated' . 22 probabilistically at twice that. i, 23 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I just raise a i 24 question about that for external initiator list pass.--
.l
- l 25 DOCTOR WILKINS: (Slide) Listed on the 1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 ' :
.i
18 l' next. chart,:the next two charts for that matter, are 2 some-of the major steps along the road. But as Doctor' ) 3 .Specker mentioned, this is our eighth' meeting. I'm , -f 4 proud to sayII've been at all of them over the years ; starting back in ' 86. ~ Major events along the way have 5 -; 6 been the utility requirement s document. Early on in l 7 '87 we developed with the 'aff a . licensing ~ ' review 8 basis which I think served us very well in guiding us-9 through many of the issues that we've dealt with in ' 10 this program. The standard safety. analysis report was 11- .in in submittals starting in '87 and continuing-up. 12 through '89. In the '88, '89 time frame, the 13 Commission requested us to expand the scope of the i 14 submittal to include the whole plant. At.the early ;
.i 15 stage of this program we. were planning- to do the
}
16 nuclear island only. We took that advice and ! q 17 submitted -the whole plant in . ' 8 9. We were in the-18 question and answer process with the. staff through 19 '89, well into '91, and then into amendments which j
- i, 20 have gone up to very recently. The most recent 21 amendments, what was it 30?
22 MR.. QUIRK: 33.
- 23. DOCTOR WILKINS: 3 3 ,- was an ~ integrated l 24- amendment where we took all of the loose ends and open .,
i 25 issues that had'come out of the review to-date and i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433-
, . - - .~ . . . -
19 1 folded them into'a. completely-new integrated version [ h
'2 of the SSAR'rather than the original plus amendments _ -1 l
3 that you had to try to piece together.
- 4. We worked hard in '93 on the-tier 1, the 5 design certification material. In parallel to'all of i 6 this, of course, the staff was developing what.now is:
i 7 going to end up as five major drafts of-the. safety evaluation report and we believe that.we 'are basically 8 9 on track with final design approval in May and' design. , 10 certification process beginning after that. l 11- (Slide) If we again -- next : slide, -; 12 please -- look at the certification process a little l l 13 differently, I think certainly we.at GE are proud and 14 I -- , 15 CHAIRMAN SELIN: ' I ' m ' sorry . Say that : i 16 again. I didn't hear what you said. , 17 DOCTOR WILKINS: I want to look at some of ; 18 the things we've covered in the certification process - 19' in terms of issues that have been dealt with and j 20 resolved. I said we at GE are quite pleased with the
'21 way these have been resolved. We think as.we've gone l i
22 through the integration of our effort with the utility j
' .)
23 requirements document, the resolution of the major ~ i 24 technical issues,-particularly severe accident and in R I 25 three SECY documents that are mentioned here, the l l 1 NEAL R. GROSS 1 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
-(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 - f l
20 1 manner in which we've dealt with_the level of' detail, l 2 the .ITAACs, the environmental ' issues and the 3 rulemaking process to the extent it's been dealt with, ! 4 our feeling is in all cases that these were difficult, ! 5 lengthy discussions but we got to good answers and 6 good workable, practical solutions that will make the ' 7 certification be useful in the future. So, it's been. 8 a long, hard struggle, but we're pleased with the-9 outcome, 10 There are currently 14 open issues in the 11 draft of the final safety evaluation report and Joe ; i 12 Quirk will talk about some of these in a little more 13 detail and give you our perspective. Four of them are . 14 still in the staff's hands. Nine of them are in our 15 hands. One of them is before the Commission. We see 16 no reason that all of these shouldn't be f airly easily 17 resolved in the coming weeks or months. 18 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Dan, I don't think ' 19 that is literally before the Commission. If I recall, 20 the staff has indicated that they.'re going to handle-- i 21 in the final SER we did have a paper indicating a 22 staff leaning. But if I recall, the Commission was 23 not asked for a decision. 24 DOCTOR WILKI'4S: Okay. , 25 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I could be wrong, l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
21
.1 but that's how 1 recall it. So, I don't think it's , -2 _actuall'y sitting on the Commission's desk _ at the ;
3 moment. -{ t 4 MR. QUIRK: That - is dif ferent .than we 5 understand. . We were told that there was an internal 6 memo from the staff to the Commission outlining the' 7 basis for their requirement of a diverse RPV water i 8 level system and that they asked for the Commission' , i 9 endorsement. And along with that,.they had a copy of
- I 10 the ACRS letter that heard the GE presentation on why -
11 no change was needed beyond that which is in existing ! 12 operating plants and the _ACRS confirmed- the GE l r 13 position in their letter. That package was-sent to " 14 the Commission for your input and we're very anxious 15 that the Commission promptly resolve this. :: 16 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I could be wrong. { 17 I remember the draft and it was marked a draft -- ! 4 18 MR. QUIRK: Yes, it was. It was, f i 19 COMMISSIONER REMICK: -- with indication i 20 it was going to be resolved in the FSER. When that j 21 'came out, I purposely looked at that. It 's . not 22 addressed in there and I was told it would be. . 23 3ddressed in the final, but I could be wrong. Maybe j q 24 there's something I missed. I could be wrong. .l; 25 MR. QUIRK: Could we encourage the' ! l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS , 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. -
~
,j (202) 2344433 WASHINGlON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344 433 f
22 1 Commission to pl<( se -- 2 COWIISSIONER REMICK: One way or the 3 other, yes. , 4 71R. QUIRK: Thank you. 5 DOCTOR WILKINS: So, I guess, just to 6 summarize, I believe we have a design here that's a 7 dramatic st ep forward in safety. I suspect it is the 8 most thoroughly reviewed design that we have ever 9 brought before the Commission. It has been through 10 the reviews by General Eclectic, Hitachi, Toshiba, 11 TEPCO and MITI in Japan. It has been through 12 extensive review by U.S. utilities and their 13 consultants. Many features of it, particularly the 14 process approach, has been reviewed by the U.S. 15 industry led by NUMARC, the NRC staf f and consultants, 16 very extensive ACRS review. 17 We've been down an eight year road that 18 has pioneered a new regulatory process with, as I 19 said, good solutions to the issues that came along the 20 way. The lead plant is 50 percent built in Japan. 21 It's the lead plant for the first-of-a-kind program 22 here in the U.S. I think there's been a lot of hard 23 work by certainly GE and the staf f and we think we're 24 in the home stretch and we'd like to move on and wrap , 25 up the FDA on the current schedule and get on with the 1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
23 1 certification step. !
