ML20141M279
| ML20141M279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/05/1992 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1924, NUDOCS 9208110025 | |
| Download: ML20141M279 (328) | |
Text
, .- . ~ - ., ,ii,m i ..g
,,q,q,.,_,._,7; , g ,,_4., 3 ,,g g,,,,;
m Mwu .p a.jkn-w1.
u r_s,qu %,m Q s:Q?papp. %if a a n a w wm@2x.L@e NdSSEMOFFICIALTRANSCRIKOERRQCE w Jgwn:.
y 4
( n R. w,n. w,Ag,$.
.4hiva
- y.Wg%
jhhMM/Ml.1.'ihNd
, aua a n, e i
%,w- %
Q y g'gw u,41 a (!M cQM[)$N3MNbd Qp \
4+n-en~_, <
. g.M . * <,
^_wm# am.g.pwT.df?E m.O, wn mf-
- ,. .u3m m m
% j3%,5 -=- -Qf m . DE cy -q w* g.9NMC pq am 53 e
_u g/,3 N"'
y,I U) sn..tW epel.d..#.o
,e t
_g A
w ,wg_oi, n. .s
.f:"e%'N/;y
.,.m
,%.ww
+'ge k
sg m-S M hy4 s'_$ tS H Q ; N h !h 2
. g n m.
en3 s p
$05@M(penNN WM@@g MkMWi%MEOJWR9@M$%$$ h Nd @ .QFj h3%R
%%Q$4]NMb@M[MEINh; hNN mbNN
, Nb_w_n.f+ihhb3$Na
_m w) m8g.'gfw t 5 i5gb
_v-'p'*r
- L5gg;&
- ji %me;p d1M si s
- m w
'5 f1 ,,,e
' w .
,Jhb~M$hbb_
m m \;i.hr4. m,,: php_w@ k. [ #~' ' r .:l MT y A s'Q f Y
"s grqnv%a 'w Nh_ownv
, !. , e'Q' g--
g wm w_b_wn[R'\p'A u_n'ykkkM_m'f[h s# u m. . m } .
'ts, j ,y s i , v:, w 'c[-hm' <-y' $gv [, I -- {; M , -.
11 E .
m 6
Wg r efg;&l g jgi y;( yp@MM.w. m& f Q, g 3yflls;3.;
>g+ p f/j f:g ;
u a rl;q% ga yQMhq: qc'glW;g y psy$.n' fR) .g, _ hh , js7 o ly:nn, w.py g ~ ~ s
.n m__
s'E %}
'>QVhg ym.y%w d a vampQCn a y em w g eg ,v e T'SgWn w A, mp: h u + -
y m &eMQw m *r,z, e,lv;9, Q q-w W
,% ,5)4wtw M ;QT up'S$n%px M7%ky%w owm QAb mg ;;bpf:4p'g d.. Atygm +>p Am &+%;i. 9+;- [ w. #c cW's.%s.
A' pbWKi t. AWM
- ; a By4
, c ' d --
4 t 3.go.@w' s i og M g t ip*4 + : 4 ...g s .aN;c.v4 :0 di 3, @egs > = _
m m w m. u 4 r. ' smwww . yg /h:@#y W c
m h IE NNM gh p' w yywww m h h pw wc Q hf w&%ewww' d mwAww M4 ;www, map ,__
N&un$GG$hg&w]m%ymemug:mc,b m fWW%m% p .%
R We
&y t w s plm4 A 4QQ s4wam 6Qfwd 3e ppm u w? QQ e n+k N h %y mpma % e u $m &m $: 4 l mdp N w L M /m'g&o /bwy;O em?2 w ,v lwme &u e i hgn@mwm um --
khhk f y Nuclear Gd14QAdvfuory(RegulatorygCqmmissiony@e@m g<qbonegg;gg 3N7ddsyb .-y 1CommittceMon6ReactcrnSafleguardsMjM$ dragMP i
mmwommc.,m..m..~m.nmmus e
N e m$ wE _a$
d w $ $ N n n E N N@m _ M_b_e M -m semamsmema_9bwdgynss gne fp w w dyry a ,w4 n% w Mm ph IB_BBBgp;p-@ngh, -,- BBi
%d n MMMMAN a - _ _ -
~neuw m D ,Wh ym ggwyN%y@wu%+pm,N -
RILEn&ASSOCIATESiLT p
gan gAphm 920su oo2s 920eos kmw>s m_g Nd202)29F3950$ag%@gm+
w ns pa m m y eg- W :ggw p aeV e%ih!$t;q%c$%w# egM DM PDR ACRS V kNNEM_hh_MMhb_bN_ _b. NhbNMk_ l
4
) \_ d 4
i gO OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 1-1 jL i- .
i i
+
} '.
i i
geq. Nuclear Regulatory: Commission i Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ,
1 i Title.
aoint subcommittee-neeting on oecay neat _
J- Removal Systems / Advanced Boiling Water I- Reactors
, Docket No.
l:0 i
I l IOCATION: Bethesda, Maryland. -
f-
! DATE: Wednesday, August 5, 1992 PAGES: 1 - 245
[. M -
er - 3. , n n " 2g y a -
J .. g .f._N l %
0, MM +
c OL ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
4
/ -
b'O 1 y 1612 K St. N.W, Suite 300 .
Washington, D,C 20006 l 9208 10005 920905
. PDR ACRS -(202) 293-3950- [pb, { ,U
- T-1924 PDR t l
, . ._ ,.,_., ,. _.._,.--.r._ ,. .--.___m. . - _ . . - , . _ , . . . . . . . . - , ,_ , , , . - . - _ , . . , . . . - _ . - - , , . , _ . . - , , , , . . . . ,
- 4 -
~
PUBIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S
^
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
4 DATE: ^"9"" '
i l
O V
The contents of this transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, (date)-
August 5, 1992 , as Reported herein, are a record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above-date.
4 This transcript has not.been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies, i
r ANN RILEY & ' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
1 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION V 2 -------
3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS l 4 ---.----
5 JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING '
6 DECAY HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEMS /
7 ADVANCED BOILING WATER REACTORS 8 -------
9 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission m
11 Conference Room P-110 12 7920 Norfolk Avenue 13 Bethesda, Maryland (g
-9 14 Wednesday, August 5, 1992 15 16 ACRS MEMBERS PRESENT:
17 D. WARD, ACRS Subcommittee Chairman 18 C. MICHELSON, ACRS Member 19 J. CARROLL, ACRS Member g, w
20 I. CATTON, ACRS Member 21 W. KERR, ACRS Member 22 T. KRESS, ACRS Member 23 P.-SHEWMON, ACRS Member 24 C. WYLIE, ACRS Member 25 P. BOEHNERT, Cognizant ACRS Staff Member ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-1 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ .J
.'2 1 PARTICIPANTS:
2 T. BOYCE, NRC/NRR 3 M. RUBIN, NRC/NRR
-4 A. JAMES, GE 5 J. CHAMBERS, GE 6 R. ROBERTSHAW, GE 7 C. CHRISTENSEN, GE
(.
8 G. THOMAS, NRC/NRR 9 D.-THATCHER,-NRC/NRR 10 W. BURTON,.NRC/NRR 11 J. LYONS,-NRC/NRR-12 13 O" 15 16 17 18 19 20' U: 21 22 23 24 25 TOl ANN = RILEY j & L ASSOCIATES,- ' Ltd.
- Court Reporters ,
.1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) .293-3950.= 1
f
- 3 e
_1 PRO'CEDINGS i:(p) -
b 1 [8:30 a.m.)
2 .
-3 MR. WARD: The meeting will now'come to-order.
4 This is a meeting._of the Advisory Committee ~on-Reactor 5 Safeguards Joint Subcommittee on Decay Heat Removal-Systems-F _
4 6 and Advanced Boiling Water Reactors.
! 7 I'm David Ward, the-subcommittee _ chairman, co-8 chairman really. Other-ACRS_ members-in attendance'are Carl i
9 'Michelson, the other co-chairman, although he seems to be l
- 10 _trying to slip away from that role;-J. Carroll apparentlyL 11 will be here; Ivan_Catton; William Kerr; Tom Kress;_ Paul-
- g. .
l 12 Shewmon -- is Paul scheduled to be here?.
I 13 MR. BOEHNERT: Paul _is' supposed to be here. He jO 14 called and said he would be here.
VL) 15 MR. WARD:. Okay. And Charlie Wylie.
l lv 16 The purpose af the meeting is for.the subcommittee
[ 17 to review a selected sample of ITAACsL-- Inspections,: Tests,-
i 18 Analysis, and Acceptance Criteria -- that support the-GE
- j. 19 Nuclear Energy ABWR design' certification _' effort.
t ll 20 :. Paul Boehnert is the cognizant ACRS-Staff Member i
! 21- for this meeting.
- 22 The rules for participation _were announced as part
- 23. of the notice of the meeting pub 1'ishef in theiFederal ,
~24 Register-.on July 24th.-..
- -25 PortionsLof the meeting may be' closed to discuss-
- y d ANN . RILEY '&- ' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Court Reporters . __ __
[; 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
[1 t (202) 293-3950 -
.- .. . - . _, . _ . . _ . _ _ m m_ . _
4 1 information deemed proprietary by GE Nuclear-Energy.
Os 2 A transcript of the meeting _will be kept'and will 3 be made available as stated in the Federal Register Notice.
4 I request that'each speaker _ identify _himself_or_herself and 5 use one of the microphones so_that-he or she can-be readily 6 heard.
7 We received no written comments nor requests to 8 make oral statements frem members _of the public.
9 I understand that-although we'll start out with" 10 the. staff, I think most of the presentations:todayJwill be
-11 from GE, and wr nate five ITAACs that have been sclected for-12 our review as sort of a sample of'the many-ITAACs which will 13 be ultimately devaloped-and used.
14 We havt .cheduled about an hour for each of these,-
[
15 and we'll need to-keep to-that schedule because we want to-16 adjourn the meeting sometime around three o' clock or not l 17 much later than that. -Some of~us'have'another meeting at-1 18 that time. '
19 If you recall,-the committee:has undertaken this.
20 effort at'the request of the commission.--- In particular, 21 during the course of the meeting we held with1the 22 Commissioners back in, 11think it was March, they. asked-that 23 we review some sample of ITAACs.und tell them what we 24- -thought about these and'about-.the process. 'So_that.means:we 2
-25 should be> writing a letter at.the full committee meeting.
ANN' RILEY &: ASSOCIATES,E Ltd.
Court _ Reporters .
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 3 Washington, D. C. 20006
- (202) 293-3950 L
5 1 later this week and we'll be asking -- we have scheduled 2 time, I believe it is on Thursday, for the staff to come in.
3 So at the end of this meeting, we'd like to have some idea'
_4 of what the subcommittee _ thinks should go_into a letter, and.
5 also what the subcommittee thinks should be presented _to the 6 full committee tomorrow.
7 Mr. Michelson, as co-chairman, hard working co--
8 chairman, do you have anything you'd like to add?
9 MR. MICHELSON: No, not right now, thank you.
10 MR. WARD: . Okay. Do-any,of the other members-have 11 any comments they'd like-to--add at this time?
12 (No response.)
13 MR. WARD: Okay. Let's-proceed, then. Tom Boyce-14 of the staff, I believe, will; lead off.
15 [ Slide.)
16 MR. BOYCE: Good morning. My name's Tom Boyce.- #
17 I'm a project manager at NRR. With me this' morning to talk 18 from Reactor Systems is Mark Rubin and George Thomas.
19 I'd-like to start off with just an overall review 20 of some-of the concepts of ITAAC that you have been -
21 introduced to in the past. I've/got< ten slides.--I'm 22 allocated 15 minutes, sr I'm going.to try and go-through 23 them quickly. _It is to serve-to set the stage for.what 24 you're going to see'in each of_the five systems that you're- _
25 going-to look at-today-and:as:a reminder of'where we are-ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, ;Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
- Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
i 6
1 with ITAAC.
O 2 MR. WARD: Now, I hope you emphasize what's 3 changed in the staff's perspective on this program from what 4 we've he ,rd before. You know, we first started hearing 5 about this a year ago, and I think we con.mentsd a year ago.
6 So I hope, as you go through, you emphasize what's different 7 today in the way you're dealing with ITAACS than a year ago.
8 MR. BOYCE: I will try and address that. My 9 slides don't specifically address that concern, so at some 10 point, you may want to stop me. But I'll try and address 11 that as I go through them.
12 MR. WARD: All right.
13 [S1ide.]
14 MR. BOYCE: I will start off with just a summary 15 slide of the ITAAC status today. Right now, I would 16 characterize the ITAAC and the development of tier one 17 material, which is an aspect of Part 52, as being an 18 iterative type of process.
19 Senior management involvement has been very heavy, 20 starting with a year ago, as we have tried to develop this.
21 The ABWR that GE designs has been selected'as the lead 22 design for ITAAC development.
23 In about this time last year,.NUMARC was heavily 24 involved. There were a lot of discussions at an-abstract
'25 level, and it was decided that the best thing to do in order O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i -.
4 f'
7- :,
1 to show progress would be just to march ahead with the- !
.O t
2 _ details of a design, try and work the problems:.out on that 3- design, and'then come back and revisit where-we are.
l 4 So NUMARC let GE take the . lead, as will: as: the 5 rest of industry, and as a result we are right~here in-an-i 2
6 iterative process trying to establish what it is that we l
- i. 7 want to do with ITAAC and where we are going with it.
- 8 MR. WARD
- Does that:mean you-expect to see some j i 9 F'gnificent changes in these ITAACs as a result of the staff i '
i 10 input down the road, in weeke, or two months,-_or what??
11 MR. BOYCE; Tne question is,_do I expect any~
! 12 significant changes.to the direction we:are going, and: based-13 on a review.from an1outside. group of grayneards, or senior
~
14 managers in the agency, I don't expect so. They agreed with l
15 the general approach to ITAAC. They had-some? specific !
16 comments which they have not yet provided-us, but_.overall:
17 they agreed with the general' approach.-
)_
18 MR. CARROLL: Tell_us-who thelgraybeards.were?
i-
! 19 MR. BOYCE: Let's s'ee, headed:up'by Mr. Sniezek, i-20 Guy Arlotto, Bill Kane. They were' advising Tom'Murley.- l 21 Bill Russell;was part of.the group. -Dennie Crutchfield,1 Joe 22 Scinto, Stew Ebneter. I believe that is the group.
- 23 Some specific
- comments that we had, there'have 2 4.. been inconsistencies noted in the-SSAR-andEITAAC in the way-f '25- ithey_ overlap. The twoLdocuments are: linked.- The'ITAAC were -
i >
i s
-~
- V ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, :Ltd.. "
Court Reporters _ _.
I 1612 K Street,- N.W., Suite 300 c ~ Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950; i-
8' 1 developed later than the SSAR. In addition, they were 2 developed relatively rapidly.in order to meet progress 3 starting a year ago.
4 As a result, some of these' inconsistencies have 5 been noted and GE has stated that they are working to 6 correct those.
7 The last bullet is really a top level statement l
8 that just says, ITAAC implements several aspects of 10 CFR j 9 Part 52. It is actually an understatement. The ITAAC and l
10 the tier one documents are going to be what is certified'in I 1
11 the design cert rule and, as a result, are very, very l
12 important. I l
13 MR. MICHELSON: Before'you leave that next to last 14 bullet, the SSAR and the ITAAC are intended to be fully 15 consistent, is that correct?
16 MR. BOYCE: That is the intent, yes.
17 MR. MICHELSON: There is nothing new in the ITAAC 18 that isn't in the SSAR?
19 MR. BOYC3: That is correct.
20 MR. MICHELSON: Now there are a lot'of errors, 21 apparently, in the ITAACs, although I am not sure. I look 22 at Amendment 21, and it says one thing, and the ITAAC says
- 23 something else. I don't know when the ITAAC was written 24 relative to Amendment 21, but they are not consistent, and
-25 we will discuss a few'of tae inconsistencies today.
d.rm ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. -
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950'
~
9 1 [ Slide.)
2 MR..BOYCE: As background, a lot of the groundwork 3 for ITAAC has been laid in SECY papers. These are some of 4 the pertinent SECY papers.
5 The basic requirement for ITAAC, as laid out in 10 6 CFR 52.47, which describes what is requ'*ed as part of an 7 application for design certification.
8 SECY 91-178 discussed, this was a year ago, our
- 9 perceptions of the form and content of an ITAAC. This is i 10 prior to the development of the first ITAAC.
11 SECY 91-210 --
f 12 MR. MICHELSON: Don't leave 178 yet, 178 is the i
j 13 SECY that the committee focused on when they wrote their 14 letter last September. I am not sure, but I think tiae 15 committee ought to go back and look at its letter that it
+
16 wrote, and see if it would still say the same thing, if it 17 knew that there was such a thing as a DAC, because our 18 letter was pre-DAC, our ITAAC letter was pre-DAC. -I don't 19 think I would support the letter as it-stands now, at least, 20 in view of the DAC process.
21 The other thing is, on 178, help me.a little bit.
! 22 It talks about tier two validation attributes. What is a 4
s 23 validation attribute?
24 MR. BOYCE: The use of validation attributes, as a 25 concept, it was going to be a body or a document that O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950.
10
,, 1 contained parameters that would support the acceptance
- J 2 criteria in an ITAAC. It is a concept that NUMARC was 3 proposing a year ago, and that we were tossing around.
4 What it was is, if you have something like --
5 MR. MICHELSON: Let me make it real quick. Is 6 there such a thing now as a validation attribute docuLent?
, V MR. BOYCE: There is no such thing as a validation i 6
8 attribute, it has gone out of vogue.
2 9 MR. MICHELSON: Since 178 talked about it, and i 10 your 210 didn't rescind it, don't you think you should tell 11 the reader that you are no longer intending to do it?
12 MR. BOYCE: The question is --
13 MR. MICHELSON: I don't know whether the
]
14 Commissioners know that or not, but you are not following-15 through.
16 MR. BOYCE: .The answer is, we have not entirely 4
17 discounted that concept. We have, right now, an outstanding
, 18 requirement in our SRP to show how testing
- hat is done 19 correlates to design basis.
