ML20141G542

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 970422 Meeting W/W in Rockville,Md to Discuss Design Certification Issues for AP600.List of Meeting Attendees Encl
ML20141G542
Person / Time
Site: 05200003
Issue date: 05/15/1997
From: Joseph Sebrosky
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9705220406
Download: ML20141G542 (44)
v • d • e


Text

-. .- . - . . - - , . - - - - - - _ - . . - . - . . - - . - _ . . -

L

[o l g

/*% % "

UNITED STATES i

{

  • NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

" WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 00C1 '

May 15, 1997 i , 1 l

l APPLICANT:' Westinghouse Electric Corporation FACILITY: 'AP600

SUBJECT:

Supt 4ARY OF~ APRIL 22, 1997, SENIOR MANAGEMENT MEETING WITH WESTINGHOUSE f

TO DISCUSS DESIGN CERTIFICATION ISSUES FOR THE AP600 ,

i: , .

The subject meeting was held on April 22, 1997, in the Rockville, Maryland, office of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) between representatives of -;

Westinghouse and the NRC staff. Attachment 1 is a list of meeting attendees.

[ ' Attachments 2 and 3 are the handouts provided during the meeting by the staff j l and Westinghouse respectively.  ;

Prior to the April 22 meeting, a meeting was held between Westinghouse and the  !

' staff on April 18, 1997, to focus the discussion for the senior managers. The

~

l April 18, 1997, meeting discussed the status of the top 27 technical issues  !

for the AP600 review that were identified to Westinghouse in a December 6, l
- 1996, letter. The outcome of the April 18, 1997, meeting was an agreement  ;
between Westinghouse and the staff on what issues would be presented to the '

senior managers as' status and what issues would be discussed in more depth.  ;

The agenda of Attachment 2 shows the results of this agreement, j 1

During the discussion of the status two action items were identified for the 1

-NRC staff to pursue. One of the action items concerned item number 15 )

(Proposed AP600 Security Plan). The staff agreed to look into additional  !

-support for the-review to offset the impact of staff reassignments. The other  :

action item concerned item number 17 (Code Documentation and Qualification).  !

The staff committed to provide Westinghouse by Nay 2, 1997, the passive i 4 residual heat removal data from the ROSA test to support the heat transfer j l correlation validation of the LOFTRAN code.

]

Issues that could affect the schedule were then discussed. Westinghcuse l stated that it would respond to an April 17, 1997, letter that requested ) 3 l submittal dates from Westinghouse for certain material. Westinghouse stated i that it would respond by May 2,1997, with the requested information. There )

, was a joint action item for the staff and Westinghouse to develop a schedule  ; I .

for completing the AP600 review basad on the information to be supplied by l l

Westinghouse and staff resources.

The staff then presented the informatioh concerning application of GDC-2 to

_ post-72 hour equipment. Westinghouse provided their response in Attachment 3.  !

The major points of disagreement between Westinghouse and the staff were: ,

(1) does- the post-72. hour equipment need to be Seismic Category I or analyzed .

- and evaluated to demonstrate that it will withstand a safe shutdown earthquake l c .and (2) does the_ Post-72 hour equipment need to be designed to withstand ,

tornado loadings. The staff committed to provide' Westinghouse with a position I

- on the application of GDC-2.to the post-72 hour equipment. j k

) A ,

. i May 15,1997 During the discussion of tracking and closure of open items, it was determined that a measure was needed to assess the status of the review. The staff and Westinghouse committed to have phone calls on individual standard safety analysis report chapters to assess the state of the review for each Chapter. .

This mechanista for assessing the status of the review would be implemented on a trial basis and feedback on its success, or failure, would be provided to the senior managers. The staff committed to update the Open Item Tracking System as part of this approach.

A recent inspection of the AP600 quality assurance program was then discussed.

The staff considered that the findings of the inspection could impact the AP600 review schedule. Westinghouse disagreed with the way the findings were characterized by the staff in Attachment 2. The staff agreed to provide Westinghouse with either the inspection report or a quick look letter on the problem as soon as possible.

At the conclusion of the meeting it was agreed that another senior management meeting to discuss the AP600 review should be scheduled for early June. In the interim, items requiring senior management attention will be addressed by focused meetings or telephone calls. A draft of this meeting summary was provided to Westinghouse to allow them the opportunity to ensure that the representations of their comments and discussions were correct.

original signed by:

Joseph M. Sebrosky, Project Manager i Standardization Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management 1 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.52-003 Attachments: As stated  :

i cc w/ attachments:

See next page DISTRIBUTION: ,

See next page l

DOCUMENT NAME: A:\4 22 SMM. SUM l T oneeM e copy of sede eleewnent Tsubsete in the bes: *C* = Copy without ettechnent/ enclosure "E* = Copy with attachrnent/ enclosure *N* = No copy 1 0FFICE PM:PDST:DRPM - 0;PDST:DRPM l l NAME JSebrosky 4 41, TRQuay P )