-2 Joe?
3 MR. QUIRK: (Slide)- Next chart, please. [ 4 This chart shows the intensive' ACRS .
- s
~
5 involvement that has occurred. .As you can see from . 6 this chart, the activity intensified.in '92, which was
.7 the high water' mark for the ACRS meetings. If one --
8 breaks down the two year. period over '92 and '93, they 9 find that we met with the ACRS on an average of about. 10 two meetings per month. That's both subcommittee and 11 full committee and that's quite an ambitious active-12 undertaking. We look forward to receiving.a f avorable 13 ACRS letter in the near future.- ! 14 (Slide) Next chart, please.
~
15 While Dan's comments were very ringing and 16 gracious as to the progress that's been made on design 17 certification process issues, and I agree 18 wholeheartedly with those, there are however a few'-- ; i 19 I'm going to call them loose ends, if you will, items 1, 20 that came up under discussion of the advanced notice ; 21 of proposed rulemaking during which ' there was- a ! t 22 workshop. and input received from industry. In -j 23 particular,- NUMARC commented
~
extensively on the 24 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. General l 25 Electric and other vendors provided comments. In GE's ! I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. e (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 .l 1
.,. . , , =. . ~
24 1 case, we fully endorsed the NUMARC comments and l
'2 emphasized a few issues that were still needing to be '
3 resolved. ,. 4 (S11'e) d I would like to go into the;next i 5 couple charts. There are four issues - I'd like to j 6 highlight to you for your attention. Some of these ! 7 are in the resolution mode and some we would like to 8 urge Commission decision. t 9 As I said, tremendous strides have been ! 10 made by the industry and the staff in all the design 11 certification process issues. Only a few remain to be i 12 discussed. r 13 (Slide) The first such issue is the- l 14 design certification process issues that impact the '! 15 FDA. If you could go back to page 14, please. This- - 16 is the final design approval in design control 17 document separation. Now, industry has proposed that i 18 the staff issue the FDA prior to completion of the l 19 design control document.- Design control document.is- J l 20 only needed for rulemaking. Resolution of design 21 control document issues will not effect -the j ; 22 completeness of the staff safety. review,- and ; d 23' separation of these two issues would allow 'an l
-24 important milestone to be achieved, namely a- ,
i 25 conclusion of the staff review and issuance of the. { NEAL R. GROSS ! COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS . 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W. . (202) 234 4433 WASHING 10N. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
,. - - - - . + -
q;~
A 25_ f
.i final. design approval.
2 We understand. that the staff ~is 3 considering this position and will soon be forwarding
- 4 the essence of this position to the Commission for !
5- approval. We were delighted in the progress and we 6 look forward to the ultimate resolution of this. 7 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Joe, I agree with 8 what you said here factually. What is the importance 9 of that? I guess I better understood it when you were 10 considering bidding in the Taiwan case. But what is .
- 11. the importance to your company of what I presume would l 12 be a several month delay? '
13 MR. . QUIRK: It could be even more than 14 that. But the importance is the achievement of a , 15 major program milestone. And for no real good reason { 16 not to, other than a subject that was going to be f 17 dealt with next. That shouldn't affect attainment of. } 18 that important goal. So, nothing other than we've : 19 been at this a long time, we need to show progress, we t 20 need to show completion and for that reason we would 'I 21 like to separate them and deal with them. l
- 1 i
22 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Do you have -any . j 23 position if when the design control document, when it if 24 came out did reveal some apparent need. for a change to f i 25 the FDA, do you have any views on that, whether that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W-(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C, 20005 (202) 2344433 - I
. _, . . . . . _ 2_ ._. . . _ _ .__ _._ ~ __ _ -_ _ . . _ _ -
'I
.o-26 l
'l 'should be possible or not possible and how restrictive 2 that' change should be,'considering Part 52?
3 MR. QUIRK: You know, I' would be surprised 9 4 if'there was an issue. I don't think that's possible 5 and the reason is that the design control document is i 6 two parts,' tier 1 and tier 2, and tier 1, of course, I 7 as you know, includes the certified design description 8 and ITAAC and interf aces and site parameters extracted . 9 from the SSAR and packaged. Tier 2 is, in' fact,.'the 10 SSAR minus proprietary information and minus some-PRA -, 11 detailed information. So, it's not a new review - 12 that's being done, it's repackaging. what's already . 13 been approved. So, there should not be changes'.in the .. 5 14 DCD apart from anything that's-in the SSAR. j 15 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. 'Thank you. , 16 MR. QUIRK: Okay. With regard 'to 17 secondary reference issue, this is the first of three-
~!