20 Sometimes that will occur via analysis,.sometimes
{
21 you need to specify different parameters-that may not be' 22 reflected in the actual test. conditions.
23 Right now, GE has on its plate an-outstanding item 24 to try and generate that body of knowledge. That body of.
25 knowledge is going to be very-similar to the concept of fh.
() ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
\Nashinggon D. C. 200C (202) 293-3950
_ - _ . , ~. - . _
. , . _ - - - - - - . - . - -- . .- .~ .- .- . ..
11 ,
i" 1- validation attributes, but it may or may not be, and we have
'O 2 been loath to-tell the Commission that we are not using the 3 concept of. validation attributes until we.see what that 4 document will look like.-
5 MR. KERR: - I~am-confused. -I thought Mr. Michelson.
6 asked you if-you're still developing validation attributes 7 and that the answer was,'no, you are not. Then you.said you. ,
8 had not deserted the concept.
9 I don't know whether that means that'you are 10 planning to have them or you're not planning to have them or 11 you don't know.
12 MR.-RUBIN: This Mark Rubin from the Staff.- -I 13 think originally-the concept was_for very limited _ numerical-14- criteria in the ITAACs and those would be the Tier I
{
15 Acceptance Criteria,-and thatithere'd be a secondary _ body of-16 numerical criteria which appeared in the SECY'Pape.r's 17 validation attributes. C 18 I think over the last year or.so, there's been an 19 evolution to put more detail, more specifics directly.into-20 the ITAACs, more numerical criteria in the' acceptance 21 criteria, and-essentially subsume:whatluasforiginally; 22- envisioned as validation attributes, essentiallyLinto the 23 ITAAC directly.
24 I thinkJyoa'11 see-in the current Phase'III ,
25L -submittal, a relatively'large=amoun* of numerical criteria, 0; ANN .RiLEY &':ASSOCIATESL Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W.,' Suite 300 Washington, D. C.: 20006 L (202) 293-3950-p
4 1
12 g 1 a number of which originally would have been validation N 2 attributes. So, more has been moved in now directly into 3 the ITAAC and I think it really subsumes a lot of the 4 validation attribute concept. j f 5 MR. MICHELSON: It r ' red part of them but not all 6 of them and now we're in a mixed bag regime, just trying to-7 figure out which bag you intended to end up with.
8 Apparently, there will be no validation attribute document l
! 9 as discussed in 178. I guess that's the answer.
l 10 MR. BOYCE: As of the path we're currently on, a
11 that's the case, 12 MR. MICHELSON: That means your ITAAC must contain f 13 all of these validation attributes then.
/\ 14 MR. BOYCE: That is correct. The reason we went V
15 away from the concept is that we felt that it wouldn't
- 16 really give you issue finality. If the validation 17 attributes could be changed in order to explain the results 18 of a test, and show how that met the acceptance criteria, wo 19 did not feel _that that would give you the finality of issues 20 that Part 52 was intending. So, that's why_we went away 21 from the concept..
22 MR. RUBIN: I should indicate that not every 23 numerical value in the SSAR appears, of course, in the .
24 ITAACs. The hard part of this job was deciding where to draw 25 the line.
/~5 V - ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
- l. Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 y , -
kg 13 s 1 Where do the Tier I level of detail stop, and that
\2 2 lino has moved down a bit over'the last year or so.
3 MR. MICHELSON: I didn't really have any problem 4 with the concept of the-validation attribute document. In 5 fact, I thought that was the way you ought to be going 6 because you don't want to tie down in Tier I, all these 7 numbers.
8 But new I scarted seeing a mixed bag and went back 9 and found, well, I'm not sure you're even intending to have in a validation document, and now you've confirmed that.- So, 11 you're putting a lot of numbers in Tier I that are going to 12 be hard to change later.
13 MR. RUBIN: That's correct.
/ 14 MR. MICHELSON: I'm just not sure that's the way
\._
15 to go either.
16 MR. WARD: Is your question answered?
17 MR. KERR: Yes.
18 MR. WARD: What was the answer?
19 MR. KERR: They don't know, at tnis point, which 20 is not strange. I mean, after all, they said that this is 21 an iterative process, and I would expect an iterative 22 process to change occasionally.
23 MR. WARD: Right now, you don't plan on validation 24 attribute documents for Tier II, but you may find-it's 25 necessary to revive it; is that the idea?
(O/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washingten, D. C. 20006 (Et2) 293-3850
. . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . .. ____J H
14 1 MR. BOYCE: That's possible. The specific O 2 question that I was trying to answer was, do we have one 3 right now? The tnswer was no. We haven't tols. the 4 Commission because we don't want to exclude the pcissibility 5 that we would revisit the issue..
6 SECY 91-210 discussed a GE proposal of separating 7 the FDA from the approval and review of ITAAC. SECY 92-053 8 introduced the concept of DAC and what the Staff's 9 perceptions of DAC and its role in Part 52 would be. SECY 10 92-196 discussed examples of two sp ific DAC.
11 92-214 discussed the current statuc of ITAAC and 12 provided an example of an ITAAC for the SLCS system. And 13 right now there's a SECY paper being generated for the other O 14 two DAC areas, INC and Human Factors and we're in the N.)
15 process of getting that out.
< 16 MR. CARROLL: Where do you stand in terms of 17 finalization of the Rad Protection and Piping DACs?
18 MR. BOYCE: We issued our draft SERs on these two 19 areas. Now, where do we stand on resolution of those open 20 issues?
S 21 We will have soaebody here this afternoon from the 22 Division of Engineering Technology when he discusses the 23 control building, and I'd like to defer to him. There were 24 on the order of 15 open items, many of them dealing with 25 specific modeling techniques for piping, stiffness values,
?
(m u) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 I
i .. .. . .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 1
}
j; I 15 1 pipe stress' support. GE may-be able to address that luter jV 2 on in their presentation also.
3 MR. CARROLL: There were also some changes in'the l
j 4 rad protection one from; Stage 2 to the Stage 3 that we i
j 5 pointed out to the Staff that'--
l 6. MR. BOYCE: As I recall, Mr. Pederson worked with !
j 7 you to try and incorporate those changes.
t
- j. 8 MR. CARROLL: I don't.know how you're closing it
! -9 out, is my question.
i 10 MR. BOYCE:. Well, we're closing it out two ways: i
[ 11 There's goingsto be'SERs - -these SERs were.sent up to the- -
i
- 12 Commission eat.ly so.that they=coul'd-get a feel for where we--
13 were. . We're in the process.of. issuing draft final safety.
14 evaluation rep?rts.
15 -SECY 91-161 he.s them issuing them by the end of. 7 16 this month. In - scu. . cases, if we had time, wi would'have
. rolled those concerns into that SER. - Ifxwe are unable'to
- - 17-f 18- close all the issues by. time of lasuance-of those SERs, we f
l- ' 19 will close it in a followup to this FSAR that we are issuing i -- . . .
- - - at the end'of the month. 2 h .
[ 21 -MR.' CARROLL: The reason for my question is'that-i l . 22' we're trying to get a letter out this month on~how we're --
c 23 the ACRS interfaces.-- and;I guesa we need the answer to 2 4 -- some of these timing questions. $
h 25- MR. .BOYCE: Well,-the bulk--of the SSARireview will l-(-
l b ANN RILEY & ASS _OCIATES,. Ltd.
Court oorters-t 1612 K Strek m..W., Suite 300 l Washingion, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950 L
p
-- ,4r ,, .m; , - .-4,- +,,--m-,4% -.s.+,
~
.c.-..~ ~ . - , - , ,.-+.-,----.,re-- .- , ....-,-# .s.,~,,-- ...-L-, ,,#~
16 1 be coming up in those SERS. You may be able to make a 2 better assessment from that. It's my recollection that the
.3 rad protection was actually fairly mature, and that the 4 level of open items in the rad protection were relatively 5 minor.
6 So, I'm not sure you couldn't proceed on the 7 review in its current stage. The piping DAC, I thought was 8 less mature, and you might have more trouble in that arena.
9 MR. CARROLL: All right. While we are on the
- 10 subject of DAC, where do we stand on tne remaining two?
11 Where do we stand on the two we have not discussed? The 12 man-machine interface --
13 THE REPORTER; I'm sorry, the man-machine 14 inte* face?
15 MR. CARROLL. -- interface. How close do I have 16 to be to this stupid thing?
i 17 MR. WARD: Point it towards you.
18 MR. CARROLL: I guess. Man-machine interface and 19 I&C.
20 MR. BOYCE: On this last SECY paper, right now it 21 left projects that had the Technical Branch's concurrence.
22 It is right now at Mr. Russell's desk and Mr. Russell and 23 Mr. Crutchfield are meeting cn it this morning.
24 MR. CARROLL: -So Ue can expect to see that one 25 fairly shortly, I guess, eh?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 y ._ - - _--_-_ - __- ----
17 frg 1 MR. BOYCE: I hope so, depending on their meeting,
'ws 2 if they have any significant shifts but I think they are 3 just making sure that they understand just exactly what they 4 vant-to say on that one. That's a very detailed description ,
5 where it is.
6 (Slide.] '
t 7 MR. BOYCE: This is just an overall picture of how 8 GE has submitted the tier one information to us. They are i 9 submitting - they have submitted these ITAAC and tier one 10 material in three stages and we have met with senior 11 management from GE and the NRC at intervals of about six to 12 eight weeks.
13 Stage 1 had nine pilots and you can see it was
(~'% 14 close to a year ago.
(m ,/ ',
15 Stage 2 contained 40 Gyctems, istrand' April of this 16 year. We had many-iterations on these nine pilot:s trying to 17 resolve many of the outstanding issues under Part.52, the 18 most significant of which was level of detail.
19 After we got to Stage 2-and reviewed it, we had a 20 round of comments and iterations and meetings.
21 Stage 3 was issued in June of '92. I believe you 22 all have copies of Stage 3 and that is what.we should be
,. 23 discussing today.
24 [ Slide.]
25 MR. BOYCE: In terms of our review, this slide n
U ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
~~
i t
18 s 1 shows how you are going to see comments that I have covered
)
2 a little bit earlier but draft FSERs on these two DACs will 3 be coming out short'y, We provided draft SERs on these DACs 4 in May.
5 Comments on the Stage 2 submittal are going to be 6 provided as part of this August draft FSER on the SSAR 7 portion of the ABWR. Does everyone follow those acronyms?
8 In other words the SERs we're going to see on the 9 bulk of the design are going to contain some evaluation of 10 the Stage 2 submittal.
11 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, but the Stage 2 submittal was 12 only on a small portion of the design.
13 MR. BoYCE: That's correct.
14 MR. MICHELSON: It was a limited number of DACs.
15 KR. BOYCE: That's correct.
16 MR. MICHELSON: Not alone limited but very 17 superficial at that stage. They are corewhat better at Stage 18 3 so what we are talking about today is not what we are 19 going to see in the draft or in the FSER then.
20 MR. BOYCE: That's correct. What we were trying 21 to do, recognizing that we are in an iterative process and 22 that we only had 40 systems to look at, we felt that it was 23 best just to get comments out in public and up for your 24 consideration so that.we could get all the. helpful comments 25 out on the table right away, t'
t}.,
ANN RILEY & . ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
.Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
19 1 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, but the comments that we're i
\ 2 going to do today are on Stage 3, not on Stage 2. We'd have 3 a much more extensive set of comments if it were just Stage 4 2, which is the stage you are putting in your draft but it 5 will come eventually, I guess.
6 We'll see the rest of the ITAAC I guess in a 7 supplement in November or something?
8 MR. BOYCE: The date on the supplement has not 9 been set.
10 MR. MICHELSON: That's where these will really be; 11 all the Stage 3 or Stage 4 or whatever the final-stage is 12- will be in that supplement. -It will not be in the draft-13 FSER.
, 14 MR. BOYCE: That's correct.
(
15 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. That's a large supplement.
16 MR. BOYCE: Comments on the Stage 3 submittal are 17 being provided via separate correspondence from these SERs.
18 We are in the process of getting formal comments-out to GE-19 this week and I alluded to earlier about a graybear's' 20 review of the senior managers.
21 They took an independent look at the processes 22 that we were going through and the resultant products and, 23 as I said, comments are going to be provided to us soon but 24 my understanding is they agreed with the general approach.
25 In addition, we had a team of people put.together
/~'
t, ANN RILEY & _ ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
20 e
1 who provided a regional perspective. They reviewed 10' 2 systems. Their comments have been provided-to us.and we'll 3 be providing them to GE. The most significant look from' 4 them dealt with the issue of testability and ITAAC. Many of 5 the ITAACs seem to rely on inspections and the comment from 6 the regional group was that'we should be looking for actual
- 7. testing as opposed to inspections, more reliance-on testing.-
8 An example-is givan-that it is difficult to-9 inspect the functicn of an electrical interlock rather than 10 test it. That is an-example.of one, so that's one'of their i 11 inputs but we have got essentially 10 pages of detailed 12 comments on the 10 systems that they reviewed and so we'll 13 be getting those to GE.
14 Also-there is an interaction with NUMARC and-it--
15 actually-should say with NUMARC and~GE scheduled for late -
16 August. I think the date's the.26th to.27th. The agenda has 17 not been set nor the time and place.or:even the. extent-for that matter, but the intent is'to meet with NUMARC and'
~
18 19 understand what the utility.perspectiveiis?on the' current 20 status of development"of the ITAAC..
21 [ Slide.]
- 22. MR. BOYCE: This slide actually.reiteratesisome of 23 the commentscthat I just made.
24 The most significant; bullet here.was one-we 25 identifled--in SECY 92-214=, status'of ITAAC--paper, which said ANN- RILEY : ac ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
. Court Reporters -
1612 K Street, N.W.', Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
- (202) 293-3950 l u
l -
- . . . , _ . _ ~ . . . - . . , . . , , . _ . . . . ~ - . _ . , , , , , , . - -
21-1 -
1 GE is resource-constrained, resulting in delays in 2 submittals and resolutions of issues. I think GE will 3 probably want to address-that bullet later on'in the 4 -presentation.
5 As I said. earlier, there are inconsistencies noted 6 between the SSAR, the design descriptions, and the ITAAC.
7 (Slide.)
8 MR. BOYCE:- This slide presents the types of ITAAC 9 ~that-have been developed so far. Currently, you are looking 10 at one category of these ITAAC' called the Systems ITAAC. i 11 That is really the bulk of the ITAAC, and they are Systems 12 ITAAC for each system of the design. GE elected:to develop-13 the ITAAC on a system-by-system basis, so_as a result, there
/i 14 are approximately 140 systems-in the SSAR,-and!GE developedt V
15 sAAC for as many of them as they felt were appropriate for-16 treatment in Tier 1.
17 Generic ITAAC were developed for generic concerns 18 across systems-and-are cross-referenced by the Systems ITAAC 19 where appropriate.
20 Right now, the staff is considering the-i 21 development'of combined license ~ITAAC for. licensee '
22 procedural requirements that should'be met prior to fuel 23 load, but aren?t necessary part of the design orientation 24- with which the ITAAC have--- along the lines-.of which the-25 ITAAC have been developed to date.
A V ' ANN -RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1812 K Street, N.W;, Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-l
22 l 1 There's also ITAAC for interfaces for site-2 specific features of the design and the example listed in 3 Part 52 is for the ultimate heat sink.
4 MR. MICHELSON: And when will we expect to see 5 those?
6 MR. BOYCE: Those are also in Section 4 of the 7 Stage 3 submittal. And as we alluded to earlier, DAC have 8 been developed for selected areas of the design.
9 MR. CARROLL: Now, when will the generic ITAACs be 10 in a condition where we can be looking at those? Do these 11 have to do with things like welding procedures and 1 :' environmental qualification and stuff like that?
- 1. MR. BOYCE: That's correct. There are right now I 14 think nina generic ITAAC listed in Section 3 of the Stage 3
/~}
Iv 15 submittal. What you see is the current state of maturity of 16 those Tier 1 submittals. We are providing comments on 17 those. But in an iterative process, it's not just the NRC 18 that needs to be satisfied; the utilities have to be-able to 19 live with the ITAAC and have them doable by a utility. So 20 there are many groups here, there's a vendor perspective, 21 there's an NRC perspective, and there's a utility 22 porspective. So when you ask when are they going to be 23 done, I'm -- right now, we're trying to close these things 24 out as fast as we can, but I can't give you a firm date.
25 MR. MICHELSON: Do you know yet or have any ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,. Ltd.
l Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D. C. 20006
, (202) 293-3950 l
1
23
, 1 feeling for . Tether or not the ITAAC has to be available at J 2 the time of the FDA?
3 MR. BOYCE: Right now, the feeling ir. the staff is 4 that -- and as we stated in SECY 92-214, we-believe that 5 ITAAC are required for FDA.
6 MR. MICHELSON: Now, that was one area where the 7 committee indicated that they would prefer Option 3, which 8 is after FDA, but before certification, if I recall the 9 option correctly. Is that right?
10 MR. BOYCE: I'm not sure what your recommendation 11 was.
12 MR. MICHELSON: Oh, I know that. It was Option 3.
13 Do you recall Option 3?
(~T 14 MR. BOYCE: No, I don't, but-I think_I've got the O
15 SECY paper here.
16 MR. MICHELSON: My recollection was Option 3 was 17 after FDA but before certification, and the committee 18 recommended Option 3 also. But that's before we knew 19 anything about the DAC process.
20 MR. BOYCE: I can try and address --
21' MR. MICHELSON: I was'just trying to highlight to 22 the committee that that's_the problem I'had with our 23 previous letter, is before we knew anythirig_about DAC, we 24 said it looks-1.ike'you can do this after FDA. I further 25 wonder now, if-we don't have the validation attribute-f3 V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOderst 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
s _
24 1 document at FDA, then I wonder further if you can possibly 2 delay the ITAACs.
3 MR. CARROLL: There is not going to be a 4 validation document.
9 5 MR. MICHELSON: Well, if there isn't, then it's 6 got to be in the SSAR and you've got to see what the ITAAC 7 looks like. Otherwise, I could say if I got the validation 8 document, I know what an ITAAC has to look like. It has to 9 contain everything that's in there, you know, validate 10 everything that's in there.