DATE 05/rr/97 // 05/ %/97 OfflCIAL RECORD COPY  !

l l

e e Westinghouse Electric Corporation Cocket No.52-003  ;

l cc: Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Mr. Frank A. Ross Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Office of LWR Safety and Technology i Westinghouse Electric Corporation 19901 Germantown Road P.O. Box 355 Germantown, MD 20874 ,

Pittsburgh, PA 15230 1 Mr. Ronald Simard, Director l Mr. B. A. McIntyre Advanced Reactor Program Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Westinghouse Electric Corporation 1776 Eye Street, N.W.

Energy Systems Business Unit Suite 300 Box 355 Washington, DC 20006-3706 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Ms. Lynn Connor Ms. Cindy L. Haag Doc-Search Associates Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Post Office Box 34 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Cabin John, MD 20818 Energy Systems Business Unit Box 355 Mr. James E. Quinn, Projects Manager

Pittsburgh, PA 15230 LMR and SBWR Programs GE Nuclear Energy Mr. M. D. Beaumont 175 Curtner Avenue, M/C 165 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division San Jose, CA 95125 Westinghouse Electric Corporation One Montrose Metro Mr. Robert H. Buchholz 11921 Rockville Pike GE Nuclear Energy Suite 350 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-781

Rockville, MD 20852 San Jose, CA 95125  ;

Mr. Sterling Franks Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.

U.S. Department of Energy Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott NE-50 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor 19901 Germantown Road Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Germantown, MD 20874 Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager Mr. S. M. Modro PWR Design Certification Nuclear Systems Analysis Technologies Electric Power Research Institute Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company 3412 Hillview Avenue l' Post Office Box 1625 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 l Mr. Charles Thompson, Nuclear Engineer l

AP600 Certification 1 NE-50 ,

19901 Germantown Road '

l Germantown, MD 20874

4 ,

a 3 , s.;g j

DISTRIBUTION'w/ attachment:  :

Docket File I PUBLIC l PDST-R/F-TKenyon  !

BHuffman

-JSebrosky .

DJackson-DISTRIBUTION w/o attachment: }

Sco111ns/FMiraglia, 0-12 G18 l LTMartin, 0-12 G18 i RZimmerman, 0-12 G18

- MSlosson '

SWeiss

~TQuay. .

WDean, 0-5 E23-  :

ACRS (11)  !

JMoore,'0-15 B18  :

.GHolanan, 0-8 E2 - l-JLyons, 0-8 D1 4

Alevin, 0-8 E23 '

CBerlinger, 0-8 H7 1 MSnodderly, 0-8 H7 i EThrom, 0-8 H7 '

WLong, 0-8 H7 MCunningham, 0-10 E50 JFlack,.0-10 E4

  • NSaltos, 0-10 E4 ,

i LSpessard, 0-9 E4 Glainas, 0-7 D26 GBagchi, 0-7 HIS  !

JNWilson CGrimes, 0-13 H15 .

5 r l

[

22000  ;

!e o WESTINGHOUSE AP600 SENIOR MANAGEMENT MEETING ATTENDEES APRIL 22, 1997 Et!E ORGANIZATION JIM GRESHAM WESTINGHOUSE RON VIJUK WESTINGHOUSE CINDY HAAG WESTINGHOUSE BOB VIJUK WESTINGHOUSE ED CUMMINS WESTINGHOUSE BRIAN MCINTYRE WESTINGHOUSE R. P. MCDONALD ARC AND EPRI ED RODWELL EPRI CHARLES THOMPSON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SAM COLLINS NRR FRANK MIRAGLIA (PART TIME) NRR ASH 0K THADANI (PART TIME) .NRR/ADT GARY HOLAHAN NRR/DSSA JIM LYONS NRR/DSSA/SRXB -

ALAN LEVIN NRR/DSSA/SRXB CARL BERLINGER NRR/DSSA/SCSB MICHAEL SNODDERLY NRR/DSSA/SCSB EDWARD THROM NRR/DSSA/SCSB WILLIAM LONG NRR/DSSA/SCSB MARK CUNNINGHAM NRR/DSSA/SPSB JOHN FLACK NRR/DSSA/SPSB NICK SALTOS NRR/DSSA/SPSB LEE SPESSARD NRR/DRCH GUS LAINAS NRR/DE GOUTAM BAGCHI NRR/DE/ECGB TIM MARTIN NRR/DRPM MARYLEE SLOSSON NRR/DRPM TED QUAY NRR/DRPM/PDST JERRY WILSON NRR/DRPN/PDST BILL HUFFMAN NRR/DRPM/PDST

, DIANE JACKSON NRR/DRPM/PDST  :

J0E SEBROSKY NRR/DRPM/PDST CHRIS GRIMES NRR/TSB l

I Attachment I

)

I I

, i. .