18 issues that I would like to talk about that impact i
~
19 design certification. I'd like to up front.say that . 20 this one I believe is in hand. I think we are -- l 21 well, .I know we are awaiting staff guidance to- , a 22 satisfactorily resolve this and I think it is, { i 23- therefore, closed. Iti just hasn't been finalized and-- l 24 documented. If you'd like'to go into-this anymore, ... 25 I'd be happy to, but -- - NEAL R. GROSS !
- COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W j (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 ,
i L 27
.1 ' COMMISSIONER REMICK': .Just' explain it a
.{
2 little bit more, just -- E 3 MR. QUIRK:- Okay. e. 4 COMMISSIONER REMICK: -- what the problem , 5 is with'out going into a lot of detail.. 6- MR. QUIRK: Let me try to do that. The - 7 design certification rule will reference the DCD. 8 Therefore, the-'DCD by definition is the primary- ' 9 ' reference. But as you know, in tier 2 of the DCD 10 there are thousands of secondary referencesLand the 7 11 question is what is the- regulatory requirement 12 embedded in each of those references that must be -l 13 pulled out and put in the design certification rule. 14 We believe that there should be no secondary i 15 references embedded in the design certification rule. l 16 Rather, those references contained in tier. 1 be- ' 17 embedded. We believe this 'is consistent with the
;i 18 philosophy of the two tier concept and consistent.with 5 19' Commission guidance. !
3 20 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Thank you. " 21 MR. QUIRK: And we understand that that's i 22 in essence been' agreed to by the staff. y l 23 The next item affecting design 'I
.i 24 certification is treatment of PRA information. Let me l 25 say that we received - staf f guidance in August that' ;
y NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
-)
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W..
')
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
- . ~ , , '
.. . . . . _ . = .- __ _ . . - -
28 1 l' described what this PRA report would consist of. -Now, 2 let me back up a minute. Chapter .19 of our'SSAR'is 3 .the PRA and the severe accident evaluation. It'is 4 some four volumes long and includes event- trees' and l 5 fault trees and all'the probabilistic voodoo,-black 6 mag i ,: I call it, that comes about. You.can see_my; 7 biases. Anyway, and a lot of'that information is not' i
\s 8 appropriate to be in the SSAR and the staff recognizes ,
9 that as well. So, the recipe, if you will, the l 10 equation for what tier 2 and the DCD would be, tier 2- l 11 would be equal to the SSAR, minus . proprietary i 12 information, minus the PRA but plus, put back in', a
]
13 PRA. report that_ summarizes the key.PRA features and 14 insights and we agree with that. We have no 15 difficulty with that. I 16
~
As I mentioned eaflier, in August we got I
- 17 some guidance from the staff that further asked for >
18 very. specific and quantitative information to go back 19 in as well. We believe that that will put a burden on '
-j 20 the Part 50.59 change process, that we may be required ;
~
21 to run the PRA and determine the ef fect of that change 22 on probabilistics. If ve increased the core damage - 23 probability minutely, say. from 1 0 -12 ' to 10'" , ' 24 nevertheless that is an increase in safety and could , 25 be c~tsidered an unreviewed safety question 'which NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
,1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
, = -
p E , L 29 1 would put us back in a' formal process for resolving. 1,
]
2 that. .;
; s.
3 So, we do not intend to use the PRA in ! 4 that manner and we don't think anyone should. So, j i 6 5 what we would like the staff to do is. reach agreement l 6 on what' constitutes a PRA report, what do you put back
]
7 in, and we're in the discussion modes of'that right .i . r . 8 now and it's going pretty well. I don't mean to say; ! 9 it's all lost. We just need to keep it on the table, 1 10 be mindful of it and make sure that it gets concluded l 11 in a satisfactory way. l 12 The next item is applicable regulations. ! t 13 On this particular matter, the'staf f proposes that the ( i 14 design certification rule adopt as applicable' l 15 regulations various Commission approved staff 16 positions that they have passed on over the years. f 17 These are policy positions, if you will, that go q 18 beyond the staff's SRP and reg. guides which had been l 19 brought to the Commission and approved by 'the 20 Commission. And our design has been conformed to that - 21 position. Features have been added, analysis has been 22 provided demonstrating compliance with the position. :l 23 So, we're not at odds here in any way, shape or form
'l 24 with regard to complying with the Commission policy. l t
25 What the issue here is is must all those . SECY ! NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 HHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 I
. . . . . .~ . .- ,
.30 . {
_ 1- documents 'and Commission policy statements be compiled
~
j j 6 2 in an- applicable regulation section of the design. 3 certification rule? Those positions would have to be. ,. 4 redraf ted, restated and we're worried ~about additional l 4 ! 5 interpretations and downstream interpretations that ! t i 6 could complicate proceedings. And so we believe that 7 that shouldn't be the case, that the design is [ t 8 correct. 9 It will be certified as conforming'to the j e e 10 Commission policy and it's imbedded in tier 1 and tier
- 7
.i 11 2 and this is rather moot, and we hope that the staff :
12 does not continue in this direction to make applicable f 13 regulations out of Commission policy statement. i
~
l 14 COMMISSIONER REMICK: So, if I" understand 15 your position, those' requirements will be codified in i 16 the design certification rulemaking, in that rule. I j
-i 17 thought your argument was, but perhaps I misunderstood ~ !