11 MR. BOYCE: In further addressing why we went it 12 by FDA, the Commission -- in 92-214, we expounded on this 13 topic. But what we said was the Commission came dcwn with 14 an SRM and it was related to I think AP-600 testing, and 15 they said the staff is bound by the FDA, and we don't want 16 to be in a position where we find a problem with an ITAAC 17 that would reopen our review of the underlying Tier 2 18 mat erial because we would not be able to go back to it.
19 So we have -- the feeling right new, and as we 20 stated to the Commission, is that we' golog to require 21 full approval of all Tier 1 materials as part of FDA.
22 MR. MICHELSON: The ITAACs will be in there at 23 that time?
24 MR. BOYCE: Correct.
25 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. Thank you, p)( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud RepOners 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C, 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
25 7
1 MR. CARROLL: Back to the generic ITAACs, I guess 2 my concern is that we're not reviewing a generic.ITAAC 3 today, and-I --
4 MR. WARD: No. We are only reviewing:one class of 5 four or five classes of ITAACs.
6 MR. MICHELSON: It really was only-supposed to be 7 those in T!ar 2 at the time. Although we're looking at Tier 8 3, we wer supposed to pick things -- >
9 MR. WARD: Stage 3, you mean.
10 MR. MICHELSON:- Pardon me. Stage 3. Excuse me.
11 I think we -- that's why we didn't get into some of these 12 others.
13 MR. WARD: Yes. '
14 MR. MICHELSON:J We Were trying.to pick things that
)
15 came up earlier.
16 MR. WARD: Well, I think something we'll have to 17 make clear in the letter is that we're only reviewing this 18 one class, and then we have to --
19 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
20 MR.' WARD: -- consider whether or somehow we 21 shouid review other types.-
- 2:2 MR. MICHELSON: Initially,/we'were only.. committed-23 to reviewing two, and we added:three more:just to-increase 24 the sample just a little bit.
25- MR. WARD: 'Yes. Which is fine, butLthey' e all in l '
ANN RILEY & ' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters .
1612 K Street, N W.; Suite 300 '
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950- -
J$e* *m Mi .- 9 ? 7 +y r-1 - g - E9-- g "'*4*- *s- M M' '-'
4'
. . . ~- - . . . - . . _ - ... . . . . . - -
, 26 i
j 1 the same class.
2 MR. MICHELSON: Oh, yes. Yes.
3 (Slide.)
] 4 MR. BOYCE: I would like to point out something
) 5 about the review and you will see this in the systems i 6 relationship of the design description to ITAAC. Both of s
j 7 these are in tier one. They are integrally linked and
} 8 Section 2 of the Stage 3 submittnl is where these are both i
j 9 found.
- 10 The design description provides a description of 1
l 11 the particular system and includes all relevant or safety 12 important or design elements that were deemed neceascry to 13 be put into tier one by either the_ industry or by GE or by-
]
14 the Staff.
15_ The ITAAC are supposed to confirm many of those 16 design elements.
l 17 The ITAAC are going to be used-for fuel load 18 decision and subsequent facility mods to the design. Once- 0 19 these ITAACs --
{
20 MR. MICHELSON: Excuse me~--
21 MR. BOYCE: -- ata sat'isfied --
22 MR MICHELSON: I'm.sorry,.that previous statement 23 though bethers me. -I_ thought the ITAAC was to confirm all 24 of the escential designielements, not just most of them
, 25 even. -__
ANN = RlLEY . & .-ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
~ Court Reporters:
1S12 K Street, N.W., Suite 3001 F . Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950.3 a
i I
1 27 1 MR. BOYCE: That's -- '
2 MR. MICHELSON: It is all of them, isn't it?
3 MR. BOYCE: In this business, when we say 4 statements, many times we are saying the same thing. All 5 the essential elements are pulled into the design 6 description. In addition, many things are implicitly 7 verified by the ITAAC.
8 In addition, all of the commitments in tier two 9 are going to be requirements of the facility and if the 10 facility doesn't meet those, there is a potential-impact on 11 whether -- or the question could be raised as to-whether or 12 not they met the acceptance criteria in ITAAC.
13 So another way to phrase it is probably.not an 14 exact one-for-one correspondence with everything in the
)
15 design description and ITAAC and there is definitely not-a 16 one-for-one correspondence with everything in tier two.to 2 17 the ITAAC, but there is a great dcal of overlap and implicit 18 verification in that process.
19 MR. MICHELSON: To what extent can an inspector 20 question something in the plant that was covered by tier two-21 but not covered by tier one?
22 MR. BOYCE: That we are wrestling with. It's-tied-23 to the level of. detail question. We have'not quite sorted 24 it out because we haven't run into it yet.
25 MR. MICHELSON: You'll.run into it right away_if
.- . - ANN RlLEY- &- ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders-1612 K Street, N.W.', Suite 300 Washington,- D. C. 20006
.(202) 293-3950
28 1 you look at the P&ID in tjer two and then look at that -
2 little simplified drawing in tier one. There's a whole lot 3 of things and first of all there's some inconsistencies-but 4 the question in mind is if an inspector goes in and sees a 5 valve, a particular valve in the P&ID, which is the valve 6 that the reviewer saw, the reviewer didn't review ITAAC. He 7 reviewed the design and he saw a particular valve, he says 8 yeah, that'll take care of my problem.
9 Now if that valve does not show up'in the plant 10 and the process by which it didn't is-they wrote a 50.59_and 11 took it out, if that doesn't show up, can the inspector 12 still question _them on why that valve isn't in there if it i 13 wasn't in the ITAAC7 2 14 MR. BOYCEt Well, he certainly could, if it was a ;
15 requirement for tier two.
16 MR. MICHELSON: The P&ID I assume is a requirement 17 for tier two. _ ,'s a part of the SSAR.
18 MR. BOYCE: There's two avenues that that-19 inspector could~ pursue.
~~
20 One is the traditional one of-the-SSAR compliance' 21 verification that we have always;done and-he can-look at ,
22 that and go through whatever enforcement mechanisms were '
23 available to him-for that process.
24 In addition, he can possibly link thatLto the tier 25 one material and say that there'is an integral-link. That-h '
ANN. RILEY & - ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W.,' Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
'(202) 293-3950.-
29 1 valve was required to the performance of the ITAAC.
2 MR. MICHEISON: Does he even have to demonstrate 3 that link. If it is on the P&ID, which is in the SSAr which 4 is tier two, does he have to go any further than to say why 5 isn't that valve there?
6 It's a part of your design and you didn't put it 7 in. I assume he has that right.
8 MR. CARROLL: But, Carl, if it was taken out 9 through a 50.59 mechanism, he has the right to challenge 10 that also.
11 MR. MICHELSON : That's what he would probably 12 challenge all right, but I mean none of that is lost by this 13 whole tier one ITAAC process.
14 You go in and inspect to the SSAR.
15 MR. BOYCE: That's right. That's correct.
16 MR. CARROLL: As modified by any changes that have 17 been made to it.
18 MR. MICHELEON: Yes, but you don't have to go to 19 the ITAAC. You just go directly to the SSAR if you wish.
20 However, the ITAAC is the things you must, the inspector 21 must check.
22 The tier two step is optional to check.
23 MR. RUBIN: Mr. Michelson? Mark Rubin from the 24 Staff.
25 I could add just a little bit perhaps to give you O ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
30 1 some more background that this issue, the difference between 2 the simplified cartoon in the ITAACs and the P&ID detail has 3 been a significant issue that Mr. Sniezek and the graybeards y 4 have identified for us and we are all trying to wrestle n.m 9 5 it.
6 It was thought by our senior nanagement M A h 7 cartoon was clearly not hdequate to guide an inspect.h n ettf.
8 we certainly agree with that. The cartoon as such was meant 9 to describe the very highest level of functional 10 requirements in detail of the system, but that we would 11 expect -- and of course the system has to be verified and 12 inspected to be functionally identical to the tier one 13 description or they are not in compliance with the design 14 certification.
15 They also have to build the plant according to the 16 SAR description because that's what the FDA is given or --
17 or of course justify differences, and so that's what the 18 construction verification process will entail.
19 MR. MICHELSON: Thank you.
20 MR. BOYCE: There's a couple, issues that the Staff 21 is still working with GE on and'.trying to reach a common 22 . understanding,-whether all elements of the design 23 . description-require a corresponding ITAAC,-that's the one-24 for-one treatment of important design elements in the design 25 description to the ITAAC.
O ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W. Suite 300
. Washington, D. Ci 20006
.(202) 293-3950'
31
-- 1 Right now there isn't a one-for-one match in a lot
'~# 2 of cases and we are trying to understand what that really 3 means in the long term.
4 Also, GE has proposed that certain systems don't 5 need an ITAAC and out of the 140 I think the are only 6 proposing tier one treatment for approximately 85 systems.
7 Of the 85 systems, I think they are proposing that 60 or 70 8 should have ITAAC but the delta would only have a design 9 description without an ITAAC.
10 Right now I.think we are working with GE in order 11 to fully understand what their logic and methodology was and 12 I believe it's centered on their version of a graded 13 approach to safety.
() 14 15 That guidance was also given to us in the SRM for SECY 91-178 about degraded approach to stfety and level of 16 detail.
17 MR. CARROLL: GE is going to talk about that'in 18 its presentation?
19 MR. JAMES: Yes, we'll talk about that.
20 MR. CARROLL: All right, good.
21 (Slide.]
22 MR. BOYCE: There are some items that will not be 23 in ITAAC and we are pointing out in these bullets that this 24 is no different than the way we have treated Part 50 plants 25 when we have issued them an operating license.just prior-to t'~N U ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
32 1 fuel loading but yet we still had requirements that went 0 2 past fuel loading such as startup testing, low power 3 testing, that sort of thing, and u : we are saying is we 4 are going to be doing it no differently, that we are going 5 to attach conditions of the license to the COL and that this 6 would be the same process.
7 The opportunity for public involvement would still 8 be there via license amendments.
9 MR. WARD: Is it' expected that there will be some 10 of these things or a substantial number?
11 MR. BOYCE: Right now we only use these as our 12
~
examples because they clearly needed to-occur after fuel 13 load. There are others that I alluded to earlier when I said l' we're contemplating COL ITAAC and those were for
(
15 operationally oriented programs, operator training and those 16 sorts of things. We are not sure whe ther they are going to 17 be attached as conditions of the license and have acceptance-18 criteria prior to fuel loading or whether-we will1 create COL 19 -- ITAAC and that sort of thing.
20 That probably will be sorted out in another paper 21 on the form and content of a COL.-
22 MR. WARD: -Does the opportunity for public comment 23 depend on which way they are handled?-
24 MR. BOYCE: It shouldn't, .It should be 25 transparent because findings under 52.103(c)'-, which is the y
, 4 f ANN FilLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
P Court Reporters i 1612 K Street, N.W.,' Suite 300 -
?' Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
33 1 end, where we judge whether the acceptance criteria have 2 been met, it refers to acceptance criteria in a license.
3 Thest ITAAC that we're generating now for the design would 4 be part of the license, so that should be transparent for 5 the purposes of 52.103.
6 MR. MICHElsoN: Where would the pre-operational 7 test program be described then? I mean in some detail. Is 8 that before or after certification?
9 MR. BOYCE: Right now Chapter-14 of the SSAR 10 provides the current level of discussion on the pre-ops test-11 program.
12 MR. MICHELSON: Is there going to be:more later or 13 is that it?
14 MR. BOYCE: That as far as GE is concerned,-that
[
15 is it. To the extent that we have comments on-it in our SER,.
16 that would provide the final level of detail in that 17 ~c hapter.
18 MR. CARROLL: That's-totally analogous to a Part 19 50 license situation.
20 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, but if'you look at the 21 procedures, the procedures are not totally analogous-to-Part 22 50_ procedures.
23 The Staff saw a lot more in-procedure before they 24 wrote off cn1 it. They are not seeing anyfprocedure'in this 25 case, just descriptions of what a procedure!would contain.
h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders -
1812 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C. 20006
.(202) 293-3950
I 34 1 MR. BOYCE: We have asked GE to incorporate !
O2 elements of the pre-ops and post-ops, post fuel-load test 3 program into tier one. It's an outstanding open item that .
4 we have with GE. GE may be able to address it later on but 5 their initial indication was that they did not want to do 6 it.
7 MR. MICHELSON: Was the Staff satisfied with the 8 ' level of detail in tier two for pre-operational tests? .
9 MR. BOYCE: Yes.
10 MR. MICHELSON: You wouldn't expect to see any 11 more or that even at the COL stage?
t 12 MR. BOYCE: Probably not. [
13 MR '. MICHELSON: So that's all. You-don't care 14 about procedures;.you just want to.know that there's-a 15 program in place and what the program will verify?
16 MR.-BOYCE: Thatis correct, and I'think we're -
17 doing that in the same way we have done it in the past.
18 MR. MICHELSON: You have asked for the procedures 19 in the past --
20 MR. CARROLL: At:the COL stage the procedures. -!
21 would be available, Carl.-
22 MR. MICHELSON: Not necessarily.-There's-no 23 commitment fer them to be available,.no mention of.them .
-- 24 being available and they-will have'to-be available before 25 you do'=the test obviously but not even'at COL-stages,are ANN RlLEY -- & ASSOCIATES, .- Ltd.. ';'
Court Reporters 1612_K Street, N.W., Suite 300.- ,
l- Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950: #
i
% v 4 ', . -
g _,_iw ,, , . , _- o-., ,, .d. e ,, , E _ . , , .L~m h. , , w , h -~.e , . ,-,4-,, ,,
i i
35 i commitments formed.
2 I would say that would even be acceptable. l 3 MR. BOYCE: It's possible. We are into an area 4 where the Staff hasn't fully examined yet. What I am 5 alluding to is that that is one of the issues that we are 6 still wrestling with and that we are right now focused just
- 7 on the design aspects as opposed to those aspects.
8 MR. MICHELSON: If it's a part of the COL 9 application, I'd say that's good enough but'I didn't find 10 any commitment for that.
11 (S3ide.)
12 MR. BOYCE: There are some areas that the Staff 13 and the Commission, I think you have all called non-14 traditional items and how they should be treated in tier 15 one, most notable of which are insights from PRA and severe 16 accident issue resolutions as discussed in SECY 90-016'and 17 that lineage.
18 Right now these. insights'have'been incorporated 19 into the tier two SSAR or are in the proc'ess of being 20 incorporated. We received the last PRA submittal-on tier two 21 I think June 30th, so_we are still incorporating _these_'and 22 right now-we are trying to understand how to bring those.up i
! 23 into tier one.
24 An argument can be made that there is an implicit:
25 confirmation of.all these issues since'the ITAAC_ verified b ANN RILEY & lASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters--
'1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950?
36 1 the design as stated in the SSAR and since the tier one is 2 derived from the SSAR. However, that is not easily 3 traceable and isn't real visible so we have asked GE to 4 develop a cross-reference of SSAR issues to ITAAC.
5 There was an example provided in SECY 92-214 for 6 containment performance.
7 MR. MICHELSON: Is that going to be done for every 8 ITAAC, this cross-reference?~
9 MR. BOYCE: No. There are certain issues that 10 we're working with GE to try and do. Currently, the plan 11 calls for GE to develop cross-referencds for PRA insights 12 and severe accident issues and that sort of key analysis as 13 opposed to a cross reference of every aspect.of. Tier 2 into-
- 14 the ITAAC.
!. 15 (Slide.)
16 MR. BOYCE: This slide addresses what I-had stated 17 earlier about ITAAC requirements for FDA.
18 [ Slide.)-
l.
( 19 'MR. BOYCE: This is my summary slide once again 20 that I started off my presentation with. If there are_no 21 further questions, I'll turn it over to GE.
l
, 22 MR. KERR: 'Tell me a-little b'it more about the:
I
.23 purpose of the cross-references to the PRA. What sorts of-24 things would be cross-referenced?:
25 (S3ide.)
ANN RlLEY ~ & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l-Coud Reporters.
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 37 1 MR. BOYCE: Her is an example that's contained
, 2 right now in the Stage 3 submittal and was also provided in 3 SECY 92-214. What it shows-here is SSAR entry right here.
4 MR. KERR: Could you focus that a little?
5 MR. BOYCE: Sorry about that.
6 MR. KERR: Thank you.
7 MR. BOYCE: It shows the SSAR entry. This shows 8 the specific design parameter of interest, this shows the 9 value, and this shows where it would be in the ITAAC. So 10 that's currently the state of-development of this particular 11 analyses.
12 MR. KERR: Okay.. Thank you. And this just says 13 that -- now, is the implic.ation that there will-be a test or 14 a' verification that the values assumed in the PRA are 15 present or something?' What is the -- .
16 MR. BOYCE: Well, as far as PRA is concerned, when 17 you get into sensitivity analysis and that sort of thing, 18 you end up being able to identify key components, key 19 functions that need to be emphasized or. focused on. So 20 typically, what would happen'is you.wouldn't verify a PRA~
21 number per se; you'd go back inland write'a certified design 22 commitment, or an ITAAC,.that would ensure or check explicit 23 the important-function of the particular' component of 24 interest. '
-25 MR. KERR: . Check the important function.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoderso 1612 K Street,1N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-- ,
38 1 MR. BOYCE: Yes. The example in 92-214 said 7-
\- # 2 vacuum breakers, and it turns out that their function is a 3 significant contributor to core damage frequency as part of 4 a design basis analysis. So there is an explicit ITAAC 5 which would verify or would check by test that the vacuum 6 breakers were installed properly and actually would function 7 under some sort of test conditions.
8 MR. KERR: And that they would always function.
9 MR. BOYCE: There's certainly no guarantee of 10 always. You're trying to do -- you're probably doing a one-11 time check prior to fuel load, and it may or may not be 12 controlled by text specs after that.
13 MR. KERR: But the PRA doesn't just assume that
) 14 the vacuum breakers exist; it assumes that they operate with (J
15 some likelihood of success, does it not?
16 MR. BOYCE: That's correct.
17 MR. KERR: But that is not checked.
18 MR. BOYCE: That's right. We are not -- the 19 testing -- the reliability aspects and verification of 20 reliability numbers would be handed over to a design RAP 21 program which we have incorporated into Tier 1, and also an 22 0-RAP program. Right now, that is not considered part of 23 Tier 1 because it's difficult to do reliability testing on 24 an extended time frame prior to fuel load.