AP600 SENIOR MANAGEMENT MEETING April 22,1997 I. Introduction NRC/W II. Top 27 Technical Issues

1. Status ofIssues that do not require management action at this time NRC
2. Issues that could affect the schedule NRC/W
  • RTNSS
  • Thermal Hydraulic Uncertainty
  • WGOTHIC
3. Applicauon of GDC-2 to Post 72 Hour Equipment NRC/W III. Tracking and Closure of Open Items W/NRC IV. AP600 Q.uality Assurance Program NRC/W V. - Conclusions NRC/W Attachment 2

i Status of Top 27 issues

,e l

Staff and Westinghouse Action Required: 9 issues (1 Schedule impact)

Staff Action Required: 3 issues ~

Westinghouse Action Required: 7 issues k

Commission Decision Pending: 1 issue '

t Technically Resolved: 2 issues Schedule impact issues: 6 issues t

i I

i j i 1 i I

_ _ . _ - - . - - _ - _ . _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ - - _ - - - - - _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - --.__-________ -___----.----- , _ -- . -. ~ -, _ . - + .....--c - ,,,--- -.. . .

Staff and Westinghouse Action Required

5. Soil / Structure / Seismic interactions (ECGB) '
  • The staff comments are expected to be issued on site parameters by 4/25 in response to Westinghouse 3/26/97 letter. <

e Westinghouse is scheduled to complete its re-analysis for seismic due to post 72-hour actions. Westinghouse expects to complete this by 5/30.

6. Site-Soil Variability (Basemat) (ECGB)  ;

e The staff is reviewing Westinghouse's proposal for construction sequence and geotechnical investigation as provided in the Westinghouse 3/26/97 letter.

  • The acceptability of the basemat is linked to the re-analysis for seismic, which Westinghouse expects to complete by 5/30.  :
7. DBA Radiological Consequences (PERB) j
  • The staff is awaiting RAI responses on aerosol removal in containment (10/96), pH (3/96), and EQ in containment (8/96).

e Westinghouse submitted information on 4/17/97 on Westinghouse input assumptions for calculation of aerosol removal coefficients in containment.

The staff review of the submittalis expected to be completed by 5/30.

Staff and Westinghouse Action Required

13. Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System (SPLB) '

e The staff issued a letter on 2/18/97, regarding Post 72-hour actions.

Westinghouse has not demonstrated that the AP600 meets GDC 19. '

e The staff needs to review the spent fuel pool boiling dose calculations (received 4/15/97).

e As part of the Post-72 hour actioris, Westinghouse will need to demonstrate how the steam exits the spent fuel pool area via the blowout panel.

q

16. Initial Test Program (HQMB lead, All branches) l l

h e Majority of staff comments issued on 3/20/97; Westinghouse will update the ITP. ,

1 e SCSB to provide comments to Westinghouse on the ITP.

I

  • Additional milestones approach being used for should be added to the schedule to reflect the resolution the ITP.

Staff and Westinghouse Action Required

17. Code Documentation and Qualification (V&V of Codes) (SRXB)
NOTRUMP
  • The staff issued RAls on the NOTRUMP Final Validation Report on 4/3/97.
  • Westinghouse expects to respond to the RAls and complete all remaining documentation related to the NOTRUMP V&V by the end of May.

LOFTRAN

  • Most open items for LOFTRAN are resolved.
  • Westinghouse still needs to demonstrate the acceptability of the PRHR heat exchanger heat transfer correlation used in LOFTRAN.
  • On 4/15/97, Westinghouse requested PRHR heat transfer data from the ROSA test to support the heat transfer correlation validation. The staff is pursuing providing this data to Westinghouse.

i

i Staff and Westinghouse Action Required

17. Code Documentation and Qualification (V&V of Codes) - Continued l

WCOBRA/ TRAC - LBLOCA

  • Westinghouse is working on responding to the staff's remaining questions.

! _WCOBRA / TRAC - Long Term Cooling

  • RAls issued to Westinghouse on letters from the staff dated 3/4/97 and i 3/20/97. '

i e An ACRS meeting was held on 3/28/97 where some additionalissues were raised.

  • The staff is awaiting Westinghouse's responses to the RAls.

e Additional RAls from the staff will be provided to Westinghouse by the end of (

April 1997.