18 it, that it should not then'also therefore be put j
'i
. 19 into, let's say, a requirement of-Part'50. Am I -- ! 20 you're basically saying something different than I l 21 thought. . 22 MR. QUIRK: Maybe I said -- let me try- .) 23 again. i
}
24 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. ,
.25 MR. QUIRK: The design has.been approved NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
-(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 - (202) 234 4433
v
'31 t
i 1- as meeting =the Commission policy statements and-that- ' 2 will. manifest itself.in tier 1-where appropriate and l 3 tier 2 where appropriate. 4 COMMISSIONER REMICK: So it is codified.- ; r
. -l 5 MR. QUIRK: So it's codified. The design- j 6 is right. -;
i 7 COMMISSIONER REMICK: .Yes. And you're t 8 saying that's the only place -- 9 MR. QUIRK: That's all one needs to worry
-i 10 about.
I 11 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I thought that was i 12 the. argument. , 13 MR. QUIRK: Ther e is an item that I do not ' 14 have a chart for that we have talked about and I-.think f r
?
-15 that it's worth raising here to the Commission, and ..
t 16 it's an item referred to as " tier 2 asterisk." 17 Industry refnrs to it as " tier 2 star." These are f 18 items that came out as'a result of the staff's safety l t 19 evaluation. They're not tier 1 items, but they're- {
)
20 important tier 2 items and the staff-has defined a -j . 21 limited set of these items, l'ike 11 areas, and they_ i 22 will require that these items not be changed without > 23 review by the staff, and so it's not tier 1 and it's < 24
'i a little more than tier 2. We're eroding somewhat the -
- l .
25 simplicity of the two tier structure, however industry f i NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. ' (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i
, r
b 32 , I has acquiesced in'this" instance-because it has.been: - 1' 2 defined and limited to just'affew. 3 Where we have a problem on tier 2 star , l 4 items is in the process to.' resolve. The staff says . 5 that these items cannot be changed using just 50.59, 6 that these items must be reviewed and approved by the' 7 staff. That is okay from the industry point of view. , 8 The process that is used in closing that out is all ! 9 that remains to be defined and we would hope that we i t 10 could get from the staff a review and a-letter.back 11 saying they have looked at the evaluation performed by .I 12 the applicant, it is consistent with what they hoped 13 for and it all right, and send a letter back, as 14 opposed to a formal amendment - to a license or an , 15 exemption or something ~ that may be subject to - 16 rulemaking or hearings later on. j 17 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Which you would argue is ! 18 essentially-tier 1. j 19 MR. QUIRK: Yes, exactly. And I apologize 20 for not putting this on a chart. On the way to the l 4 21 . meeting we thought that it was important. This issue ; 22 was identified in the detailed industry comments . f 23 provided by NUMARC, was also emphasized in GE's [ 24 comments, and we think to be consistent we. should ' . 25 raise it at this time. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
, 33 . li (Slide) Please move to the summary chart. -l
.2. In summary, as Dan walked through', we feel ' ;
3 very proud. that- the ABWR incorporates- major ; 4 technological and safety improvements. We'know and -
+. .
5 we've heard from both the staff'and the ACRS members j 6 that the review conducted on the ABWR has bee the most j r 7 thorough 'and rigorous ever conducted on a plant,- ! i 8 period. We believe that statement to be true, and 9 much progress has been made such that'we're at~the 10 threshold now for issuance of the first FDA under Part f 11
- 52. We are holder of an FDA. under Part 50 and we 12 thought we knew what was involved in achieving an FDAL
- 13 under Part 52. Little did.we know what was actually ,
- 14. involved. And, as Dan said, it's been a long road. -
-15 It's been a difficult road, but one: in which meaty ;
16 issues have been dealt with and resolved - in .an 17 acceptable lasting way, we believe. ; 18 There are remaining items, just a few, i 19 that need to be-done. 20 Number one, we need to complete the ACRS 21 review and obtain a favorable letter. 22 We need to complete the Commission's : 23 review of the advanced copy of the SER that was sent 1 24 to them'by the staff in December. . I 25 We look forward to issuing the final v NEAL R. GROSS i
. COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 .: < (202) 234-4433 !
.t.
1- safety evaluation report and.the.FDA, and of course' -I 2 initiating then~afdesign-certification rulemaking. . ' q 3 We also want to encourage the Commission- , 4 from comments that we've made_today to follow-on with-
-f 5 the good start.and progress.that's-been made on the ;
1 6 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. The ! 7 Commission guidance to the staff- earlier was to go 8 through the workshop, factor in comments rece'ived and _. t i 9 issue the advanced notice of' proposed rulemaking in ' 10 final form. We agree with that' direction. We urge l 11 that it be done and that it be done in a timely way to 12 enable orderly and easy transition' into the _[ 13 certification process. ] 14 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Doctor Specker, did you-15 have anything else that you wanted to add? l 16 DOCTOR SPECKER: No. That concludes our >, l 17 presentation. 18 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Thank.you. -i i 19 Would you, whoever is the appro)>riate ! i 20 person, sketch out what the implications wouldibe in ; 21 a technical sense if GE were required to provide an i 22 alternative source of Iressure vessel water level, an ; 23 alternative water level measurement? i 24 MR. QUIRK: Yes. , 25 CHAIRMAN'SELIN: I mean, I understand the NEAL R. GROSS - : COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS '! 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 234-4433 - WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
35 . o ; I argument of why you don't.think it's necessary,lbut, f 2 if some arbitrary terrible person required you to.do .; a 3 it anyway, what'would you have to do? l 4 MR. QUIRK: Well, there are a number -- . 5 well, the staff has told. us that there are some 6 options being developed in Europe. Heated junction f 7 thermocouple is one and acoustics is the other. We've -l l
- 8. looked into that. We believe neither of those are l
9 qualified for this application and in fact wouldn't i 10 serve the purpose that the staff really wants them to, ! 11 and I need to just explain that. 12 The staff agrees that the delta-P water 13 level measurement system in the ABWR and in earlier l 14 plants is adequate and safe. They-underscore that i 15 statement for steady-state conditions. On conditions' i 16 where there is rapid depressurization, they think ; 17 there can be some artificial heat-up, for example, or 18 flashing of non-condensibles that could alter - the 19 reading and make it erroneous. We've felt we dealt 20 with both those issues. Heat and flashing due to LOCA 21 energy we've dealt with, as well as non-condensible
- i 22 generation upon rapid depressurization. We know of no
?