25 MR. KERR: So in a sense, you would find a failure G
V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
39 1 modes and effects analysis almest as useful as a PRA. I'm O
-# 2 trying to look for the information in the PRA that is going 3 to be useful to the auditor.
4 MR. BOYCE: Well, probably you know more about the 5 topic than I do at this point. We don't have that 6 information. We just got GE's submittal at the end of June.
7 GE hasn't provided their proposal -- well, they have just 8 provided their proposal in this area, and we're reviewing 9 it. But te don't have that sort of cross-reference.
10 MR. KERR: So you haven't given a great deal of f
11 thought to how the results of the PRA will be used up till 12 now.
13 MR. BOYCE: I'm --
(s; 14 MR. KERR: I mean, I'm not trying to put words in
\/
15 your mouth; I'm trying to interpret what you'r3 saying.
16 MR. BOYCE: What I'm trying to say is we aren't 17 sure how we're going to do it.
18 KR. KERR: Okay.
19 MR. BOYCE: I'm trying to give you an example of 20 what I personally thought could be done, and what we said in 21 92-214 is what I'm reiterating. I don't know how broad a 22 scope and what we can pull out of PRA that will actually be 23 useful in a design oriented one-time check an ITAAC. I'm 24 hoping actually that GE will do a real good job of that and 25 help us through this one.
o C ANN RILEY- & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
40 i
1 MR. WARD: Tom, this table is from what document?
{_
2 MR. BOYCE: This is from the Stage 3. You'll find l
. 3 it in the Annex B or Appendix B of the Stage 3 submittal.
- 4 It's also found in SECY 92-214, Enclosure 3 or something 5 like that.
6 MR. MICHELSON: Question.
7 MR. WARD: Yes.
8 MR. MICHELSON: In SECY 91-178,.you tala about i 9 what the form and content of an ITAAC is to be. The first 10 section is to be the generic and discipline-requirements.
11 We have talked about that.- The second was the spccific 12 component requirements and system requ'irements, andLwe've 13 talked about that.
14 The third category you identified was the safety- -
15 analysis verification. Now, maybe a little of what we.just 16 discussed is a part of that, but in that section, you find 17 that it's going to provide information that verifies that 18 the original assumptions upon which the design was based are-
^
19 still valid for the as-built facility, and I don't findTthat L 20 sort of thing in the ITAAC so far.
21 MR. BOYCE6 .There's:a.coupleuof observations.
22 91-178 was written-before'the development of the first ITAAC-23 when we were involved with NUMARC and were trying to 24- _ understand where we were going.- Since then, GE has 25 developed the. document in front;of you cni an: iterative b ANN RILEY & ' ASSOCIATES, Ltd. -
Coud Repoders -
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
~ . - - . . - - - - . .. ..- . .
41 1 basis.
2 We have an outstanding open issue with GE where-we 3 have asked them to show how the ITAACs, if they do not 4 explicitly verify design basis conditions, will be able to j 5 make that jump via analysis.
6 For example, you don't want to test the design 7 basis assumption of how much your containment will uithstand 8 in terms of pressure. You don't want to do that sort of 9 testing. So what you end up doing is doing some sort of ;
10 analysis to get you there.
11 GE right now -- we have an open issue. I don't .
12 know whether or not GE has made much progress in that area 13 as to how to get us back from ITAAC to verification-of 14 design basis.
15 MR. MICHELSON: Let me give you a more specific 16 example that is not containment itself, but'rather the 17 compartments and subcompartments outside of containment, '
18 where you have to do some amount of calculation to determine 19 what kind of pressure rises you anticipate and so forth so 20 you can size the building accordingly_or put in the EQ :
21 accordingly and so forth..
- 22 I would expect some discussion of this and some 23 provision for. verification:that that analysis is verified at -
- 24. the time-the facility is' built so that you're sure that, i 25 indeed,_it can do what it_said in'the_SSAR lt could do. 'I L
O ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 ,
' Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293 3950
42 1 don't find the ITAAC for that, for control buildings, for 2 instance, as one example, and I just couldn't find the 3 ITAACs for this sort of thing.
4 MR. BOYCE Possibly GE can help you out with that 5 one in their presentation.
6 MR. MICHE1 SON: Well, you do, though, intend to 7 still include this Category 3 in your 178 which asks for the 8 safety analysis verificatiot, 9 MR. BOYCE: Well, ,at we're -- we have asked GE 10 to do something similar to that. We don't-know how Phat's 11 going to be incorporated, whether it's in Tier 1 or Tier 2.
12 MR. MICHELSON . But that's not -- we haven't seen 13 the product yet from that.
14 MR. RUBINt Well, we have part of the product.
15 That aspect could have been satisfied a couple of ways.
16 There could have been a separate document evaluating all the 17 Chapter 15 events and identifying where in the ITAAC they 28 were found.
19 An alternate approach that we attempted to use 20 during our original ITAAC review was'to evaluate the Chapter 21 15 and try to pull the important assumptions into the Tier 1 22 ITAAC-acceptance criteria -- safety injection! flow rates; 23 time to flows; delivery pressures; pump performance curves; 24 functional performance of systems -- that were key 25 assumptions that went~into the Chapter.15 analysis. But we O ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters -
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 9 3-3950-
43 1 felt -- and we did that, and that was the source of a lot of 2 the additional numbers that appeared in the ITAACs.
3 But even after doing that, we weren't convinced 4 there was a one-to-one correlation.between everything that 5 perhaps an analyst assumed and built into his calculation 6 and the real hard functional performance requirements.
7 Because of that, wu iterated with GE a number of times and 8 in Appendix B of the Phase 3 submittal, there are those 9 tables that Tom was referring ~to, safety an31ynis 10 verification using 1TAACS, which attempts be more of a one-11 to-one correlation.
12 Now, this is not-directly part-_of the ITAAC, it's-13 not certified directly, but-it_is a reference document to 14 help make sure that we have complete one-to-one --
15 MR. MICHELSON: My-question, of course, was not 16 directed to insido of containment-as I tried to make clear.
17 I'm talking about the outside of containment, main steam 18 chase for example.
19 Are you going to verify the pressure rise 20 calculations for the main steam-cnase to make sure the 21 building doesn't blow apart if you should experience a mean 22- steam line break?.
23 MR. RUBIN: Well,--the intent of ITAAC'is not to-.
24 're-review --
25 MR.'MICHELSON: .You' haven't seen'it for the first ANN -RlLEY '& . ASSOCIATES, Ltd. -
Court Reporters-1612 K Street,.N.W., Suite ';00 Washhgton, D. C; 20006
-(202) 293 4950.
-_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - n
1 i i
- 44
- 1 time yet, so it's not a question of ro-reviewing something; ;
l 2 it's a question of reviewing later something ycu haven't yet i
j 3 got the aetails on at this point.
4 MR. BOYCE: If you are talking about compartment I
5 analyr.is, compartment by compartment analysis,-our plant 6 systems peaple may be here to -- or will be here. 7 don't l 7 know whether they are prepared to address that question a later on. .
9 RR. MICHELSON: Okay.
10 MR. WARD: Let's take it up then with them.
11 MR. MICHELSON: Let's take it up then.
12 MR. WARD: Okay. Thank you very much,-Mr. Boyce.
13 MR. CARROLL: One question, Tom. Given what 14 appears to me to be an awfully large amount of work that
)
15 remains to be done, would you care to venture your best ,
16 estimate as to when we'll really see an FDA?
17 '
MR. BOYCE: Can I just politely decline and call 18 it a day?
l 19 (Laughter.)
20 MR. BOYCE: Right now --- ;
21 MR. CARRCLL: Or try it another way. Do you think
! 22 there's any likelihood that. December is goi"' tozbe met?
l 23 MR. BOYCE: I can't venture. I'm not allowed to 24 - venture on these areas.-
25 - MR. CARROLL: All right.
l O :
ANN RlLEY .& ASSOCIATES, ' Ltd.
Court Report 6s 1812 K Street, N.W.,- Suite 300 Washington, D. C, 2000C (202) 293-3950 -
- p. - - - , - , w , . -,9 , . , v., , - - , .. - - . . . , , ,_.,n ,ai d ' ,m .- , ,, . + - - - . , , - - , , ..---._.,w..- . . - , . . . , --
! 1
- 1 4
45 1 u MR. BOYCEt But SECY 91-161 still
()
! 1 Parts unknown. 1
- 2 calls for us to issue an FDA in December. I know the staff '
i 3 is doing their best to try and meet the schedules. A lot of
, 4 it depends on GE also, as we pointed _out in the brief.
i
! 5 MR. CARROLL: Well, they are going to get asked J
l 6 thG came question. 2 i
j 7 MR. WARD: Okay. Let's go to GE. I believe Mr.
! 8 James will lead off. Letts see. By my accounting, we're 1-
!= 9 already 45 minutes behind schedula.
1 10 MR. CARROLL: You have to learn to talk faster, I
) 11 Tom.
.l -
j 12 MR. WARD: Okay. _That comment was addressed i-13 primarily to the members.
34 [ Laughter.)
j 15 MR. WARD: Well, it may oe that we even will have 16 to drop off one of the sampler.
I 17- MR. MICHELSON: The same trend'is throughout the 18 entire SECY.
i .
19 MR. WARD: Yes.
20 MR.- MICHELSON: I-don't think you'll need to look
- 21 'at five to get the~ message.
p i
22 (Slide.) -
4 23- MR. JAMES: Good morning.. My name is Tony-James, 24 GE, and I'have prepared a presentation for you on GE's view-25 of this whole Tierf1_ issue. TBut I. guess I'd-like to strike -
1 ANN RlLEYl&i ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders -
1612 K Street,- N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D. C. 20006 L(202) 293-3950 o
1 i
i 46 i
1 while the iron is hot end go through Tom's presentation, a.nd
] 2 I made a couple of notes on his presentation where I'd like i
! 3 to provide GE clarification of the issues that came up. So i
4 if you would permit me to do that, I'd appreciate it, sort j 5 of randomly going through Tom's presentation here.
I 6 He made 5 little bit of a deal about i 7 inconsistencies between the SSAR and the ITAAC, and I just 8 hope the flavor wasn't that, you know, there was a totally.
9 sloppy job by GE, and there were errors all over the place.
t ,
- 10 I think the inconsistencies in large part are the -
j 11 fact that we're shooting at moving targets here. Design 12 coramitments are -being made to make changos in the SAR, and 13 the SAR and the ITAACs aren't always necessarily one for l
14 one.
5 15 I won't say that the work is error-free, but the 16 inconsistencies' ara largely.a matter'of two moving targets -
17 here, and we're aware of the inconsistencies and' clearly 18 will fix them eventually.
19 Validation attributes, the discussion there -- our
, 20 view is that that's a dead issue. Make-sure you underetand .
21 what the industry was trying to do there.. What we were '
4 22 -trying to do was to-introduce numbers into the process that-
-23 would be used to demonstrate that the acceptance-criteria i
24 were met.
25 'But the numbers _ officially hadLTier 2 status, O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 o (202) 293-3950- 4
, . . - . , , , . , ,- ,-,,.._.;..e-._,-m , - , , m-,.._.L.. , , , - ,
. . - . _ . , . _ - . . ~ , _ _ . _ _ . . , . . , .
47 1 which means they weren't subject to the rigorous legalistic 2 controls and change control procedures that they would be 3 had they been Tier 1. So they were an attempt to say we 4 will demonstrate acceptance criteria have been met using 5 numbers that reside in Tibr 2. But our view is that over 6 the last year, that was an unacceptable concept to the 7 staff, and it, in our view at least, is a dead issue now.
8 MR. MICHELSON: That means, then, that the numbers 9 go up in Tier 1.
10 MR. JAMES: Yes, which means -- also means that we 11 got a little more parsimonious by putting numbers up there 12 because-of the significance of putting numbers into Tier 1.
13 So that generated more of a debate as to whether a number 14 should or should not be in Tier 1 at all.
15 MR. MICHELSON: I'm not that much in favor of 16 ITAAC, but if you're going to do an ITAAC, I certainly think 17 you ought to keep the numbers out of Tier 1 because they are 18 so difficult to change.
19 You've either got to go through a formal exception 20 process or a rulemaking to change a number, and some of the 21 n'imbera you'v, frozen, as we'll talk about a little later, 22 there just doesn't seem to be any good reason why you froze s 23 it at that particular numerical value when a number of other 24 numerical values can probably be shown to be equally good 25 once you do'your analysis, but you can't change it, e
b ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
_ _ _ _ _ - - -~ u
48 g 1 So I thought the validation attribute was a great
(
\ 2 idea. I thought that's really what we were doing until I 3 started looking at these. Now you've put the numbers up in 4 Tier 1, and it's making it tough.
5 MR. JAMES: We endors.e that sentiment 150 percent.
6 That is the industry view.
7 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. I'm not endorsing ITAAC. I 8 was just saying that if you're going to do it, don't stick 9 it up in Tier 1.
10 MR. JAMES: We certainly endorse that view of the 11 world.
12 Another point that you discussed was this business 13 of the Stage 2 -- that was the middle of our three 14 submittals -- the NRC staff comments on that being provided 15 as part of the August draft SER.
16 Our view of that was that that SER is really not s
17 the place to get into a lot of interactive discussions and 18 comments; it would be much better if that comment cycle 19 could be done outside of the SER cycle. Our GE people have 20 been trying to convince the staff of that approach, but have 21 not been successful.
22 MR. MICHELSON: It has to appear eventually in an 23 SER, at least in an amendment.
24 MR. JAMES: Oh, clearly.
25 MR. MICHELSON: Okay.
A V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
49 3 KR. JAMES: But given where we are in the ITAAC
\-- 2 proces , our vjew is --
3 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
4 MR. JAMES: -- that now is not the time to 5 crystalize it into the formality of the SER process.
6 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. I understand that. I'm 7 wondering why they're doing it at all at Stage 2, until you 8 get thing set --
9 MR. JAMES: Again, we also share your view on 10 that. We've been trying to convince the staff that that's 11 not the right way to go, but have so far been unsuccessful.
12 The issue of the interactions with NUMARC came up.
13 I will be discussing that as part of my presentation.
~'% 14 Mr. Boyce's chart said that GE's resource (O 15 constrain resulting in delays in submittals and resolution 16 of issues. That, I think, needs a little bit of 17 clarification. We have in effect met all of our committed 18 dates, with a few minor exceptions, and resource _ constraint 19 -- we don't have hundreds of engineers sitting around doing 20 nothing else but working on ITAAC, but on the other hand, we 21 have put in very significant resources into developing these 22 ITAACS, and our view is that the staff is almost as 23 constrained as we are, if anybody is constrained.
24 MR, WARD: So there.
25 MR. JAMES: So there.
i V]
/
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 4 50 1 (Laughter.)
2 MR. JAMES: As an aside, it is a very resource-3 intensive effort because as you will see when you get into 4 my presentation, I think one of the major challenges of a 5 whole Tier 1 process is to get people educated. You ask 50 ;
6 GE engineers or 50 staff engineers to work on ITAAC, and 7 there is not a common understanding amongst those groups of j 8 what the basics are. That's one of the challenges we face.
9 MR. MICHELSON:- If I understand your process 10 correctly, though, I think what you do is you look at your 11 SSAR and you derive from it the essential elements that are 12 needed to determine the safety acceptability,_and you just 13 extract those and put them into an ITAAC.
l 14 MR. JAMES: That's exactly right.
15 MR. MICHELSON: You aren't inventing a thing ,
16 that's new. :
17 MR. JAMES: That's exactly right.
18 MR. MICHELSON: But you have got to use experienced people, though, because if they don't understand
~
19 20 the words, they get it all screwed _up when-they-try to 21 transcribe it. But it is not new'workt.it is just-a matter ,
22 of going.through what you've'already decided and desccibed 23 and extracting it.
-MR. JAMES:
~
24- I agree with you, sir., But it's 25 nowhere near as easy as you just stated because it's a r -
( ANN RILEY- & ASSOCIATES, Ltd..
!-' Court Reportars-L L1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,' D. C 20006 l- (202) 293 3950' L
51 g- 1 judgment call on what's important and what isn't.
2 MR. MICHELSON: Well --
3 MR. JAMES: As you will see when you get into my 4 pre sen'.ation.
5 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
6 MR. JAMES: What I'm just trying to do now --
7 MR. WARD: Vc.* have developed a sudden enthusiasm 8 for this, Carl.
9 (Laughter.)
10 MR. MICHELSON: The problem you're getting into 11 that you haven't done yet is you've really got to read 20 12 volumes to know everything that goes into even one ITAAC 13 because it's scattered in many, many chapters, and when you
(~'s 14 start finding all these little tidbits hidden here and V
15 there, trying to pull them together, that's where tre big 16 work, I think, starts. I don't know if you're doing it 17 because it seems that it's lacking somewhat.
18 MR. JAMES: A couple more points-from Mr. Boyce's 19 presentation. He did mention that the staff is considering 20 COL ITAAC for some licensee procedural requirements.
21 That is not within the scope of what-we're 22 discussing here today, but you should understand that the 23 industry goes apoplectic when they hear that discussion.
24 They are very vigorously opposed to in a COL ITAAC putting 25 such things a QA programs, training programs, welder V("A ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud R9poders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 52 1 training efforts, what have you. They view that as part of 2 the regular QA procedures and not appropriate subjects for 3 ITAAC.
4 In terms of the FDA timing, the discussion of 5 whether we do or don't have to have ITAACS reviewed, 6 approved, signed off before an FDA can be issued, we 7 continue to disagree with the staff on that.
8 We think that it is possible -- we're not 9 requesting it, we believe it can be done in parallel, but we 10 don't think it's a requirement. We think it is possible to 11 reach full conclusions on the safety of the-design without ,
12 having all the ITAAC in place and. signed off.
13 We do agree that review and approval of the DAC 14 part of ITAAC is a necessary part of reaching a safety 15 finding. We agree with that part. But in terms of, do you 16 need all the details of the individual' system ITAACs before 17 you can provide an FDA?, the answer is no from the industry 18 side, no, we don't believe that's necessary.