, - , - - - - , , , , _ - .,_ _ , - . . ,,4--.., -

.h Staff and Westinghouse Action Required i

22. Shutdown and Low Power Operations (SPSB)

'

  • The shutdown evaluation report was due on 2/28/97 and has affected the i review schedule of technical specifications, ERGS, and Chapters 5, 6, & 15. '
  • Westinghouse submitted a major portion to the shutdown evaluation report on 4/18/97. The staff is reviewing this sebmittal. '

i

23. External Cooling of the Reactor Pressure Vessel / Severe Accidents (SCSB/ECGB) l
  • The status of the reports associated with the IVR issue follows:

- IVR main report: The staff issued RAls on 3/10/97. i

- Reports on IVSE: Westinghouse responses to staff comments are expected on unresolved peer review comments in short-term and resolved comments by 5/30. Potential for additional questions at that time.

- Exvessel Phenomena: Westinghouse submitted in 12/96. Staff comments on majority of report are expected to be issued by 5/7/97.

1 L

l Staff and Westinghouse Action Required l  !

25. Adverse Systems Interactions (SRXB) 4

. :.

  • Westinghouse to issue final responses to staff's ASI questions ano .wvise the ASI report. .

o Based on a PRA meeting between the staff and Westinghouse on 4/15/97, the staff may need to re-examine some issues being considered in the SPSB '

review of the focused PRA and consider them in terms of ASI interactions.  !

I = >

i I

l t

D' Staff Action Required

12. Fire Protection Program (SPLB) e A position paper on currently identified issues is expected to be issued by 5/2/97. These issues have been discussed with Westinghouse in meetings.
15. Proposed AP600 Security Plan (PSGB) e The revised Security Report was received on 2/28/97. A meeting is expected in 5/97 for the staff to better understand the design and Westinghouse's proposal. ~
24. Containment Bypass /SGTR (SRXB) e Westinghouse submitted a revised SGTR analysis on 3/24/97. The staff is currently evaluating the revised submittal.

Westinghouse Action Required ,

1. Content of the SSAR (All branches) - Level of Detail and Adequacy:

of Figures l

~

e A position letter was issued on 3/27/97 and an informal meeting held on 4/15/97. Westinghouse is preparing a written response.

10. Containment isolation (SCSB) e A position letter was issued on 4/11/97 requesting a demanstration that i

' leaving normal RHR open is as safe as closing the NRHR penetrations on a containment isolation signal. j' e Westinghouse was also requested to provide a leak detection system for NRHR equipment spaces. "

. l I

i l

4 l' I

4

[

l Westinghouse Action Required 1

11. Systems Reliability of Hydrogen Mitigation Systems (SCSB) i e A position letter on the use of passive hydrogen recombiners for design-basis accident (DBA) hydrogen control was issued on 4/1/97.

I

  • Resolution of the number and location of PAR units is dependent on adequate -

demonstration of containment mixing in the next revision of the WGOTHIC -

applications report (WCAP-14407) due 5/30/97.

t

  • A position letter on technical specifications and acceptability of power supply proposal for severe accident hydrogen control was issued on 4/3/97.
14. Overspeed Protection (SPLB) i i
  • A position letter was issued on 4/11/97. Justification is required from Westinghouse to demonstrate that its proposal is equivalent to operating reactors and the SRP.

/

. c o

l Westinghouse Action Required i

18. Chapter 15 Accident Analysis (SRXB lead) i l

1 e The staff issued RAls on 1/21/97. Westinghouse expects to have all documentation completed by 5/30/97.

' o One issue on the application of GDC 17 to analysis of anticipated operational occurrences remains under discussion between the staff and Westinghouse.

19. Westinghouse's Proposed LCO 3.0.3 (OTSB) o Comments on Technical Specifications (Rev. 9 to SSAR) issued on 12/24/96. -

4 t

e A position letter was issued on 4/3/97 requesting Westinghouse to restore LCO 3.0.3 to the STS version.

- 26. Technical Specifications Review (OTSB) e Position letter on optimized technical specifications issued on 3/27/97. i 4

- - - - -- . ----- ------=.------------._----_._-----.------------n - -.. > -- --- -. - - - --r ~,-- . . _ _ _ _ -- - - - --- - _ _~ . - - -.--

l Commission Decision Pending l

l 8. Prevention and Mitigation of Severe Accidents (SCSB lead, PERB) l

  • This matter is currently before the Commission.

I  !

i i

t I

'i 9

u__.___-aer_-_m _-_ ___ -e_i __ we-_e._____a __-- _ a -- - 2_ y- i_ _ _

  • _ w- av - -

_ w -w , e- t- *- v- wor-- ,we- w - ,,-m,-- ,- wi.-- < r_ _vv+-,

.. 1

- Technically Resolved

4. Leak-Before-Break Design Criteria For FW Piping System (ECGB)
  • This issue is resolved.

9.

  • A secondary issue was raised for the 4/16-18/97 audit. The staff requested information to demonstrate that restraint of pressure induced bending of piping for LBB was not a problem for AP600 piping. It was Westinghouse's understanding that all LBB issues were resolved when they withdrew its j

proposal for LBB on 4-inch pipes. The issue, as identified in NUREG-4334,

' was definitely a concem for 4-inch piping. However, no conclusion was drawn in the NUREG for intermediate (6-inch to 27-inch) piping.