23 other issue that could common mode fail the ~ water. ' 24 level. 25 So the question ' then is, if you want l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS , 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
~!
4
'f , x
- 361 .
1 anyway..to have a diverse system,. is there something~ 2 out there. that would . deal with this transient. .[ 3 situation, and we've looked'at the two I've mentioned ,. 4 and feel that they would not in fact do it. .[ 5 CHAIRMAN SELIN: So, this will be a show i 6 stopper then? ! t 7 MR. QUIRK: No, no. If the Commission i 8 said, whatever, we want you to do it, the staff has 3 t 9 cutlined requirements that this system would have to ; 10 meet. It does not need to be safety grade. It should i 11 be redundant. It does not need to be seismically 12 qualified. A whole list of things that we could work , 13 with and incorporate and not at an. overriding cost to 14 the plant. t 15 CHAIRMAN SELIN: So'there'are solutions, ) ; l'6 plausible solutions to this additional requirement? i 17 MR. QUIRK: There are things that we could ' 18 do to comply with the staff request. Whether they're ! 19 solutions or not is' argumentative. 20 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Does the staff : 21 say that those solutions meet their requirements? 22 MR. QUIRK: They really haven't said that. - 23 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: They haven't 24 said that. Okay. , 25 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Let me go back to your
.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202)2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
37- , 1 statement. You're saying -- wel'1, what are you 2 saying? You're saying that you could comply _with the - 3 request. 4 MR. QUIRK: Yes. 5 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Whether that provides 6 further redundancy or not is subject -- 7 MR. QUIRK: Whether that provides a - 8 reliable indication during the conditions of interest. , 9 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Don't read anything-into 10 my sentence other than I need to know the answer. 11 MR. QUIRK: I understand. a r 12 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Okay. If ' the staff 13 required and the Commission supported the staff's 14 position, what would GE do and what would the 15 implications be in terms of cost or time or what have .; 16 you in your design? , 17 MR. QUIRK: We would -- in terms of cost, 18 we think it would be manageable and we could proceed + 19 and do it. In terms of time, it would depend on what , 20 the staff would require. We think that we could 21 commit to meet the requirements and show a simplified i 22 diagram of how we would do that with a brief textual 23 description that would describe the functionality and
- 24 rapidly get approval of that and then require .
25 detailing that design at the COL application stage. l v NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS , 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433 l t
38 . 1 We think that would be a rapid way to proceed. l
~i
~
- 2. CHAIRMAN SELIN: Okay. Thank you.
3 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Do you think it's , ! i 4 technically justified? 5 MR. QUIRK: Absolutely not. No, we do' f 6 not. , 7 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Whil'e we're on that. 8 ' subject, I'd like an update. ' on the discussion Lof -) 9 whether -before the Commission or not. .The best- I s 10 information I've received from the senior staff is ; 1 11 it's before the Commission only in the form as an open-12 item in the FSER and the fact we've received the ACRS 13 letter, which we have. But the staff apparently.has-14 not pulled that together with specific request-for the. 15 Commission for a decision and the staff will do that. 16 promptly. _ That's the word I get from the. reaches of ! 17 the auditorium. 18 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Okay. Commissioner-19' Rogers?
'l 20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, no. I thought 21 this was a very interesting briefing. I dont have ll -
22 any technical questions, but I wonder if you 'could I 1 g 'l 23 comment or would care to comment on what you've seen : j 24 the role of the Commission,'the Commissioners as"the . I 25 Commission, in moving this ahead. Five years.or so NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE (SLAND AVENUE, N W. . (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
gy r - - - - - - . - t 39
-1 ago when the Commission really stepped in~, I'think~,;to' ;
2 the process because we felt we'did not know-what was' - 3 happening and were concerned about policy issues- that 4_ might be somehow or other inadvertently overlooked-e P . 5 because they were embedded in technical matters, there-
'6 was some unhappiness about the Commi.ssion's' action at !
7 that time, particularly from General = Electric. I ! 8 wonder in retrospect whether you see the Commission's. I 9 decision to be more actively and'proactively involved. . i 10 with - this review process as positive, negative or. 11 neutral? , 12 DOCTOR SPECKER: Dan, you do want to -- ~ . 13 CHAIRMAN SELIN: If you want to separate i 14 between Commissioners still serving and -- r i 15 DOCTOR SPECKER: We'11 1et our historian I 16 here comment. 17 DOCTOR WILKINS: Well, I think when we set 18 out on this ' program in '86, I believe, and Joe, f
-19 correct me if I'm wrong, that our target for~the FDA' _i 20- at that time was like September of '90.