19 MR. MICHELSON: If you really believe that the 20 SSAR contains everything and that you're just extracting 21 from it, then your statement ought to be correct.
22 MR. JAMES: That's exactly our basis for the-23 statement.
24 MR.-MICHELSON: Yes. That'means that rather 25 complete -- and the. trouble is, when you write the ITAAC,
. ANN RlLEY _& ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 'k950 -
53 1 you realize some things that you left out of the SSAR and 2 you have to probably go back and put them in. But if you 3 did the SSAR correctly, there's no reason why you couldn't 4 vritL the ITAAC ten years later because the commitment is 5 all in +he SSAR.
6 Now, what the staff wants, though, I think, is a 7 list of things that they want to be sure are verified, and 8 that's what, I think, e.n ITAAC is, things t!.at the inspector 9 must be sure to verify so that you know that you havo 10 reached all the things you had~in mind.when you made your 11 safety determination, or verified all those things.
l 12 So you just make a list-of' chem, and that's ar- l 13 ITAAC, if I understand the process correctly.. It's nothing 14 news it's just-pulling it together and highlighting what you 15 vant him to check for sure, although he can check anything 16 else he wishes.
17 MR. JAMES:
. That's exactly correct.
18 There was also. a touc <ing on the discussion of the 19 NRC's authority to do-inspections that aren't necessarily 20- covered by ITAAC. That discussion gets really at the core 21 of the difficulties we're having with some of these ITAAC 22 discussiens, which is basically the relationship between 23 what gets done under'Part:52 and what would getLdone under 24 the existing QA procedure derived from Appendix'B and Part
-25 50, which is still applicable under Part.52.
!1 - ANN ' RILEY & ASSOCIATES, 'Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
i.
54 e
1 The industry's view of'the world-is that 2 everything-gets done under today's QA procedures that are
" S derived from Appendix B. That all gets done today anyway,
! 4 and all of the staff's authority to review,. inspect, hold 5 up, stop construction, all of the legal gamut of options f
j 6 they have today for inspection enforcement exists-i-
7 independent of ITAAC, and that iTAAC is an addition to all l 8 of that.
j 9 So any time an_inepector finds'anything in-the 10 field, t.; has the full authority he has today. So, stating j'
11 it again, ITAAC is an addition--to and does not supplant -
12 existing Appendix B procedures. ,
13 But that discussion,.as you'll'see when yoo_get' i
14 into my presentation, is at the heart of some~.of the l
j 15 difficulties we've been having in defining the.bcundaries'of
- - ^
I 16 ITAAC, the extent to which you can' assume the Part?50 I 17 processes take care of some of the verification..
- 18 ER. MICHELSoN
- Just be-sure I understand, from l
- 19 what you've said, I think you wouldn't-be bothered if the 20 staff waited for several-years before it wrote'the ITAACS '
21 that it thought it needed to verify'the particularl design.
{
- 22' that-was being built,;because they,
- are going-to have toionly; 4
23 go.back-to'the SSAR to do it, Land-they can only-write ITAACs j -24 againstiwhat's_already committed to. uSo'it wouldn't make
- 25 anyJdifference when you wrote the-ITAAC.
i h ANN RILEY_ & . ASSOCIATES, _- Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D. C. 20006 i- -(202) 293-39501 -
55
_1 MR. JAMES: Well, I think -- no. I think the 2 constraint would be that ITAAC have to be considered aus part 3 of the design certification and rulemaking.
4 MR. MICHELSON: Well, it could be, but if I 5 believe what you toldLae' earlier, it doesn't really make any 6 difference whether_it's a part-of the certification or not.
7 Now maybe legalistically, it's required to be a part of the 8 certification,_and that's' fine.
9 MR. CARROLL: Doesn't Part 52 require it?
10- MR. MICHELSON: Oh,.yes. Yes.
11 MR. JAMES: It depends whether you're'asking the 12 question to me as an engineer or as a lawyer._ I mean, as an 13 engineer, I think.the. answer is yes, it.can be done later.
14 I believe -- I'm not a lawyer, but I believe as aLlawyer my 15 answer would be it's got to be done in time-to support the 16 certification and rulemaking.
17 MR. MICHELSON: It's talked about in there.
18 That's right.
19 MR.. JAMES: Again, there was some'dir'ussion of 20 the extent-to which pre-op-procedures need to_be culled out 21 and defined in the ITAAC, and the flavor of the-discussion 22 was the NRC'has never-seen:the procedures and they never 23 will.
24 That's not really~true.- We have committed:in the-25 SSAR to the pre-op test programs, and there is also.a' O ANNL RILEY - & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers L 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
L Washington,_D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950 L
56 7g 1 commitment ~that the procedures will be made available for 2 staff review prior to the testing, just like they will be 1
3 today. l l
I 4 So the concepi that, you know, the staff will 5 never get to see and review pre-op test procedures is not 6 correct. It will be done as -- the commitments are there 7 and it will be done as part of normal processes.
8 MR. MICHELSON: But done after COL?
9 MR. JAMES: Yes. Most probably, yes. l 10 Let's see. One other last topic I'd like to pick I 11 up before I get into my presentation is the safety analysis 12 verification issue in ITAAC.
13 our view is that ITAAC pickea up all of the
)
14 important plant characteristics that were assumed in the-15 safety analyses to the extent that they can'be verified-i 16 prior to fuel load. l 17 For example, RHR pump flow rate is a very 18 important plant characteristic.
That's in ITAAC. Start 19 times on diesel generators is an important characteristic.
20 That's in ITAAC. So the basic ITAAC structure of system by 21 system has, in our opinion, picked up the important plant 22 characteristics as they were used in the plant safety 23 analyses.
24 That includes PRA. 'What we've-done.there, the PRA 25 identified various plant characteristics ~that were important
/"N V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 1
57 1 risk reduction elements. For example, combustionTturbine 2 generator is an important element--in minimizing' risk, and-
~
3 the ITAAC picks up and verifies that the combustion 4 generator ~5as been provided.
5 Other examples.of important PRA insight was the-6 RCIC diversity.- The fact that we have a steam-driven' core 7 makeup system independent of AC power is a very important 8- contributor to PRA results. There is an ITAAC that picks 9 that up.
10 MR. MICHELSON: Well, how about_the subcompartment 11 --
12 MR. KERR: Even though your electrical system is l 13 so reliable now with the combustion turbine that.it;will 14 never fail,_you still need a-non electrically-driven system 15 for heat removal?
16 MR. JAMES: I wouldn't say we need one. It'is my 17 understanding if you run the numbers.on1the PRA, it makes an 18 important contribution to risk reduction.- I think!that's-19 driven by the assumptions we make on the common mode failure 20 of the normal diesel generators which discounts them pretty 21 heavily.
-22' MR. KERR: No, but you have the combustion turbine 23 now to provide electrical. energy._ At least_that's-what I 24- thought _you were saying.
~5
'2 MR.. JAMES: That's, correct,,we-do. In addition to f' . .
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, 'Ltd.
Coud Repoders
_1612 K Street,'N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.'O. 20006 (202) 293-3950
58 f 1 that, the presence of a diverse makeup system is also --
()
'- 2 makes a useful contribution to risk reduction. I'm not a 3 PRA man.
4 MR. KERR: Okay. I guess there is a --
5 MR. CARROLL: You are talking about the diesel 6 driven fire pump, right?
7 MR. KERR: There is a diversity factor in PRAs 8 which I am neglecting.
'i MR. RUBIN: I think they're talking about the RCIC 10 steam pump.
11 MR. JAMES: Yes.
12 MR. CARROLL: But on top of that, you also have a 13 diesel driven fire pump.
/~T 14 MR. JAMES: Right.
O 15 MR. CARROLL: Is that where diversity comes in?
16 MR. MICHELSON: Would you care to address just 17 briefly the questions o" qubt- spartment pressurizations 18 outside of containment?
19 MR. JAMES: My understanding is that we've in fact 20 done those.
21 MR. MICHELSON: We tried to get them up till today 22 for the reactor water cleanup. compartments, for instance, 23 and we have failed yet to get the real numbers. All I'm 24 really saying is-that the analysis must be done eventually.
25 or you don't know how to size the walls, and at such time as V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud RepOners 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
59 1 the -- the ITAAC should provide that somebody goes in and 2 verifies that the analysis showed that you met the design 3 requirements, and that's all. I would expect to find that.
4 It's the kind of analysis that you don't 5 ordinarily flag. It's the same way with main steam 6 compartment. You certainly want to check that analysis 7 since you're talking about pressures of about eleven pounds 8 already, which is getting pretty large for pipe penetrations 9 and all the other things that have to go into the steam 10 tunnel, and ventilation penetrations, and I'd just like to 11 make sure that you've got that number at least reasonably 12 good, and that's what the ITAAC will do.
13 Souebody will go in and verify that yes, indeed, 14 your final design showed it's eleven pounds. That's all I
)
15 have to do, because that's what you said in your SSAR it 16 would be.
17 MR. JAMES: All I can say is, because I wasn't 18 prepared to answer this question, but my understanding is 19 -- somebody help me if they know for sure -- the 20 subcompartment analyses have been submitted.
21 MR. MICHELSON: We tried to get it on reactor 22 water cleanup, but we couldn't. But main steam lines, we 23 didn't try 3 get. I assume it exists. Hopefully that one 24 exists because it's the biggest one of all and it's the most 25 dangerous of all.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
60
- 1 MR. BOYCE: Mr. Michelson, can you ask that Y- 2 question in about an hour when our plant systems guy comes 3 back?
4 MR. MICHELSON: Sure.
5 MR. BOYCE: He may or may not be aware of --
6 MR. MICHELSON: Okay.
7 MR. BOYCE: -- the status of that submittal.
8 MR. MICHELSON: Thank you.
9 MR. JAMES: That completes my comments on the NRC 10 presentation.
11 MR. WARD: Okay. And now we're an hour and five 12 minutes behind schedule.
13 MR. CARROLL: You are not going to comment on the
- (^N 14 schedule?
i
'Q) 15 MR. JAMES: We think it's doable. As you will see 16 from my presentation, there's a lot of work to be done, but 17 we concur with sentiments that we've heard from the senior
- 18 NRC staff management that-it's tight, but doable. I'm sure i 19 there will be some walk-arounds, like there will be some 20 cleanup paperwork to be done in January and March, and it 21 may not be, you know, midnight, Decamber the 31st, that the 22 FDA is in hand, it may be on like the first week of January.
23 But we're on track for the --
24 MR. CARROLL: Are you a betting man, Tony?
25 MR. JAMES: No.
y~
U ANN RILEY &- ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 )
g Washington, D. C. 20006 i (202) 293-3950
61 q 1 MR. CARROLL: Good.
2 [ Laughter.)
3 [ Slide.]
4 MR. JAMES: Okay. If I could move on to the GE 5 presentation, I'd like to tell you what we had plhnned here.
6 We really were going to concentrate most of our time on the 7 five systems that were of interest, but we thought it makes 8 sense to lead off with a little bit of an overview.
9 I prepared here an overview of the GE approach to 10 preparation of Tier 1. That is a summary of a presentation 11 that I gave to a subcommittee about three months ago which 12 summarizes the basic GE approach, and then give you where we 13 view status of the development with respect to interactions
(}
14 with the NRC and also, another factor that you should be 15 aware of, the interactions that we're having with the 16 industry but via NUMARC on this whole question.
17 So I will cover those two. Then we will get into 18 the bulk of the presentation on the five systems with these 19 people. So if that's okay to the subcommittee, I'll go 20 -ahead.
21 [ Slide.)
22 MR. JAMES: What I tried to do on the next few 23 charts is summarize some of the basics that tre leading to 24 the structure of what we're doing. What I have tried to 25 summarize here is the basic factors in.our approach and-tho'
- O, CJ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
62
- 1 basis for those factors.
' s' 2 Clearly, one of the most important factors driving 3 the work we're doing is the two-tiered approach to i 4 certification. We don't think there's any debate there; 5 that's fundamentally been endorsed by the Commission and is 6 the basis upon which everybody is procceding.
j 7 As stated in several places, the two tiers, Tier 1 8 and Tier 2, Tier 1 is reserved for top-level information, 9 which is really a subset of the SAR, and this tiered -- this 10 concept that Tier 1 is reserved for top level is really 11 justified in several places. The Part 52 statements of 12 considerations and the two SECYs that we were looking at 13 earlier all endorse the concept that the Tier 1, the actual l 14 plant design will have less-information in it than the body f~J]
x.
15 of information that's in the application.
16 The ITAAC that we're talking about, including the 17 various types of ITAAC we've already mentioned -- DACs, 18 generics and interface ITAAC -- are all Tier 1, are all --
l
- 19 MR. MARD
- You left one type out of your list l
l 20 there. I mean, the COL ITAAC, which the --
21 MR. JAMES: Okay. This is the GE presentation on 22 the design certification. That's right. Yes. You are dead 23 right. If there are ITAACs falling out of the COL, they'll 24 also be in Tier 1. I didn't include them'there because-we, f
25 you know, we just aren't doing any work on them.
l-
/ \
_V- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
63 3 1 MR. BOYCE: Wait a minute. They are not part of
\'- 2 the design cert is what he's trying to say. They'actually 3 won't be in Tier 1 either because Tier 1 is only specific to 4 the design cercification rule itself.
5 MR. MICHELSON: They will be in the COL.
6 MR. BOYCE: Yes, they'd be in the COL.
7 MR. WARD: Oh, okay.
8 MR. BOYCE: But there's not a distinction of Tier 9 1, Tier 2 in the COL as far as items beyond the design 10 certification. Did I confuse people? I can retract it.
11 MR. WARD: Okay. What you are saying, what you 12 called COL ITAACs really shouldn't be called ITAACs 13 probably. That's a different --
14 MR. BOYCE: Let me clarify. No, I think that's 15 all right. But what Mr. James had said is they will be in 16 Tier 1. Tier 1 is a term that is reserved for the design 17 certification itself.
18 K 1. WARD: Yes.
19 HR. BOYCE: When you get past 'he design 20 certification at the combined license stage, the combined 21 license will incorporate the design certification, but items 22 that are not part of the design certification will not have 23 the designation of Tier 1 and Tier 2.
24 MR. WARD: Okay.
25 MR. JAMES: Then the next two points are linked ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
64- I
- 1 and are very important,'in my mind, and they're,_as I said-
- \ 2 earlier, a source of a lot of'the difficulties-we're having 3 defining the scope of ITAAC.
4 First off, we believe'that ITAAC verified 5 conformance with the Tier.1 design. There in a top-level 6 Tier 1 design description and we think ITAAC are aimed at 7 verifying the certified design. We see that'in Part 52, 8 where there are words like "will operate in'conformance with 9 the design cortification," which-really.is TAer 1.
10 What~that means is that verification of all~of the. _
11 non-Tier 1 material is via-existing Part_50 processes, and:
12 Part 52 does invoke the-applicable parts of Part -- Part 13 invokes the applicable parts of:Part 50',. including the 14 Appendix B and all'that flows from; Appendix.B.-
15 What this means is-just because itidoesn't get.
16 verified by ITAACs doesn't nean it doesn't get verifiedf it l 17 just gets verified as part of the regular QA processes. and 18 we have had a. lot of difficulty with that'_ concept.
j 19 MR. MICHELSON:- What-~do you mean?
- 20 MR. JAMES:' We think that's aLcorrect-4 21 interpretation-and we-understand it, but we've'had.a lot of-
[ 22 L-- there's a lot _of people'.whose firstLreaction-is,-ITAAC is 23- supposed-_to verify everything,_right?- And-then we say, no, P
24- ITAAC is supposed toivorify the topilevel Tier.I, and aflot-_
~25 -of stuff that:TieriII levelEwill be left to the-QA-
. - ANN -' RILEY ' & ASSOCIATES, L.td.-
Court Reporters:
, 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C.- 20006 (202) 293_-39501
= -
~
)
65 1 processes.
2 MR. MICHELSON: You don't have a problem with that?
3 MR. JAMES: We have trouble convincing others of 4 that approach.
5 MR. MICHELSON: But you're convinced of that?-
6 KR. JAMES: Yes.
7 MR. MICHELSON: Okay, thank you.
8 [ Slide.]
9 MR. JAMES: ' The next page-is a summary of the 10 elements in Tier I. I'm on a personal crusade to try and 11 convince everybody to stop talking about ITAACs and start 12 talking about Tier I, because really this whole discussion 13 we're having is preparation of the Tier I material for the j
/~N 14 ABWR. It's not just ITAACs, it's Tier I; U
15 What I tried to do here was summarize the various 16 elements in Tier I. First off, there's the design 17 descriptions that we've talked about. The top level. "ier I 18 summary of the important principal design bases, principal 19 characteristics of the system, and that is what-is going to ;
20 end up as the certified design in the' rule.
l 21 In addition,'in Tier I, there are the regular 22 inspections, tests and analyses, the 1TAACs that are aimed .
23 at verifying the specific features of the as-built facility, 24 comply with the certified design. There's the DACs that ,
i 25 we're really not here today to discuss, but they are part of j s
l 1
L d(~x ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. l Coud Reponers j 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 3 Washington, D. C. 20006 j (202) 293-3950 i i i
66
, 1 the Tier I, and they are -- the way I characterize those,
' 2 they're an ITAAC on the design process when design details, 3 for legitimate reasons, are not available at the time of 4 design certification.
5 MR. MICHELSON: WilJ ' hey be called DACs in the 6 Tier I material?
7 MR. JAMES: I'm sorry, I didn't hear.
8 MR. MICHELSON: Will they be called a DAC, as 9 opposed to an ITAAC?
10 MR. JAMES: Yes.
11 MR. MICHELSON: So, I can tell when I'm looking at 12 an ITAAC or a DAC, because it will be somewhere in the 13 title? Is that right?
~
14 MR. JAMES: I think that's probably not right.
15 MR. MICHELSON: So, how do I tell a DAC from an 16 ITAAC?
( 17 MR. JAMES: The elements of the design process in 18 the tables.