' Westinghouse and the staff agreed to a sensitivity study, with defined assumptions. Westinghouse preformed this study and concluded this issue was not a problem for AP600 6-inch piping. The staff agrees with this conclusion. This issue is technically resolved. Westinghouse will provide the staff with a formal submittal describing the study and its results.

27. Quality Classification of Systems (SPLB, ECGB) e Pending final SSAR changes, this issue is resolved.

i

._ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = - _ _ _

l .

3. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria .

l

[lTAAC? KAll branchesD i The ITAAC for passive safety systems include inspection of the as-built system configuration (sizing and elevation); functional testing to verify isolation valve '

operation upon receipt of actuation signals, valve stroke time and valve operation at design differential pressures, tests to verify correct divisional power supply to each  !

valve; hydraulic test to determine piping flow resistance; and heat removal  !

performance test for PRHR heat exchanger heat transfer rate. I Westinghouse submitted a complete replacement for the ITAAC on November 7, 1996. It appears that Westinghouse has taken a significantly different approach from  ;

that of the evolutionary LWRs based on the staff's preliminary review.

i Status j

e The Certified Design Material (CDM) which includes ITAAC is falling behind schedule and there are still some areas where there is disagreement.

Westinghouse' originally scheduled a revision to the CDM at the end of February 1997 to address the issues identified in the December 6,1997 letter. This date  ;

was subsequently changed to the middle of April 1997 so that Westinghouse could also include changes required by " big picture" comments from the technical  !

branches involved in the review (SCSB was late in providing their comments).

^

The date for the revision is now the end of April 1997.  !

a I

- q

ITAAC Status (continued) a e A SSAR revision will also be required to support the changes that will be made to the CDM. Two major items that need to be incorporated into the SSAR are an .

~

explanation in the individual SSAR chapters for how the values that are given in j the ITAAC were obtained, and information in Chapter 14.3 that cross references

' the important design information and parameters of the SSAR to their treatment in the CDM. '

e One key area is the piping design acceptance criteria (DAC). Westinghouse j contends that they have enough of the design complete to provide detailed ITAAC in some areas. The staff expected Westinghouse to provide piping DAC similar to the evolutionary plants. Westinghouse's new approach has the potential to cause resource impacts for the staff and Westinghouse.

~

Westinghouse presented its proposal to the staff on 4/17/97. The initial reaction from the staff was positive, however, Westinghous2 indicated that the detailed piping design for all ASME class 1, 2, and 3 piping will not be completed until the end of September,1997.

e The schedule for ITAAC is now obsolete. New milestones need to be added to reflect the revised approach to resolution. '

WGOTHIC REVIEW e

WGOTHIC and PCS acceptability is be to based on 3 major reports:

Application Report (WCAP-14407), PIRT Report (WCAP-14812), and Scaling ,

i (WCAP-14845).

o The WGOTHIC review is behind schedule, based upon the November 1996

}

l schedule. Submittals are approxiamtely 2-3 months late. New, realistic milestones are needed to reflect an agreed upon approach for resolution.

o Final reports need to disposition all of the staff's comments. A milestone of 5/30/97 is useful only if this is adequate time for Westinghouse to prepare high quality submittals. t o

A meeting to discuss Sections 7 and 9 RAls on WCAP-14407 was held 3/25.

e

~ A meeting was held on 4/17-18/97 to discuss two of the three major WGOTHIC .

reports, the PIRT and Scaling reports. The meeting was attended by ACRS i consultants who were critical of the Westinghouse WGOTHIC effort. The ACRS i members were especially concerned that the Scaling report did not have clearly defined objectives and that distortions between the Large Scale Test Facility and the AP600 design were not adequately treated. For the Scaling Report, Westinghouse was informed that they will be receiving 68 questions (in addition to editorial comments). Additioanlly, the staff would capture the ACRS consultant's questions for Westinghouse as comments or RAls. The ACRS independently expressed similar concerns about the quality of the Westinghouse documents.

~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ _- _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ,_

__ .- = __ ._ .. _. _._.__ _ . _. . . _ _ _ _

WGOTHIC REVIEW SCHEDULE Report Name Nov 1996 Submittal Staff RAls or Current Dates Schedule Date Comments Draft Applications 1/96- 1/96- Informal comments -

Report Sections 6/96 6/96 provided in telecons Applications 09/10/96 09/10/96 451 RAls issued on 03,21/97 Report Revision 11/08/96,12/31/96 West.