21 MR. QUIRK: Yes, sir. 22 DOCTOR WILKINS: So,~it's now early '94 23 and so certainly the process from our~ perspective has ! t
- 24 gone much slower.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes, but you didn't i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. 4 (202)2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
t 40- -f 1- have Part 52-when you laid that'out. .So, you have to 2- take-that into account, that it was a big change. 3 DOCTOR WILKINS: We didn't have Part 52, , 4 but we did anticipate it. ! 5 I think though I'll go back to my earlier 6 comments. We are quite pleased with the resolutions ~ ! 7 that have occurred on the policy. issues and how long 8 it's taken us to get there is kind of behind us at- , 9 this point. I think the result that we see coming out A 10 of this is going to be a high quality certification I 11 and it's going to be a certification that I think will- : 12 establish the effectiveness and workability of Part i 13 52. So,,we're quite pleased with the outcome and then i 14 I guess therefore with the process that has led' to it, . i 15 assuming that we have an .FDA in May ~and a timely; ;
~?
16 certification after that. t 17 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Let me ask you a follow-- 18 up question a little more towards the - fut'ure.. Are, 19 there things in.the process as it stands today as it' i 20 will affect the small boiling water reactor..that-you' '! 21 have problems with or do you think we sort of'hAve it .i 22 pretty much consistent with law where it ought to'be- ; 23 at this point? { r 24 DOCTOR WILKINS: I would say that' this has , j i 25 paved the trail very nicely. for the small boiling' ! NEAL R. GROSS - COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 234 4433 - WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 .(202) 234-4433
41 l 1- water rea' c tor and other than the technical issue of f 2 passive safety' and how that goes through,- I think 3 .everything else we have done here ought to . apply _ 4 directly. 5 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Sorry. l
'l 6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No, that's fine, i 7 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Commissioner Remick? :l l
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Yes. Along- that - i 9 line, I'd just say it's been a learning process for 10 all of us. A new part of our regulation, a very 11 important one. I think we've stumbled along the way l 12 and vendors have stumbled along the way, but I've been ! 13 very pleased with the fact that people have worked f 14 closely and I think the Commission has tried to ! 15 resolve the issue. So, I agree very much with what 16 you've said, but it is a new process. It's different ' 17 than the Japanese process, which is closer to what. we 18 used to do. I think it's an improved process. I f 19 agree. I think your design is a much improved design 20 with the things that you've gone over. ' 21 One thing that I'd like to clarify why I 22 raised the question about 10 #, I'm not a seismic ! 23 expert. I don't claim to be a PRA expert, but I have f 24 on a number of occasions asked our seismic expert what 25 is the probable frequency of an SSE in parts of the i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS , 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005. (202) 2344433
t 42 , i _1 United States that'you. envelope in your design? -The
.2 answer is somewhere probably around 10~', .10 -
d per year. ]
'i 3 -If you' get ' _ up to maybe a couple ~ times the S'iE , , l 4 'probably 104 or 10 4. So, if it-is possible to-get an '
. I 5' earthquake'of_several times the SSE, in that range, I j
'I 6 honestly don't know how - people can claim if .they; 7 include seismic how you can guarantee that the core I 8 damage frequency is less than.that.
9 I've taken this message not only'in the= t 10 United States but in other countries where vendors' = 1 11 seem to be, each one, pushing a number lower than;the' 12 other and trying to get- people to explain when you put 13 out numbers do you mean internal-- or- external i t 14 initiators or both or what, just so we at_least know 15 what 's being -- so that's tb 7urpose of- my : comment. 16 I don't claim to be an expert. I'm not questioning i 1 17 your numbers, but I must admit in my mind there always
.~that, 18 is a question when I see numbers like 19 particularly if they include external initiators.in 20 countries where seismic frequencies are relatively 21 high and your envelope incorporates some parts of the 22 United States where there's reasonable expectation of ,
23 earthquakes. That's the basis for it. 24 _If you have' anything further on that after , 25 the. meeting and want to supplement it, I would greatly-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 234 4433 - WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 ' (202) 2344433
. , _ .~- ~.- - . .
- l 43-6 1 -appreciate'it,'_just forzclarification.
2 I thank you,very much for thejbriefing. ~
.. . :i 3 I'think it's been very helpful and-timely, t
4 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Commissioner de Planque? 5 COMMISSIONER de - PIANQUE: Yes. I have - 6 just one question on the, issue of approving the FDA' l 7 before the DCD. I think I heard you said you wouldn't' !
.?
8 expect that to affect or feed back into the SSAR. If. 9 that turned out not to be the case or the staff saw .i 10 that a change needed to be made there, do you see a
-l t 11 problem with that?
i 12 MR. QUIRK: No, I do.not. If it's to an
'f 13 extreme, of course. If it's a very' limited area and
'i 14 something that came up, no problem.
- 15 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Okay. I have no'. .l v
16 further questions. I found the briefing extremely [ 17 helpful. Thank you very much. ' 18 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Thank you. So have.I. I 19 We've been waiting'for this presentation for a--long 20 time. The Commission will obligate itself to address. 21 the issues before it or better to be imminently before ; 22 us and get them settled. We also, now that the main 23 safety issues are well behind us, we are also' desirous q
.i 24 of getting on with the certification both on lthe:
j 25 procedural issues that Mr. Quirk raised and on the one F NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 234-4433 . WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
4 44
' ~
1- . technical issue which'either is or isn't-or is about 2 to be. before the Commission,: depending. on your. , i 3 definition of that. ...