19 MR. BOYCE: I think the answer to Mr. Michelson's 20 question is that it's not clearly delineated in Tier I, what 21 is a DAC. In the SSAR -- excuse me, in the FSER that we are 22 writing up, we're trying to include them as appendices to 23 the selected chapters. For example, the piping DAC and our 24 SER that supports it would be an appendix to Chapter 3 of 25 our FSER. That would be our evaluation of both the SSAR n
V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3990 -
[ _ _ ___ _ _- - _ - _ _-- -. - - - _
67 1 material supporting the Tier I DAC, and a discussion of the
(
'/ 2 generic piping DAC found in Section 3.
o 3 At the moment, our FSER is the only thing that 4 clearly identifies what constitutes the entire DAC area in 5 both Tier I and Tier II. GE has not, as far as I know, 6 explicitly designated in neither Tier I or Tier II, what is 7 considered a DAC.
8 MR. MICHELSON: It will probably take a different 9 kind of inspection process to inspect a DAC than it will an 10 ITAAC, because an ITAAC has an established design at the 11 time of the review, whereas the DAC does not. So, it's 12 going to take a lot deeper, a little more -- a little 13 different kind of an inspection approach to looking at
(~'} 14 something that a reviewer has never seen yet.
LJ 15 MR. BOYCE: The inspections of a DAC would 16 probably be oriented more towards a design oriented team 17 with more headquarters personnel and the ITAAC verification 18 or inspections would probably involve more regional and 19 traditional inspection processes.
20 MR. MICHELSON: It escapes me, why we don't call 21 it a DAC then in the Tier I material, except that there may 22 be a legal reason.
23 MR. JAMES: I don't think it's a big issue. I 24 just checked the material there.
25 MR. MICHELSON: The issue is that I can't-find a A
U ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
_. ~ _. ._ _
68 2
1 DAC anywhere and I know there's going to ?.9 <3me in there,
, ; 2- and --
t
. 3 MR. JAMES: I don't think we have any objections 4 to labeling them - .the DACs that are DACs, there's no ,
i 5 ulterior motive in-not clearly identifying them. .
! 6 MR. BOYCE: Part of.the problem also with labeling.
j 8 Criteria and ITAAC portions in the same generic Tier I ITAAC 9 requirement. What I mean is, there's design elements and
! 10 construction verification elements in that generic piping t .
I 11 ITAAC, so that it would be up to GE to designate which ones f 12 are DAC and which ones are ITAAC.
13 At that point, it's a very, very gray line.
14 MR. MICHELSON: If they aren't identified,-then an 15 inspector doesn't know if he's inspecting a design that the i 16 reviewer has already reviewed and approved, or-if is he-t 17 inspecting _a design that the reviewer has never seen yet?
i 18 I thinkLit's-important for the inspector to know 19 what he's inspecting, and s label is needed.
4 20 MR. JAMES: He would certainly'know,_because the 21 definition of the inspections, test ~and analyses are pretty.
i 22_ clear. If he's got to go and review some design work ---
~
23 MR. MICHELSON: -It doesn't say that or I haven't1
'24 found that yet. We'll.get tofthose later. I just want to
^25 make sure you didn't intend to separately label it.
Court Reporters ' 'l 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 L (202) 293-3950 -
4 w ,-- ywe=, ee--n 4 v y ge -
69 7- 1 MR. JAMES: The other types of material in Tier I
'- 2 are the interface ITAAC that are specifically called for by 3 Part 52, and these apply to the parts of the plant that are 4 site-specific and are not within the scope of the design for 5 which we are seeking certification. The example that was 6 used is the ultimate heat sink.
i 7 But Part 52 does call for the applicant, on a 8 design certification, to identify interface requirements 9 that will be placed on that site-specific equipment.
10 MR. MICHELSON: Part 52 also calls for the
- 11 applicant to give a typical-design, even though he doesn't-l 4
12 have to commit to an exact one. Have you done the typical 13 designs for the interfaces?
(~} 14 MR. JAMES: Certainly for the major stuff. I.know
%)
- 15 we have for the ultimate heat sink. We've got a spray pond 16 in there; that's the big one.
17 MR. MICHELSON: I was trying to find the flow 18 sheet, a typical flow sheet for a spray pond. Is there one
) 19 in there that shows me how-many valves, isolation valves and 20 size of pipe and that sort of thing, the typical? That's 21 the interface that's really pipes, anyway; it's not ponds, 22 but a pond is a part of it. I couldn't find it, but maybe I 23 missed it.
24 But I expect, eventually, before we're done, to 25 see a typical interface design. You aren't committed to it, t\
V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers
~
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
70 7- 1 but you have to give a typical enough to do a PRA on and
/ 2 that sort of thing, if I read Part 52 correctly.
3 MR. JAMES: Yes, you're right. I know we've done 4 it on the ultimate heat sink. Now, as to whether there's a 5 flow diagram in the SSAR, I can't answer that question.
6 MR. MICHELSON: I'll look for it again. There is 7 some description in there and that was a big step forward.
8 MR. JAMES: The only other element that would be 9 in Tier I would be the generic ITAAC. These are ITAACs 10 aimed at verifying generic aspects of the as-built facility.
11 An example that was used there is welding or equipmSat 12 qualification.
13 So, those are the_ basic elements of Tier I.
, .7 [ Slide.]
14
' (V 15 MR. JAMES: The GE approach -- and I've tried to 16 summarize this here --
17 (Pause.)
18 MR. JAMES: The structure of fier I ic based on a 19 system-by-system approach. Early in the game, we had some 20 discussions of, you know, should we structure it along the 21 SAR structure, or should we use the -- the other alternative 22 was to use the system-by-system product structure that GE 23 uses and, I think, all of the othar vendors use.
24 We decided pretty early on that system-by-system 25 made a lot of senso, because that groups into one place, all
(~h LJ ' ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1812 K Street, N.W.', Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
l -- ,
- - 71 1 of the ITAAC related particular systems.- If you go to the 2 SAR, it tends-to be a fragmented structure --' electrical.in.
-3 one-place, I&C in another, -- in another, so we all agreed 4 early in the game that we would proceed on a system-by-5 system-basis.
6 Within that structure, we're. proceeding with a 7 graded _ treatment of systems that reflect safety 8 significance, so heavy weight core cooling system would get 9 fairly' extensive treatment; a light weight system-like non- - -
10 essential; service air is going to get pretty light 11 treatment, light to the extent that Tom mentioned earlier,' i 12 that someTsystems, we've provided-a.very, very brief system 13 description and'no'ITAAC at all. It's just a place that l Q 14 says that this system exists and it does the following two Lb 15 things, and no'more:about it.
16 What drove us there was -- and this is-still up 17 for debate, I guess -- what drove usIthere was the. intent' 18 that the Tier I at least minimally mention overy system that 19 was in the SAR:as a part.of the application.- That really
'20 wasn't driven by as much safety'as.a desire-to at least- ,
21- standardize on the basic system structure:of theLplant. -
22 -MR. WARD: _ How do you grade the systets?;
23 MR. JAMES: It's - there's'no hard formula.1 It's 24- the judgment of the knowledgeable-engineers that a system-25 with either formal safety significance --_in other words, ANN RlLEY & - ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Court Reporters 1812 K Street, N.W4 Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
~_. . _ .
. ~ - . -
_, . A .. . , , ._..m, . '
. .. _ . . - . . . ._. _ _ _ . ~
i 72 l 1 it's officially classified as a safety-related system --
ii 2- MR. WARD:
~
Yes, that's clear.
- 3 MR. JAMES
- Or, has obvious' safety implications, i 4 One example'I use is over speed-on the main. turbine,_ for 5 example. Therc's-no safety -- formal safety related 4
- 6 characteristics there, but it's obviously important to-a
- 7 safety. Those sort of characteris. tics lead a system-to get'
- 8 treated at the heavy end'of the'opectrum, as opposed to the ,
t l
9 light end of the' spectrum. But it's c judgment call.
. 10 'MR. WARD: Has the PRA bean used as a resource to i 11 help that! judgment?
- 12 MR. JAMES: Insofar as.it --
- 13 MR. WARD
- Or it i_t far enough along to really D
Lg 14 serve that purpose?
^
1 15 MR. JAMES: Insofar as.it provides insights, yes,
[ 16 it has. But I don't think, for example, that the Phn did 17 anything that. -- you know,- looking at . service . air, . for F
18- example, as to whether that'was a-meaningful! system.
So, -
19 the.PRA doesnt addrers every system.
20 I;should: qualify.my answer. It~wasn't' 21- systematic. There wasn't-a systematic PRAl review of every 22- system and therefore -- the derivation-of what should;be_
23- included in ITAACs.- It's not as-structured as that.-
24- In fact,_as you'll see when-I.get_into my next-25 chart,:really,_this=whole business-ofiselecting what goes'in-rF .
y ANN RILEY & ' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 11612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,' D. C. 20006 '
-(202).293-3950-
. . .. ~ u .- .- , . _. ~ .- .
73
~ 1 Tier I, when you get right down to it, is a judgment call of K/ 2 knowledgeable engineers, what's important and what is it 3 that's in that top ten percent that's important that gets 4 called out in ITAAC, and what's in the bottom 90 percent 5 that gets treated under the existing QA processen?
G That's fundamentally a judgment call,-and leads to 7 discussions as to what's in and what's out.
8 MR. KERR: Isn't the performance of a PRA also a 9 judgment call of competent engineers, if it6s well done?
10 MR. JAMES: Yes.
11 MR. KERR: Then the two don't have to be-12 completely disassociated; do they?
13 MR. JAMES: Well, they're not, in the sense that
(~'s 14 the PRA did -- the PRA has been used to provide guidance on
\.)
15 what should be in Tier I. That's the submittal we've 16 receitly made. There's a table in there of about five pages 17 of table with, I would guess, five-entries per table that-18 says, here are important characteristics of the plant that-19 lead to the risk-reduction, and those factors or 20 characteristics of the plant are in Tier I.
21 That's like, you know, 50 characteristics of a 22 plant. The ITAACs,-in general -- I've never counted them, 23 but my guess is there's somewhere between.1,000 and 2,000 24 entries-in Tier I, the Tier ITAAC tables,.and-PRA has not.
25 been a factor in a large fraction of that selection of the l'h 1 V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. '
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 29 S 3950
4 74' 1 2,000 items.
2 That's the basic groundrules,-and then what-we've 3 been doing with the systems is, step-one, before-we do any
]
1;
!= 4 ITAAC preparation,-we prepare the Tier I design-description
[
5 for each system, picking up the principal design bases _and l 6 design features. In our view, the ITAACs ficw from that, f 7 So, step two would be to prepare the ITAAC table _
8 for each system: deriving it from here, and then. step three
! 9 is to prepare other Tier I entries as needed to support 10 this, like the generic, if there-are going to be any j- 11 generic, they flow from here.
I i 12 Again, the key considerations are restated again_
4
[..
13 at the bottom. The design description and ITAAC content D 14 reflect the tiered l approach to certification and a key V 15 assumption is that the Part 50 verification processes are 16 applicable and will cover a lot of'the detailed
- 17 verification.
- 18 [ Slide.)
19
?
MR. JAMES: -The next.two charts are charts that: I --
j 20 used at the previous discussion-with-- I: don't-think_it was
, 21 quite-this subcommittee,-but'one'of the subcomnittees on 22' ABWR,.which summarizes what we'see-as being,in the' design 1 3_ descriptiond.-
I guess in the_--interestiof~ time here, I-24-probably couldiskip going through these item by item.. But:
25 these a're the guidance elements we use when deciding-what's q-
'2 ANN RILEY &L ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters- !
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 1
, 1
.(202) 293-3950:
c u
75 1 going to be in the design description.
2 Fundamentally, fin one; sentence, it's a 3 distillation of the important stuff that's in-the-SAR,_is-4 one way to summarize it.
5 - MR. MICHELSON: Let me ask, next to theLlast 6 bullet,=you seem to say it'should be self-contained and 7 avoid direct reference to Tier 2 documents.- Why are you 8 trying to avoid reference to Tier 2?-
9 MR. JAMES: That's a legal constraint we're-10 working with. Our-lawy.o.s advise us if in' Tier 1,-we 11 reference Tier 2, then that pulls up all of:what's 12 referenced-in Tier 2 into Laer'1 status. So that's a-legal 13 --
?('T 14 MR. MICHELSONi ;Oh, you-mean in the sense that you ;!
~/'\ H 15 couldn't chanae that, any word of that.part without'a-16 rulemaking --
17 MR. JAMES: Yes.
18 JUR. . MICHELSON: -- or an exception?-
19 MR. JAMES:- Yes.
20 MR. MICHELSON: Then_you have to-be a little 21 careful. I did find a few references in your-ITAAC, and-you 22 don't want any references in an ITAAC to Tier-2 material.-
23 Is that-what you're saying?:
24 MR. JAMES: Yes.
25 MR. MICHELSON:. Because of the legal problem. -l ANN RlLEY. & ASSOCIATES, _ Ltd.
Coud Reponens 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D. C. 20006
--(202) 293 3950 I . . . . l
76 MR. JAMES: Yes.
p)
('-
1 2 MR. MICHELSON: It makes it difficult for an 3 inspector, of course, to know where a number came from so he 4 can check to see further basis, because there's always a lot 5 more in Tier 2 said about it than in Tier 1. It makes --
6 that's a real constraint.
7 Is it really true, staff, that you cannot 8 reference Tier 2 in Tier 1 without pulling it into Tier 17 s
9 MR. RUBIN: I think the staff P a left their 10 lawyer in their other coat pocket, and I don't know that we 11 have agreed too that interpretation.
12 MR. MICHELSON: I see. I was going to state my 13 own opinion that there should be a lot more referencing in
(~') 14 the ITAACs so that the inspectors know better where the
\_./
15 number came from and the basis.
16 MR. KERR: Well, the problem, and I speak now as a 17 lawyer, is that nobody knows whether it's dangerous to put 18 it until the thing is litigated, and what the GE lawyers 19 obviously are trying.to avoid is possibilities for 20 litigation, and you can't know whether that's going to be a 21 problem until somebody tries to look at it.
22 MR. RUBIN: The staff originally _ asked for cross-23 references, and GE's response was what they just gave here.
24 As an alternative, we have just grabbed a lot more 25 specifics, and rather than cross-referencing, put them CT U ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. -
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street,- N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
77
- 1 directly up into Tier 1.
2 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. That's where a lot of the 3 numbers came from.
4 MR. RUBIN: Yes, sir.
5 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. And that puts the numbers 6 now into this mode that you can't change them. I think, 7 though, to make the numbers -- in order to get the numbers 8 out of Tier 1, you've got to put the references in Tier 1.
9 But if you can't do that legally, then we're in a real 10 circle.
11 MR. JAMES: Well, there is one other option that 12 we're working with. We haven't really had a good discussion 13 with the staff on this, but it's the concept of referencing
/ 14 up from Tier 2. You would say in Tier 2,.if you do the V) 15 following five things.-- strictly in the SAR or in Tier 2 16 -- if you do the following five things, you satisfy ITAAC 17 Number 53.5. That is one way to short-circuit that problem.
18 It requires that the inspector, whoever is-doing the ITAAC, 19 know where to go in this SAR. But at least it givew him 20 some. guidance.
21 Our lawyers are somewhat divided as to whether 22 even that leads -- that's elevating Ti'ar 2 stuff into Tier 23 1. The consensus is that it is not. But again, as you have 24 correctly pointed out, you will r.ever know until it's 25 settled in a court. That's one option wr,'re exploring to p
V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 292-3950 L
l l
78' 1 get around this problem.
1
- 2 MR. MICHELSON
- Okay.
3 MR. JAMES: Okay.
4 [ Slide.)
5 MR. JAMES: The-second page -- again, this is a 6 repeat of earlier material from the May presentation -- just
. 7 summarizes what we see_in ITAAC. I think_I've_ covered nost 8 of those. The_ITAAC are aimed at verifying the Tier 1 9 design that we've described in the design description.
{
10 MR. WARD: Item 3 there, the-ranges or. tolerances, 4
4 11 as I go through these sample;ITAACs that'wewerefgiven,-I 12 didn't notice many of those, the ranges or tolerances.
~
They l
13 seem to be all just~ single value numbers.
14 MR. JAMES: Yes. That's one areafwhere the
- 15 material-that's-published'is being upgraded.-. There were
) 16 some -- there are some~intthere_but, you are right, there
- 17. are some that are not, because when we published that, 18 you'll-notice in the-introduction to that-material you:have l-19
~
-- well,- _ you may not have seen it - there's f a : statement -
20- that says where; tolerances are not provided,-._;it is! assumed' t -
21 that accepted industry practices l apply,.and our-:' lawyers:-had- -
22' trouble with-that.- So a lot;of.the numbers'in the' material l !
23 -you.'have aren't~ ranged,~and the-lawyers tellLustthat:that !
24 - - -
25- -MR. MICHELSON:- Welll,gif_you're going to put the-ANN : RlLEYJ&; ASSOCIATES,.- Ltd.
Court Reporters:
- 1612.K Street, N.W., Suite 300
, Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950.-
.. .. -- , . . . - . .-. a. ,~;..-.=..
79 1 toleran'as or ranges in, then, are you going to go and do 7-A/ 2 your analysis on the worst case ends of each of the ranges, 3 because --
4 MR. JAMES: No. What we'll --
5 .MR. MICHELSON: I don't know that -- you know, 6 they aren't all going to come out nice. Same of them are 7 going to come out on the low side and, as a result, the 8 analysis won't fly. But I won't know that until I do that 9 kind of an analysis.
^
10 MR. , JAMES: I think in general we don't have to 11 redo the analysis because what we will do is put a one-12 sided band on it. Take a pump flow, for example. The 13 analysis assumed 40/200 gpm'for a pump. The ITAAC will say
/~N 14 the pump flow shall be 40/200 gpm or greater. So there will
)
15 be no need to redo the analysis.
16 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. But the plus or minus tens, 17 for instance, which I have seen in the ITAACs, would have to 18 be verified at the minus ten range in terms of --
19 MR. JAMES: That's correct.
21 MR. CARROLL: Or plus ten, maybe.
22 MR. MICHELSON: Well, depending on what the 23 problem is, yes.
24 MR. CARROLL: Or both ends.
25 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
O ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporteis 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
80 f .s
)
1 (Slide.]