(w/o Section 12) and 1/29/97 withdrew Sec 13 (99 RAls)

Applications 12/16/96 03/14/97 Staff RAls expected -

Report, Section 12 Revision by 05/09/97 Applications 03/15/97 ---

05/30/97 Final Report Final Scaling Report 02/15/97 03/04/97 Staff RAls expected 05/30/97 Final Final by 04/25/97 PIRT Report 12/16/96 12/28/96 PIRT meeting held on 05/30/97 Final 04/17-18/97 -

Mass and Heat 02/15/97 ---

Outstanding RAls ---

Transfer Report from 06/95 .

Forced Convention 02/28/97 ---

RAls issued on draft 05/30 (WCAP-in Annulus Final 03/04/96 14407) ,

Liquid Film Model 02/28/97 ---

05/30 (WCAP-Verification Final 14407)

i

~.

Post-72 Hour Support Actions (PDST lead) - Key Issue 9 The passive safety systems are designed with sufficient capability to mitigate all design basis events for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> without operator actions and without non-safety-related onsite or offsite power. For long-term safety (post-72 hours), the AP600 design includes safety-  :

related connections for use with transportable equipment and supplies to provide the extended support actions for safety-related functions. -

In SECY-96-128, the staff stated that local communities struggling with disaster response should not be given the additional burden of providing for nuclear power safety. The staff recommended the Commission approve the position that the site be capable of sustaining all  ;

design basis events with onsite equipment and supplies for the long term. After 7 days, replenishment of consumables such as diesel fuel oil from offsite suppliers can be credited.

l On 1/15/97, the Commission issued an SRM approving the staff's position.

t Status e Westinghouse proposed AP600 design changes to comply with the Post-72 hour

, SECY position during a meeting with the staff on 2/4/97.  !

The staff issued comments on the Post-72 hour design changes and Westinghouse has responded to the staff's comments.

e The staff is still assessing the Post-72 hour design changes and is reviewing recent supporting analyses provided by Westinghouse. The staff is preparing additional comments for Westinghouse on the Post-72 hour design.

t

- - . - - - , - , - e

\

~ ,

issue e The staff stated in SECY-96-128 that the Post-72 hour equipment should be protected-from natural phenomena per GDC 2.

e Westinghouse has indicated that the Post-72 hour equipment will be analyzed to remain functional following safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) loads. The staff is still evaluating if Westinghouse needs to commit to making the Post-72 hour equipment Seismic Category l lin order to comply with GDC 2. '

e Westinghouse does not believe that the Post-72 hour equipment needs to be designed to '

withstand tomado loadings. The staff believes that GDC 2 requires that Westinghouse ensure that the Post-72 hour equipment be protected from tornados and tornado '

1 missiles.

' The staff is developing comments regarding Post-72 hour equipment design including application of GDC 2.

I

\ i

.. l l AP600 Design Control /QA Inspection at Westinghouse on April 17,1997 '

l ISSUES IDENTIFIED l '

e Westinghouse did not formally analyze, document, and correct conditions adverse l to quality as required by Westinghouse's AP600 Quality Assurance program.

I Errors identified by the NRC in the basemat calculation performed by foreign subcontractor INITEC (which resulted in basemat re-design) were not identified as a " condition adverse to quality" and were addressed as a " technical issue" by technical staff not requiring QA program involvement.

e Westinghouse did not provide appropriate QA oversight of activities for cost-sharing partners and subcontractors. After the basemat calculation error was identified by the NRC (July 1994), Westinghouse did not evaluate its impact on the work performed by foreign subcontractor INITEC. During its required triennial audit of INITEC (February 1995), the Westinghouse audit team was not aware of the calculation errors and INITEC corrective action activities and did not address it as part of the audit scope.

  • Design and erigineering products from cost-sharing partners or subcontractors are considered " preliminary" and do not require "AP600 program configuration control" (i.e., are considered exempt from certain AP600 QA program controls and provisions) until they are designated " Revision 0". Almost all (if not all) design input products being reviewed by NRC staff for design certification are, thus, considered " preliminary."

This issue is not identified as a formal exception to the AP600 QA program.

Nso, it is not clear that this programmatic exception satisfies the design certification provisions of 10 CFR Part 52.

grq l

A P60 0 AP600 Presentation USXRC April 22,1997 l

Ronald P. Vijuk, Manager g Systems Engineering i

a r+

w I

26H5P

l l

AP600 m, l POST-72-HOURS DESIGN CHANGES l

OBJECTIVE: Make design changes to the AP600 design so that the site is capable of sustaining all design basis events with onsite equipment and supplies ,

Replenishment of consumabla after 7 days is expected. The equipment required-after 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> will not be in automatic mode but will be protectedfrom naturalphenomena.

i I

Westinghouse pF3

-. . _ , _ . _ . - ~ .

AP600 b POST-72-HOURS DESIGN CHANGES CRITERIA: .