?
4 Thank you very much, Doctor Specker.- - 5 DOCTOR SPECKER: Thank you. t 6 (Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the above- : 7 entitled matter was included.) .!
~!
8 9 .! 10 l f 11 I i 12 : 13 14 ' i 15 16 i 17 +
-i
- y 18 .
19 20 21 [ 22 23 '; 24 , i 25 I NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. t
, (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
j CERTIFICATE OF TPANSCRIBER , This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting ; of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled: i TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING BY GE ON STATUS.'0F ABWR APPLICATION .! FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATION .3 PLACE OF MEETING: R0CKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING: JANUARY 26, 1994 '
.i were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription -f is accurate and complete. to the best of my ability, and that the I i
transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events. > 1 [ %
-v- v
-i Reporter's name: _ Peter Lynch l 4
4 i t i 1 I
^!
i l
'I i
i HEAL R. GROS $ t COUtf #990efsts AND TRAMSCRmtt$ 1333 RMODE ISLAND AYtMUf. M.W. (202) 234-4433 wASMMOTON.94 2000$ (202) 232M ;
. 1 i
j
'I
O GENuclearEnergy Advanced ReactorPrograms Presented to NuclearRegulatory Commission S. R. Specker, Vice-President & General Manager D. R. Wilkins, General Manager, Nuclear Services andProjects S. A. Hucik, Manager, ABWR Projects J. F. Quirk, Project Manager,' ABWR Certification t January 26,1994 . - - . .---_-..-_a-_ . .- .. _ ..
COMMISSION BRIEFING
' WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26,1994 l
- AGENDA L ;10 Min. Introduction S.R.Specker 30 Min. ABWR Features and. D. R.- Wilkins Certification Activities
- ABWR Safetyimprovements
- ABWR Certification Status 15 Min. Design Certification Process issues J. F. Quirk
. S Min. Summary 2 af18 - * '* 4,
. : , t 2
8 1 - f o _ S . - c t s u - e o v . l a p _ v s m s, A u _ C p i. eO pL e n i p y n n n r o o :_ e eiht s g v ai t _ t r . n a oi cd a w e l a m e d n r w _ v e u _ o t e d lo - r p a r ef o c n m i u% mc I . Ry o e0 d 0 . s il Wtfe Ba P E I NR1 _ AS R .
V ;) ' ;; 8 1 f . . o . l 4 . e e
, t .
e s .
~
t . m u u l t o t o n v o e o d e h i . c gg s r s c . ai n s e a
)d hb i v e t
~
n e c r smd a u n o . n u t i i _ i t i t n dl p r c o e m e C mt an s i l e j e ( s r e i n . c t d t n e smo n t r o p o r
,d m
e di sy p v ea t t u pt e . o r an a s o r a p s no w dni e m D ic v o dm Ry I R im 2 i Wtfe C lE1 /wT D r ol Re i
+
Ba AS M F -
i t
^
ABWR L SafetyImprovements (Continued) ECCS
- 3 separate mechanical and electrical divisions
- 1/3less piping and valves
- N-2fortransients
- NearlyN-2foraccidents
- Simplifiednumberofmodes
- Eliminated core sprayspargers
- RCIC and'HPCFinitiation levels separated 5of18 i
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . ...__-._-~......;.. -
-ABWR .
Safetyimprovements (Continued) I&C
- Multiplexerfiberoptics ;
- Digital 2/4 for safety, voting mid of 3 for control
- Fixed wide range neutron monitor ,
- Periodbasedscramprotection
- ARBM eliminates rod withdrawal error
- Ganged rods (up to 26) in startup mode
- AdvancedMMI i
i Sof18 l l
. - - . . -.~m. < .. . , - - -~..-. __,m-_-_ -_ -. . - . . . . - -- . , .. - . . - ~ . . . .-~ . - . ....,--.m . _m.< - . - . - ---..v.-.w-*- ..r~ --.m- .- . - . + ~_ m-,r-
ABWR , Safetyimprovements (Continued) 1 ATWS .
- Automatic for SLCS and other operator actions (RIPrunback, FWrunback) .
Station Blackout ,
- 3dieselgenerators
- Gas turbinegenerator -
-7of18 i
'l
_--m ___m__ - __-m-- - - . .. --. .+r- r %+ . - - . ~ m--*w., =-r.-<ra. - ' c-, e-=w. , , = - *- 4 w msi es .-e.. ----ww +*e. - mev- 4 -v e- aie eri +='iserwg me-.=r-w w- s av - .4eiw+.=4.= -m-e svw.. 's--,---e-r,*-vv =
i ABWR SafetyImprovements (Continued) Severe Accident Features i
- ACindependentwateraddition
- Lowerdrywellflooder
- Containment overpressure protection i J
ABWR INCORPORA TES MAJOR TECHNOLOGICAL AND SAFETYIMPROVEMENTS . Sof18 .