52 2 MR. JAMES: I am putting this up because it sort 3 of previews what you are going to see in the material. This 4 is just a typical tier one entry that describes the design 5 description, and the ITAACs.
6 The design descriptions are typically anywhere 7 between a half and five pages of text,_and have anywhere 8 between zero and five-plus figures and diagrams. So that 9 summarizes a typical design description.
10 The inspections tests and analyses that are in 11 there, we have tabulated with anywhere between two and 12 twenty entries. The table looks like this in every case.
13 There is what is the certified design commitment, what is
( 14 the ITA we are going to do, and what is the acceptance V) 15 criteria. So this.is derived from the-design description.
16 This is what action will be taken to verify it, and this is 17 all self-evident in a typical system with anywhere between 18 two and twenty rows in this table.
19 [ Slide.]
20 MR. JAMES: I have two charts on the status of the
- 21 review. Tom Boyce pretty much covered this, but let me give 22 the GE view of the world. There are two chaf1s here.
23 This first one is a status of GE/NRC review.- I 24 haven't reviewed-this with.the staff, but I don't think it 25 is inconsistent with_what they'have been telling you.
A.) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. l Coud Repoders ;
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 81 l I' 1 We have submitted approximately.100 percent of the i &
l -- W ? proposed ABWR tier one material'. When I say " approximate"
$ 3 that is not a euphemism for like 50 percent. That is a 4 euphemism for literally 98 percent. -We'really think we:have
! 5 put the majority of the tier.one material onto-the table-
, 6 here.
i 7 It has about 115 entries; There are some clean-8 up items in process. The'roadmaps, which is the word we:are 9 using for the PRA insight' table, for example, roadmaps that 10 identify-where in tier one the various safety analysis 11 parameters'are verified.-
12 Interactions to date, we think we have consensus
! 13 on the-basic scope and content. We think we' agree on 7- ..
- 14 roughly"the number of-systems,. roughly the scope of.the
.J 15 design descriptions, roughly the number of ITAACs. That 16 level, I think, we have consensus with the staff. But,iI.
- 17. think it is obvious to all that there are many details -
18 remaining to be worked on here.
1 19 The NRC is currently reviewing, as Tom says,-the' 20 major stage.three submittal that we put-in,.in June.. We l:
21 expect comments soon. To quote several-of th,eir management 22 staff, there is " lots of work requiredt" We'Lwould-agree p
23 with:that^ assessment. So we anticipate intensive i 24 interactions:over the next few months on this subject.
. 25 -[ Slide.] '
b ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Court Reporters 1612 K Stroet, N.W., Suite 300 - 1 Washin@on, D. C. 20006
.(202) 293-3950
= u
i 8 ?.
1 MR. JAMES: The next chart tries to summarize an 2 issue that we haven't talked about much today, but I thihx 3 you should be aware of what is going on.
4 MR. MICHELSON: Excuse me. You said the next few 5 months down there. What is your schedule for finishing up 6 on the ITAACs?
7 Since you know what the FDA target is, you must 8 have a date for the ITAAC.
9 MR. JAMES: I cou)d show you a schedule that I 10 have that is internal GE. It has not been reviewed with the 11 staff. But, fundamentally, we think there has to be a 12 fairly massive interaction wi.th the staff in Septomoer.and 13 October. There may be even massive meetings here where we
( 14 sit down, system-by-system, with the-GE people and the staff 15 people and crunch this thing through.
16 If we are going to support the FDA, that has'to be 17 done no later than late September through october. Let me 18 emphasize that I have not talked to the staff about this.
19 So that would give us like the November-December time frame e~
20 for the QA-round that is needed-on all of this, and just the 21 publication cycle.
22 MR. MIC11M40Ni Sf-course,-the staff has to 23 evaluate the final der.1: ment, and isam a espplement to 24 include it with the FDA. The-FDA is sci, . led for_ late 25 Decemberfto be issued,'which means that' review has to be O em an oss=ms, uo.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
, Washington, D C 20006 (202) 293-3950 1
_ _ _ _ _ __J
- - . - - - . - . . . . . . . . ~ - _ - -. -. .
1 83 1 done early December, I guess, which means your document 2 certainly can't be coming in in December, they have to be- <
3 ccming in in early November at the latest, if it is going to 4 be reviewed. i 5 MR. JAMES: The process we envision is daily ;
6 meetings to thrash the issues out, and more or less definc >
l
! 7 them and get consensus with the staff as we go. That is a l 8 challenge. but that is the only way we see doing it.
9 MR. MICHELSON: This isn't the only thing that 10 needs to be done, of ccurse. I mean there is a fair ,
1 11 amount --
12 MR. JAMES: Right.
13 Let me _ just briefly touch on where we stand with ,
14 the industry on this. In parallel with the NRC review, 15 there has'been an on-ge'ng review by the utilities conducted 16 under the auspices of the NUMARC Ccemittee on 17 Standardization that has involved representatives from the
~
l 18 utilities, EPRI, INPO, and the architect engineers.
19 The reviews have-been going.on. We are.in-20 parallel with the'NRC' review. We have:got through a very 21 detailed review of approximately 20 systems.so_far, and we have more-activities scheduled in the next month or two.
~
l 22 l'
! '23 There are several trends that are becoming evident from'a
=
24 utility review of what we are.doing. 4 25 First off, some-of the people-involved have'been p
l V ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters -
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.' O. 20006 ,
(202) 293-3S50:
. .~ -. - - - . . -
84 1 lawyers, and they have been recommending some changes in 2 tier one to reflect legal issues. This isn't that big a 3 deal, but it is things like, don't use soft words, or 4 permissive words, make it crisp from a legal point of view.
]
5 It is really'not affecting the technical content that much, 6 but it is leading to changes.
7 The industry thinks that the acceptance criteria l
~
8 need to be more precise, and unambiguous. If I could stand !
9 back and be a sort of neutral observer for a minute of the l 10 various perspectives on ITAAC.
11 The' utility perspective is, the first thing that i
12 comes to their mind when they look-at ITAACs is the 13 potential for unnecessary intervention when ITAACs are being 'l 14 signed off late in the cycle. That is quite natural from 15 the utility perspectivo, that is the first perspective they a i
16 worry about.
17 Their view of the world.is that to avoid problems 18 there, the acceptance criteria.really need to be very i 19 precise, crisp, unambiguous, unarguable. Is it-two feet 20 long, or isn't it. If it is, you are okay. If'it is not,.
4 11- fix it. That level of unambiguity.
22 They see someLambiguities in our current-
.23 acceptance criteria.
4 24 MR.-CARROLL . Me, too.-
[ '25 .MR.-JAMES: Things-.like, the_ design will-meet the j;
i.
h ANN RILEY. &' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
-Court Reporters
. 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D, C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.---mm- - - -- -- -
1 l l 85
! 1 ACI Code is something that they don't think it is sufficient !
10 4
2 prescribed.
3 Again, speaking as a neutral observer, the NRC's i 4 view of the world is, they tend to want as much as possible i
i 5 in ITAAC, and I am not too concerned about this. I am not 6 as concerned about this as the utilities are. We are trying l 7 to get a balance going here.
{
8 MR. MICHELSON: When you are talking, you are ,
1 ;
) 9 using the term ITAAC, but do you mean the design description 1
- 10 in the tier one as well, or are you just talking about the !
]
11 ITAAC in tier one?
- 12 MR.-JAMES
- This one specifically refers to that i -
i 13 right-hand column in the ITAAC table, the acceptance !
t 14 criteria. .
- 15 MR. MICHELSON
- Because the design-descriptions ;
i
} 16 are even more ambiguous, and-more fuzzy, and all the other 17 good things. They were generalizations of'what is to be 18 provided. I don't know that anybody has a problem with 19 those as long as you are specific in the'ITAAC, ~
but it'is.a 20 part of that tier one material.
4 i 21 Are the people looking at the descriptions as well 22 as the ITAACs?
23 MR. JAMES: Yes, absolutely.
3
} 24 MR. ' MICHELSON: And do they have.any problem with 4
25 the descriptions?
i 1
' G
. V.
ANN RlLEY & ' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Coud Repoders 1
1612 K Street,.N.W., Suite 300 ;
Washington, D. C. 20006 ;
(202) 293-3950- .)
u ,
86 1 MF. JAMES: Not in terms of the problems you just 2 noted.
3 MR. MICIIELSON: They certainly aren't crisp and 4 precise, the descriptions. The iTAACs get more so, but the 5 descriptions are much more vague because they are 6 generalizations of what is to be provided, and the real 7 details are in the tier two, but the certain things to be 8 verified are then over in the ITAAC document, which is the 9 next stage of that.
10 So when I hear ITAAC, I am never quite sure if the 11 people mean that whole -- I think ITAAC means that whole I
12 document, the description and the listing of requirements 13 and the safety analysis verification. This is what was
( 14 described in SECY .91-178.
N-15 MR. JAMES In the context of this chart, the 16 trends that are available from the utility view, this 17 specifically meant the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC 18 table. There is some sentiment that the GE is put too much 19 Tier I material in for non-safety systems, some of the 20 turbine systems, for example, so there's a trend there to i 21 want to reduce some of the Tier I naterial in some of those l
22 systems.
23 Probably one of the more contentious trends that's 1
24 coming out of the utility review is this discussion of the 25 desire to eliminate generic ITAAC. For example, the 7-s O AHN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
l.
87
)
1 disquasions always center around the welding ITAAC or the EQ l
'O 2 ITAAC. The utility perspective is, welding is a subjuct-i l
3 that is very detailed, there's' millions of welds, there's l l
4 millions of procedures, there's everything from' operator i l
5 training through how you check x-rays, that that level of j 6 detail of verification is strictly a QA Part 50 process and i I
7 should not be handled in fier I, because you just can't make l 8 it precise. There's no way that you can avoid. unambiguous l
9 acceptance criteria here.
10 So, the industry is'very strongly going to 11 pushing, including an independent industry approach to the 12 staff that says that generic ITAAC are not legitimate Tier I 13 entries.
14 MR., MICHELSON: Now, does that include-equipment
(
15 qualification then, and piping design?
16 MR. OAMES: Well, that does not include the piping.
17 DAC. This -- the generic, insofar as they cover detailed 18 construction processes --
L '
l '19 MR.:MICHELSoN: Well, the problem I found-in the 20 generic, in looking at the few ITAACs I looked at, is.that 21 the individual ITAACs on a system don't refer 6nce the l 22 generic ITAACs, although I'm sure they must apply since it l
23 takes pipes to make the system work, but it never-even-
~24 references the fact that that ITAAC applies, i 25 MR. JAMES: In.the' Stage 3 submittal'--
.p
-V ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders
-1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.' O.- 20006 (202) 293-3950
__ ._ .--.- ._____ __ _____ _.--_- __ ____.__..__ _ _.~. __ __
88 1 MR. MICHELSON: I was looking at Stage 3. 1 O 2 MR. JAMESt But there's a table in there in
)
3 Section 3. There's a big table that cross references the - 1 4 systems to the generics.
5 MR. MICHELSON: Oh, yes, but that didn't really 6 help a bit, because there are more explicit requirements 7 that. Reactor ~ water cleanup has a very explicit requirement 8 concerning pipe break within that system as being one of the 9 major considerations. But going.-- using that other 10 reference table didn't help me any. _
11 You've got to either write an ITAAC on compartment 12 pressurizations, or you've got to put it in the piping ITAAC -
13 or somewhere. But eventually, I would assume that you would 14 see a cross reference between where the generic ITAAC is-15 particularly needed, and the system to which-it applies.
16 MR. JAMES: Well, we started to do that, but found 17 that you clutter up 115 system entries. They get cluttered 18 up, each of them with-five or'six generic-references.
19 _' MR. MICHELSON: Maybe just a general statement up 20 front then might do it. The'right kind of. paragraph written
~
21 Lup front, ahead of all the-ITAACs might tie the generics-22 into the systems'or-tell you how they' app'y. .
I,wouldn't-say
-you have to go each system, but.I._'d like to find some -
24 assurance that people'looking at3the system ITAACs are also-25 including the generic ITAACs when.they look--- that apply toi O ANN MLEY &# ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Court Reporters -
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D. C. 20006 l(202) 293-3950
89 1 that system.
(V 2 MR. WARD: How are these industry points of view 3 getting into the process? You said the industry is making 4 their points of view known to the staff, I think you said.
5 MR. JAMES: Yes, there's -- I'm aware at least of l 6 a -- there's a meeting coming up at the end of August where 7 it hasn't been firmly set up yet, but the staff have 8 indicated a willingness to sit down at that meeting with GE 9 and the industry to listen to these sort of concerns.
10 MR. WARD: Yes, but I understood that this is an 11 iterative process between GE and the staff, and now the 12 industry or the utilities are getting in there, and are they 13 trying to influence you or influence ti.o staff or what?
14 MR. JAMES: Both, both. Fundamentally, GE, 15 they're our customers, so whatever they want, we're 16 receptive to that.
17 MR. CARROLL: That must be a new policy.
18 HR. WARD: It sounds like the staff is going to be 19 carrying water for the utilities and that didn't quite make 20 sense. I don't see why you aren't just reacting to what the 21 utilities want.
22 MR. JAMES: Well, we're reacting, but I guess I'm 23 not quite sure of what the question is. We're reacting in a 24 very receptive mode, though, of -- since they're the users.
?S They're the people who are going to be doing these ITAACS.
O Ann nitev a Associares, tia.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
90 1 MR. WARD: Right.
'0 2 MR. JAMES: But the intent is to get, in effect, 3 three parties going on this. Us, the staff and the utility 4 participation. The utilities, right now, are being asked to 5 pull together a team of not hundred percent dedicated 6 people, but people that -~
7 ,MR. WARD: But you're saying that it's the staff 8 that's resistant to what the utilizes want, not General 9 Electric.
10 MR. JAMES: No, we're not resistant. We're 11 receptive, but in all honesty, we have not yet sat down with 12 the staff and said, here's what we're getting from the 13 industry. That's a process that's got to be done soon and 14 is being planned now.
15 MR. WARD: Okay.
16 (Slide.)
17 MR. JAMES: That gets me to my summary which I t
18 don't think says anything.that I haven't said already.
19 MR. WARD: We can probably skip.it then, if=you tw ;
20 .want to.
21 MR. J AMES : Right. Let me go through it~ fast. I 22 was told, never sit down without giving a summary. Tier I 23 is moving center stage, and the bottom line is that we're-24 making prrgress,'but I think it's clear to all of_us that 25- there's lots of-work remaining.
A C ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reporters .
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington,- D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
91 1 MR. WARD: okay, very good. Thank you, Tony.
0 2 Let's take a break now until 10:45.
3 (Brief recess.) ,
4 MR. WARD: Tony, please continue. I 5 (Slide.) ;
6 MR. JAMES: Before I get all set up here, Mr. :
7 Chairman, let me just show you what we had planned for you, l 8 and make sure you didn't need any or want any changes. What 9 we had planned for the rest of the day was to go through 10 those systems in this order. Since we're running, late, I 11 guess I was looking to confirm that you still wanted us to 12 try and shoot through theso, or whether you might want any ,
13 modifications.
14 MR. WARD: 1 think we may want to drop'one or two 15 of them. Let me ask the committee now, which-ones are 16 candidates for dropping, or which ones you particularly want 17 to hear?
) 18 MR. CARROLL: Control building. ,
2 19 MR. MICHELSON: No, I'm not going to propose that. ,
20 MR. CARROLL: Keep it.
21 MR. WARD: Oh, ' eep . control building.
22 MR. MICHELSON:' I would propose this. I would
)
i 23 propose that we touch each of these five with enough time to 24 give our general -- just for -- I'd like'.to give my'commente 25 on it, as a minimum. And if'anybody else-is ---I'd like the v& ANN RILEY- & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters '
1612 K Street, N.W;, Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
92 1 time to put on the record, my comments on all of them. But 2 that won't take a lot of time.
3 MR. WARD: Well, let's go through at least the 4 first two and the control building in detail, I presume, as 5 you've planned. The first two and the last one, and then 6 the third and fourth, we'll at least make comments on or
=
7 something. We'll see.
8 MR. J AMES : Okay. In this case, it will be me up 9 first, because I was planning to cover the standby control 10 system.
11 (Slide.]
12 MR. JAMES: What we have done for you -- and you 13 will see it in the presentation material we handed out, for 14 each of the five systems that you wanted to hear about, wo
)
15 prepared a one-page introduction which gives you sort of 16 strictly a line-by-line summary of the technical issues that 17 we've covered in the design description and then the 18 technical issues that are covered in the ITAAC tables.
19 So, what we planned to do for each of the systems 20 is very briefly go through this, and then skip directly, if 21 this meets with your approval, directly to charts of the 22 ITAAC tables themselves, and briefly summarize what was in 23 each of the ITAAC entries and use that as a vehicle for 24 discussions and questions.
25 MR. WARD: Okay, s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
93 1 MR. MICHELSON: You do want to talk to the 2 description, though, in the ITAAC -- I call these ITAACs, 3 but the description part, the system description part in the s 4 ITAAC.
5 MR. JAMES: Well, we hadn't planned to go through 6 that, okay?
7 MR. MICHELSON: At least we'd like to ta d. about a 8 few discrepancies and errors, I guess, to get a flavor for 9 the problem.
10 MR. JAMES: Okay, that's fine, yes. We're here to 11 --
12 MR. MICHELSON: It certainly is not free of 13 significant errors.
14 ::R. JAMES: Clearly, if you think there's
(~)N 15 significant errors, we need to know about them. In which 16 case, I'll modify the plan and wo'.1 go briefly through this 17- and put up -- we have charts here of the design --
18 MR. MICHELSON: I would say, go through the ITAAC 19 first and then we'll talk about the general description 20 last.
21 MR. CARROLL: I think it's more logical to --
22 MR. MICHELSON: I don't care which. I just have a 23 few things I wanted to get clarified.
24 MR. CARROLL: I don't know that we need a summary 25 of-it.
-(.s I^) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
94 g- 1 MR. CARROLL: Do you want to comment?
x- 2 MR. MICHELSON: You mean before we get into the 3 tables?