The functions required for long term safety of the plant include:

~

Core cooling and reactivity control Containment cooling and ultimate heat sink Main control room (MCR) habitability Post-accident monitoring Spent fuel pool cooling Equipment and a 7-day supply of consumables is stored onsite.

. Provisions for connection of temporary equipment for PCCWST fill and PAMS electrical supply will be retained. Temporary connections provide a back-upfor onsite equipment. _

Westingnouse w==. F 3

AP600 .

in a.

POST-72-UnURS DESIGN CHANGES CRITERIA: -

The onsite equipment provided for post-72 (cont.) hours is at least classified as non-seismic, Equipment Class D and is protected from credible natural events. The equipment is analyzed or evaluated to show that it will withstand an SSE and located above the site -

maximum flood level.

The buildings that contain this equipment are at least classified as AP600 Class D and seismic Category 2. The buildings will be analyzed to l show they will withstand an SSE and a 145 mile-per-hour wind.

l l

l Westinghouse wre

i AP600 m

~

POST-72-HOURS DESIGN CHANGES CRITERIA: -

Control of equipment required for post-72 (cont.)- hours is local at the components.

Redundancy is provided for active components.

Separation of redundant components is not required. ~

The functions provided by this equipment will-be tested during plant startup testing.

The functions provided by this equipment will ,

be covered by Tier I descriptions and ITAACs.

System level ISTs will be defined to show system operation every 10 years.

Westinghouse qpheue,I S O

AP600 .

7

-POST-72-HOURS DESIGN CHANGES CRITERIA: -

Operating procedures will be provided to (cont.) require this equipment to be available during ..

specified plant operating modes, to operate the .

equipment on a specified frequency to show that it is available and to return it to operation if it is found to be unavailable.

The equipment provided to perform these functions will be included in the RAP program.

l w

westinghouse

n. o

[ .

Ancillary Equipment .

Two ancillary diesel generators (~15 kw each)

~

Two makeup pumps (~ 100 gpm each)

Four ancillary fans (~ 1500 scfm each) for I&C/MCR-ventilation I Grade level water storage tank (~ 350,000 gal.)

l-l Associated piping, valves, cables, instruments  :

l i

mse [

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -_______I

Ancillary Diesal GencratorL#1-ECS-MG-01

- __.,.-- --.--,-----g I-- Ancillary Diesel Panel g i

l) ECS ED 01 .

i

' l) l) t.. l) l) l) A . _ - -- i V u Provision To Tank To Room for Test Hsaters Lighting Load 7, y Source From Normal Source U -. -_

c.

i - - - -l 9 i No ). . . . . . . f) ,e NC l

, f -- - - . .) No i

VA,L A) A l

I '

Regulating l

) Transformer I l IDSC DT 1 I

l

(-- - - .- - - .- -

a v i

I o.tribution ren.: 1 To PCS I l) l) tosc EA 2 i Recirculation I e-- - - 1 Pump A 1 To PAMS i

, g and MCR .

l Emergency r-- -------1 Fue. Penet l -

i Lights  : g fj sosc EA s , ,

4 6----/[--- -. ._, - _.

_.,,,,' \ ass Cl 1E/Non 1E Boundary MCR Lighting Panet ELS EA 212 Division C l&C Room Post-72 Fan A '

MCR Post 72 Hour Fan #1 .

Normal MCR Lighting (not normally powered post 72 n = n ANCILLARY DIESEL GENERATOR ONE-LINE

{ DIAGRAM . .,

i

l 't S

~

, 9 S M AKl.UP  : CHANGES dd (D

- - - - - - _ . _ _ - . - _-. .- ,4.._.. g fiTRE PROI

_NSYs it u

-Et my_ _'Y

^l h_[b,

. - - . - sArcly /IE uits w I PCS WATER STORAGE P

t>--

HELATED MAMEus2 NSystEu g g' CONNEC lire 4 IANK _

ftREPROl\

SYSif u /

SNhwee e $

~

CD /m w lLEo -

tiL ^ tER Of ][ _.

x .. /

kk Nl[ l(

[NS G.eu e. S m e*em

"'~~'*~ ~

C(ta l Alf 8MLf4I WA l[ R Qp SIORAQ IAf4F m i.,<o

  • i n ein ,.._.,,. c , ,, ,,,. y

~~

4(10.4h >> .gallt.e s - -Det - -- - --

. .~. .."

RE CsRs'tIL A tlOt s 5'[f's l PUMPS 's l / ,

[J2!!L ie~ ~ ~

nov

p-._ .

, t

~ '

Post 72 Hour Function - Onsite Safety Natural Phenomena Protection for Onsite Equipment

~

Equipment - Classification Earthquake Wind Flood Core Cooling: j Passive Core Cooling Safety-Related SSE Tornado Grade Level Flood -

System without Offsite Support "

Connection for Use of Safety-Related SSE Tornado Grade Level Frood -

Offsite Support (Post 30' Days)  !