. , - ~ . . . --. . , . . . - . .-. ., ~,, ...;,... , , , . . . . . - . . . . . . , ~ :.-.....-_... - , . . . . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary ofABWR Certification
,86 ,87 ,88 ,89 ,90 ,91 ,92 ,93 ,94 ,95 ,96 ,
- UTILITY (EPRI) REQUIREMENTS -A DOCUMENT
^
- LICENSING REVIEW BASES DOCUMENT
^
- STANDARD SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (SSAR) SUBMITTAL 3
- SCOPE EXPANSION
-TURBINE ISLAND A
- RADWASTE FACILITY A
^
- REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL -
INFORMATION (RAl)
^
- SSAR AMENDMENTS
-RE-ISSUE UNDER OATH AND A AFFIRMATION
- DESIGN CERTIFICATION MATERIAL (TIER 1) A 90f18
Summary of ABWR Certification (Continued)
,86 ,87 ,88 ,89 ,90 ,91 ,92 ,93 ,94 ,95 ,96 ,
- SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT
- PDSER
A
- DSER
- DFSER A
- ADVANCED COPY OF SER A
-FSER* A
*FDA* A
- DCD SUBMITTAL A
- DESIGN CERTIFICATION * -A per SECY-93-097 10 of 18.
_ . .s . s J Certification Process Status
. ABWR design certification and ALWR requirements are well =i integrated .
* .NRC review essentially complete
- All major technical issues resolved (SECY-89-10, SECY-90-016 and SECY-93-087) .
- 10 CFR Part 52 first time process issues resolved Level of detail ITAAC - inspections , tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria Environmental (NEPA? considerations Rulemaking procedures 11Of18
.._ _ . . - . . _ . . _ _ __ _ . - .._.._...__.~.__-_m.~,,_.._ _ _ . . _ . _ _ - . . . _ . _ _ . . - . _ . . - . _ . _ _ - - . - . . . _ . ~ . . . - . . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . - . _ . . . . - . .
Certificationfrocess Status (Continued)
= Advanced copy of FSER issued:14 open items identified 4 issues undergoing Staff action-9 issues .GE preparing . response in January 1994 1 issue (RPV water level instrumentation) pending Commission 4
-decision-L NOW ATTHRESHOLD OF FDA ISSUANCE I 12 of18 i
l __ - -- _ l_______m.imm_m____'_:_._..I-___u_-__E m_ . . __.__-_ _ ___ ._m ., U._..___ . _ _ . . , _ _.ms, mm_ . m
ACRS FULL & SUBCOMMITTEE MTG-DAYS FOR ABWR REVIEW}
.g 18 17 16 ijil 15 14 glh.; l
> 12 .;g :l :t
!I!
<C 0 10
~
ty il !. 8 0 l- 5 6 'yiL
#Jp!
.;1 :-4 :
6 .. , 4
-4 3 =
'liiij 3 : kl L .::
El ; b Ii$8 1.. k . : ;; 11 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 YEAR SIGNIFICANTACRS REVIEW ACCOMPLISHED 130f18
Design Certification Process Issues Impacting FDA FDA/DCD SEPARATION
- Proposal for staff issuance of FDA prior to completion of DCD approval process Resolution of DCD format issues will not affect content and completeness of safety review and findings supporting approval of FDA DCD relates only to DC Rulemaking
- Separation of two issuances would allow design review process to be completed within a time frame consistent with NRC-approved schedules i
Understand that staff supports separating FDA and DCD issuance INDUSTRY URGES COMMISSION TO ENDORSE SEPARATING FDA AND DCD ISSUANCE 14 of18
^ si .
- _e _e a
Process Issues Impacting Design Certification SECONDARYREFERENCES -
- Preliminary Staff guidance on DCD treatment of SSAR secondary references caused serious industry concerns-regarding practicality and schedule impacts 4
- Further interaction has clarified Staff and industry understanding AWAITING NEW STAFF GUIDANCE TO SATISFACTORILY RESOLVE MATTER l
L 15of18 i.
. ~ ~:. _ . . . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ _ . _ . ~ . . . - . ... :.._,..-
l Process issues impacting Design Certification (Continued) TREATMENTOFPRA INFORMATION
- Staffproposes DCD include PRA details, including probabilities Would make 50.59 evaluations burdensome and divert licensee and staff resources from more important operating issues to handling of license amendments or exemption-requests for trivial increases in PRA probabilities -
ONLY IMPORTANT DESIGN INSIGHTS FROM PRA SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN DCD AND SUBJECTTO 50.59 REVIEW PRIOR TO CHANGE 160f18
~ -e nwe m-- -v,', -,-s,-sw w w a , , r- -,--, - -m~ ---m w, , ..w=w- -
--e- v <w--, - - - --- , - - w- *w-- v- a ww-r e - - -- , .o
, # 9
.M w_
Process issues Impacting Design Certification (Continued) APPLICABLEREGULATIONS
. Staff proposes DC rule adopt as " applicable regulations" various ,
Commission-approved staff positions on severe accidents and other technicalissues Industry believes that Commission-approved staff positions will be embodied in Tier 1 and Tier.2 DC rule requirements THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED BY COMMISION 1 17of18 u
i
SUMMARY
- ABWR incorporates major technological and safety improvements- :
Much' progress made . . .-@ threshold of first FDA under Part 52
~
.* Remaining' actions-i- ACRS letter Commission review.of advanced copy of SER ,
e 1 FSER and FDA issuance Early commission action on ANPR process issues needed to: maintain schedules for initiating;ALWR rulemakings 4 ? 18of18
'* : y, _, , , . _ _ _ . . . - ~ . .. - ,...--.,r-#,,, .---.m.. .--,,,, .. ,. .....--o.o ,,s,. . m.---,.4,-..<.c+-., . , - ~ . . - ~ , , - . . ~ . . , , - - . - - . ,- . . , , - , -- ,v- ~ - . . - , _ , _l.. ,-}}