Onsite Active Systems Class D UBC UBC UBC  :

Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Onsite Inventory Safety-Related SSE Tornado Grade Level Flood Connections for Use of Safety-Related SSE -

Tornado Grade Level Flood Offsite Support.

-(Afler 7 Days) .

Onsite' Active Systems Class D UBC UBC- UBC -

i 2685P

. , . _ . . . . . . . . . . - ~ . . . ~ . _

. _ . - _ ~ . . . _..!

( ,

1 6:.

Post 72 flour Function - Onsite Safety Natural Phenomena Protection for Onsite Equipment Equipment Classification Earthquake Wind Flood Containment Cooling ,

Onsite Ancillary Class D Analyze for SSE 145 mph Grade Level Flood Equipment (Hurricane)

Connections for Use of Safety-Related SSE Tornado Grade Level Flood OITsite Support ,- .

_.3 Onsite Active Systems Class D UBC UBC UBC Post Accident Monitoring Connections for Use of Safety-Related SSE Tornado Grade Level Flood Offsite Support Onsite Ancillary Class D Analyze for SSE -145 mph Grade Level Flood Equipment (Hurricane) y Onsite Active Systems Class D UBC UBC UBC 2685P -

- ___ ___ _ ,_ _ _.__ -_m . - - . - ,

Post 72 Hour Action Reliability '

Post Accident Monitoring Loss Power Hurricane Earthquake Event .1/yr .01/yr .0001/yr

1. Turbine Generator .2 1.0 1.0 -
2. Diesels .01 .02 .2
3. Recover Offsite Power During .001 .01 .1 Battery Operation
4. Recover Diesels During .01 .02 .05 Battery Operation
5. Offsite Support with Battery .01 .02 .05 Operation Total 2E-11/yr 8E-10/yr SE-9/yr G. Onsite Ancillary Diesels New Total ,

L I

l .

2hM5P .

i

w L=.a Post 72 Hour Action Reliability Containment Cooling Loss Power Hurricane Earthquake Event .1/yr .01/yr .0001/yr

1. Main SG Feedwater, T/G Bypass, see SFW 1.0 1.0 . .

Condenser, Cire. Water i

2. Startup Feedwater, ATM Dump, .01 .03 .2 i Condensate, Makeup Water
3. Recover SFW with Passive .05 .1 .2 Containment Cooling without l

Support

4. Support from Site with Passive .05 .05 .2 l Containment Cooling
5. Support from Off-Site with .01 .02 .05 Passive Containment Cooling

, G. Passive Containment Cooling .01 .01 .01 Without Sup' port Total 3E-10/yr 3E-10/yr 4E-11/yr

7. Onsite Ancillary Equipment New Total 2685P

.i

l Post 72 Hour Equipment The onsite post 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> ancillary equipment provides for:

maintaining low containment pressure (below 1/2 design pressure) post accident monitoring These functions are oflesser importance than core cooling,

. spent fuel cooling, and ultimate heat sink

, 2685P

___ ____________________________________________________.--____._________________________i

GDC-2 ,

Criterion 2 - Design bases for protection against natural phenom.ena.

Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be. .  ;

designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunami, and seiches '

l without loss of capability to perform their safety functions. The design bases for these structures, systems, and components shall ,

i reflect: (1) appropriate consideration of the most severe of the '

l natural phenomena that have been historically reported for the site l and surrounding area, with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy, quantity, and period of time in which the historical data have been accumulated, (2) appropriate combinations of the effects of '

normal and accident conditions with the effects of the natural phenomena and (3) the importance of the safety functions to be performed. .

1 .

2685P i

e GDC-2 AP600-Criteria for the post-72 hour ancillary equipment

satisfy GDC-2 Protected for SSE,145 mph wind, and floods - consistent with their mission to avoid dependence on offsite support Functions provided by the ancillary equipment are of ,

lesser safety importance than other post 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> functions -- GDC-2 permits consideration of safety function and relative safety importance Functions provided by ancillary equipment can also be met using safety-related connections and offsite assistance t

2635P

b gu Post 72 Hour Equipment 72 Hour time frame with no offsite assistance was established by ALWR program and specified in the Utility Requirements Document for Passive plants -

safety related connections for use of offsite-assistance in post 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> time frame offsite equipment / supplies which are readily available and transportable This approach was found acceptable in SER on the URD SECY-96-128 position is an escalation of requirements beyond the ALWR agreement  ;

2685P

g" l Summary '

l

[

AP600 provides multiple levels of protection for post 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> functions. GDC-2 is satisfied without requiring tornado ,

protection or safety-related classification of the recently added post 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> equipment .

l 1

4 .

l i

2685P i

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20141G542&oldid=3365430"