4 MR. CARROLL: Okay, second paragraph, you don't 5 mean what you say in the first sentence, the SLCS system has 6 to be designed to bring the reactor to a subcritical 7 condition from even higher than full power.
8 MR. MICHELSON: And it's got to go subcritical at 9 cold shutdown, not at hot shutdown.
10 Mr.. CARROLL: Yes.
11 MR. MICHELSON: The sentence is incomplete.
12 MR. CARROLL: We're in the second paragraph, Tony.
13 It's the second line, from full power to a subcritical 14 condition.
(Q)
\_
15 MR. JAMES: Right.
16 MR. CARROLL: Actually, you could find yourself 17 needing SLCS and be well above full power.
18 MR. MICHELSON: That's right. You need to reword 19 it.
20 MR. JAMES: I am sorry, I'm not following the 21 comment. You think it would be higher than full?
22 MR. CARROLL: As an example --
23 MR. BOEHNERT: If you were above 100 percent.
24 PR. JAMES: Well, that meant'to be with the rods 25 in the hundred percent power condition.
O ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 i
l 95 1 MR. CARROLL: That's still --
7S
(
\ ) 2 MR. MICHELSON: You could say it that way and 3 probably be all right. At the tail end of the statement, 4 you've got to get cold shutdown in there, because it won't 5 work if it won't take you all the way..
6 MR. JAMES: Could you bring me those marker pens 7 that are up there on the table? I need to mark up the --
8 MR. CARROLL: I guess you commented before that 9 you're going to get rid of statements like, the system will 10 inject the minimum required boron solution in 61 minutes.
11 That sounds like if it's 59 minutes and 59 seconds --
12 MR. JAMES: That's the number from the SAR.
13 MR. MICHELSON: I don't find that one in the SAR, 14 and further, I don't find the figure in the SAR either.
['
15 MR. JAMES: This is an example, now, where the SAR 16 'and this material are out of sync.
17 MR. MICHELSON: I'm looking at Amendment 20, but I 18 guess you could still be out of sync, all right.
l 19 MR. CARROLL: What you really want to say, in less 20 -- in 61 minutes of less.
21 MR. MICHELSON: If that's what you want to say.
22 MR. CARROLL: If that's what yca mean.
23 MR. KERR: Or maybe even not more than 61.
24 MR. MICHELSON: I think that's what the SAR talks 25 150 minutes, so I don't know, maybe they've changed it.
? (D l V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l l
l l
- i 96 l 1 MR. JAMES: The intent was just to say what's in
2 the SAR.
l 3 MR. MICHELSON: The SAR says on page 9.3-3, i 4 Amendment 20, each positive displacement pump is sized to 5 inject a solution to the reactor in 60 to 150 minutes, 6 independent of the amount of solution in the tank.
7 MR. JAMES: Right.
8 MR. MICHELSON: Now, it sounds to me like your 9 injection could be up to 150 minutes, then.
10 MR. JAMES: Right.
11 MR. MICHELSON: So you don't want to say less than 12 G1, unless you mean it.
, 13 MR. J AMES : We don't want to put a prescription
,/ 14 here. That was mean to be a statement with the two pumps 15 going, the actual performance. The requirements are 16 anywhere between one and two pumps.
17 MR. CARROLL: No, no, no. The difficulty is, your 18 inspector is going to time this thing, and if it isn't 61 i
i 19 minutes, point zero, zero, zero seconds, he's going to say 20 you haven't met the design.
21 MR. JAMES: Oh, no, no.
] 22 MR. CARROLL: Why?
23 MR. JAMES: Because this is the design '
24 description. What the inspector is doing is working with 25 the ITAACs.
A V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1812 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
97 1 MR. CARROLL: Well, the ITAAC has exactly the same 2 problem.
3 MR. MICHELSON: I understand that this document is 4 the one that lives forever. The ITAAC table doesn't 38.ve 5 forever in the eyes of the inspector, unless I misunderstand 6 from the staff what this description is to do. The ITAAC 7 kind of goes away after fuel loading.
8 This description hangs on.
9 MR. JAMES: Yes.
10 MR. MICHELSON: So, this description is what the 11 inspector is looking at three days, three years later or 12 whatever. This has got to be right.
13 MR. JAMES: I would say this defines what the 14 design has to do forever, is not the basis for field signoff 15 of the design.
16 MR. MICHEISON: No, no, I realize that, but this 17 is what the inspector is going to look at later. He's going 18 to say, you've gone 62 minutes.
19 MR. WARD: No, he's not going to say that. He has 20 the toch spec.
21 MR. MICHELSON: This is part of the problem. This 22 has got to correspond to the tech spec. There is also a 23 tech spec for it.
24 MR. J7MES: Right.
25 MR. MICHELSON: I didn't bring it with me, but --
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
- . . = . -- .-- - - . . - - - . _ - ..
I 98 1 MR. JAMES But I guess I don't challenge that ,
2 this material here is the basis for any inspections.
l 3 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. So you don't believe the i 4 150, because you said minimum required. Well, the minimum j 5 time should be 150 minutts according to the SAR, not 61 j
j 6 minutes. :
?
1 7 MR. JAMES: Well, there's a range of requirements ,
8 between 60 and 150 --
9 MR. MICHELSON: Okay.
10 MR. JAMES: -- depending on whether you're talking 11 two pump operation for ATWS or single pump operation for l 12 non-transient shutdowns. '
j 13 MR. MICHELSON: And here we're talking-about the i
14 system operation undefined. i 15 MR. JAMES: It's meant to be a statement of what i 16 the system does.
'17' MR. MICHELSON: Okay. I guess we.'re not i
18 communicating._
l 19 MR. CARROLL: If that's what you mean, you should i
20- --
3 21 MR. WARD: Yes. The system is full flow or l 22 something, is_what you mean.
- t.
- 23 MR. CARROLL: With both pumps operating.
a 24 MR.. WARD: Yes. Or whatever.
25 MR.-MICHELSON: And it'r.; also heavily dependent on b '
ANN RILEY .& ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N W., Suite 300
. Washington, D C. 20006
, (202) 293-3950
__ ~ .. . .- . -. . . . - - .
99 1 the reactor pressure history as to whether you make it in 60
\
{l x- 2 minutec. It's only a particular analysis that will show the 3 60 minutes. Other analyses will show other numbers, and I 4 don't know which one is meant here. But without knowing the 5 reactor pressure history, I don't know how to count 60 6 minutes.
7 MR , J AMES : That clearly needs to be tied into the 8 specific analysis that was done that led to that number.
9 MR. WARD: I don't know that the pressure makes 10 much difference because these are positive displacement 11 pumps.
12 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, but it makes some difference.
13 It depends on how -- well, if it doesn't make a bit of 14 difference, that's fine, but it does.
15 MR. BOYCE: I would just like to make the point 16 that the design description is part of the rule, the ITAAC 17 and the design description, so a facility must meet both the 18 design description and the ITAAC. The ITAAC themselves are 19 explicit tests, but the design description also contains 20 these sort of implicit type requirements. Mr. Michelson's 21 point was that three years after the plant is built and 22 operating, this design description will still be valid 23 because it will still be a rule that a facility must meet 24 and comply with.
25 MR. CARROLL: Well, does the 61 minutes give you r^s
()
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950
100 1 any grief that somebody-could interpret it that, you know,
'0-2 if you get the minimum amount in in 59 minutes,.you don't 3 meet -- the design is not being met? Does it say that?
4 MR. RUBIN: Are you asking the staff?
5 MR. WARD: It doesn't say that.
6 MR. RUBIN: Are you asking the staff?
7 MR. CARROLL: Yes.
8 MR. MICHELSO!it You are talking about plus or 9 minus.
10 MR. RUBIN: The range that was originally offered 11 in the ITAAC was the one-in the SAR, and we' thought-that was-12 confusing, and we weren't convinced that the basis:was the 13 limiting criteria. SLC is difficult because it has design-14 basis and non design basis requirements, design. basis being, 15 1 guess, GDC-26 for redundant reactivity control system, but 16 he more limiting constraint is the'ATWS requ.irement, and for 17 that, 100 gpm would be required by the ATWS rule, and 100 19 gpm for two pumps equates.to 61 minutes.
19 We thought the limiting performance criteria, 20 meaning ATWS, non design basis in this case,-.should be the 21 ITAAC requirement, and that's what.we wantiin there, and we 22 think the 61 minutes is proper)for the full injection-
- 23. volume.
24 MR. CARROLL _You are missing.my point.-
.25 MR. SHEWMON: Would!you take-61' minutes or-less?-
O ANN RlLEY? &TASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters.
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C, 20006 (202) 293-3950
101
~ 1 MR. RUDIN: We chink so; however, in the SAR, 5- 2 there is an upper ppm injection volumetric limit which we 3 think is for some reactivity fluctuations that we don't 4 think is limiting, and we want GE to tell us if it's a 5 concern that needs to be in here. We don't think it needs 6 to be .in here. We think 61 or less.
7 MR. CARROLL: And it should specify the system 8 with both pumps operating.
9 MR. RUBIN: Two-pumps. Yes, sir. ;
i 10 MR. JAMES: We agree this needs to identify the l l
11 basis of the transient that led to that number.
12 MR. CARROL1' Okay. In the first sentence in that 13 paragraph, "at any time ire a cycle," you probably ought to
(~ 14 say fuel cycle. There's a lot of kinds of cycles around N~ T I
15 power plants. You mean in a fuel cycle, which has a 16 specific meaning.
17 MR. MICHELSON: Down on your three listed itoms, 18 again the question is what's the maximum reactor pressure 19 for injection. The SSAR seems to say 1560 pounds is the 20 maximum, and this --
21 MR. SHEWMON: Over on the next page, it says 1560 22 psig.
23 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. It's even there. Okay.
24 Yes, you are right.
25 MR. SHEWMON: On the next page.
n V ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud RepOders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
' Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i
)
102 1 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. Yes. So you might fix it, 2 or you can just -- I think you can take a note of it. But 3 that's the kind of inconsistencies you see in all these 4 ITAACs.
5 on Item 1, the pump flow is 100 gpms at -- it's 6 supposed to be at equal to or greater than 1223 psig 7 according to the SSAR. I think that's an important 8 consideration in specifying the pump flow, but with positive 9 displacement pumps, the head flow characterls?;cs are 10 significantly different. Really, it's 100 gpm at equal to 11 or grohter than 1223 psig according to the SSAR.
12 I'm-just trying to'be'-- I just'tried to read the 13 two documente and think I.was hearing one story, and I 14 don't.
15 MR. JAMES: I just hope the SSAR version you have 16 has got the two-pump operation in there, because that was 17 the main --
18 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, it does. Yes.
19 MR. JAMES: Okay.
20 MR. MICHELSON: It was in Amendment 20. .I-don't 21 know when it ca:te in, but it was in Amendment 20.
22 The next -- oh, you'are still'on that page._ Okay.
23 MR. CARROLL:. Are you ready to go to the next 24 page?
-25 [ Slide.)
O ANN filLEE &. ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
~ Court Reporters -
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950:
103 1 MR. MICHELSON: The next page, down about just a 2 little past halfway down the page, it talks about a 3 concentration of 850 ppa. I found somewhere else that it's 4 800 ppm, and I was trying to-remember whether that's in the 5 ITAAC or somewhere else.
6 MR._ JAMES: Now, the SAR is wrong on that one.
7 MR. MICHELSON: Okay.
8 MR. JAMES: We caught that one.
9 MR. MICHELSON: All right. It is 8507 10 MR. JAMES: It's 850.
11 MR._ MICHELSONt Okay. Now, that-should be minimum-12 average concentration. According to the SAR --
13 MR. JAMES: Yes.
-[ 14 MR. MICHELSON: - .they are talking about minimum 15 average.
16 MR. JAMES: Yes, that's right.
17 MR MICHELSON: Okay.
18 MR.-KERR: What is minimum average?-
19 MR. MICHELSON:
Well, don't ask me; I'm just 20 making the words consistent. "
21 MR. JAMES:' It,means after you have taken -- after. I 22 you've made-allowances-for maldistribution.- We don't just 23 assume the boron'gets in there and is uniformly _ mixed; we 24 make a correction for maldistribution'of-the' boron:and 25 assume it-gets mixed in the entire volume, including things
' ANN RlLEY-- & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters
--1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-hm - _ m... _2_mm---_ .--.m._-__2.2.-_.
104 l
1 like the RHR piping. So when you've gone through that l 2 process of maldistribution and total mixing throughout all 3 the fluid involved, then by then, having done that, you !
4 still should have a concentration of 850 ppm.
5 MR. WARD: I thought the 850 was assuming 6 perfectly mixed, and the allowance for seit distribution was 7 the additional 220, isn't that what it says?
8 MR. JAMES: .t it says that, it is wrong. I don't 9 think it says that. l 10 MR. KRESS: Then you can't use the word " average,"
11 I don't think.
12 MR. SHEWMON: Two sentences on down, to allow for 13 imperfect mixing in the reactor system, an' additional 25 14 percent is added.
15 MR. JAMES: That is exactly what we do. If it is 16 perfectly mixed, you have a concentration of 1070. ,
17 MR. WARD: That is what I understood the text to 18 say, but that seems to be different from'what you just said.
19 That would be the 850 plus 220.
20 MR. KERR: .
So what is a minimum average?
21 MR. JAMES: If-I was sitting-in.the fuel bundle -
22 looking-at the solution around me, I would'see, in the' worst 23 case, I would always see 850, or some larger number. The 24 absolute minimum is 850 that I'would see around me,- ppm.
25 'MR. SHEWMON: You might even say the minimum I
O.'- ANN RILEY- '& ASSOCIATES, Ltd. .
-Court Reporters
-1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 I
Washington, D. C. 20006 !
(202) 293-3950 i
105 1 concentration.
2 MR. CARROLL: That is what it says. All Carl is 3 pointing out is that it says " minimum average" in the SSAR.
4 Take " average" out either place. ;
5 MR. MICHELSON: It should be consistent is all.
I 6 MR. CARROLL I think " average" should come out. ;
i 7 In that same one, Tony, you need some units to go with 220.
8 It is gallons, right?
9 MR. JAMES: Yes.
10 MR. WARD: ppm, probably.
1 11_ MR. J AMES : Yes, ppm. I i
12 MR. CARROLL: I am sorry.
13 MR. SHEWMON: The next. paragraph it says 1560 14 psig. There is says the pumps must do 1560, the spec says 15 1250. '
16 MR. CARROLL: It is back on.page one.
17 MR. JAMES: There is a confusion here. During the 18 ATWS condition, the pressure can.actually go to:1560. Our 19 curves in Chapter 15 show'the reactor pressure going to 20 1560. If you look at when SLC starts up and injects, it is 21 after this, and the pressure is dowr. co like 1250 when SLC 22 actually starts to inject. I_think that is the source of-23 the confusion here.
24 MR. RUBIN:
This was an area the' staff pursued,.
25 and we had requested the 1560-injection pressure capability-O ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES l Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 3001 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202)_293-3950l
106 s 1 be included in the tier one description. I think maximum 2 peak ATWS pressure from some analyses that we have seen is 3 about 1330-1340, but it is for a brief period of time.
4 We were concerned, though, that due to 5 uncertainties in the ATWS calculations, peak pressure might 6 be higher, or might stay up longer. Consequently, we wanted 7 a demonstration as part of the ITAAC inspection that it 8 could inject at essentially the shut-off pressure for that 9 system.
10 In addition to the pump, it is important that the 11 release valve capability and set-point be verified.
12 Otherwise, if the relief valve set-point is off, it could be il pumping it out and losing the boron. So we asked that that 14 be verified also.
)
15 MR. KERR: Wait a minute. The relief valve is 16 going to open at 1560?
17 MR. RUBIN: Plus whatever margins. It is a 1560 18 pound system right at the pump discharge, and we want to 19 make sure that both-the pumps and the set-points of the 20 relief valves be such that if you are injecting at that 21 pressure, you are not losing boron out of the system.
22 MR. CARROLL: These are the pump discharge relief 23 valves?
24 MR. RUBIN: Yes,_ sir.
25 MR. MICHELSON: But they are not really relief iG V AMN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 107 1 valves, all they do is relieve back to the suction of the 2 pump. They don't-relieve the system per se, because there 3 are isolation valves at both ends of the system. So all
}
4 that valve does is, if the pump gets too high-pressured, 5 some of the fluids move back to the suction. According to j 6 your flow diagram, that is all it can do.
J 7 MR. JAMES: Yes, that is right.
8 MR. MICHELSON: And it can't relieve the pressure 9 if you someday over-pressurize the system by starting the-10 pumps and having all the valves closed, it isn't going to 11 relieve that pressure.
-12 MR. JAMES: That is.not its intent. The term 13 " relief valve" it is intended to protect the~ pump against, Q
%J 14 in effect, an over-power condition. Reciprocating pumps, 15 they just go on cranking on and on and on, and if the 16 pressure gets too high, the horsepower-in the motor gets 17 too --
18 MR. MICHELSON:
Unfortunately, I don't'see in your 19 drawing any relief valve for this system because, if you 20 start the pump with all the valves closed,;I, don't know, it 21 will heat up. The water will slowly heat up from that 22 positive displace 2nent pump, and.it will burst thel system .
23 somewhere because.those relief-valves aren't. relief valves, 24 .they are just bypass valves :from the pump.
25 MR. JAMES: That's right.
ANN RlLEY &. ASSOCIATES, Ltd. ~
- Court Reporters ~
1612 K Street, N.W., Sui's 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 e
_~ - . . . . . _ . . .. . . _ _ _ ._ __
i i 108 l 1 I might as well put this up here to help the b 2 discussion.
j 3 (Slide.)
I 4 MR. JAMES: This is the simplified PIN ID that is 5 in the ITAAC, and what we are talking about is these relief "
6 valves here. They relieve high-pressure here back into the 7 pump suction.
j 8 MR. CARROLL: If the pump is isolated and running,
}
9 as Carl-points out, we are going to open the relief valve, i
j 10 and-it is going to simply circulate, and pretty soon the 3
11 pressure is going to start going up because the solution 1
i 12 will get high.
I 4 j 13 MR. JAMES: Help me if I haven't got this right, _
4 14 but I think there are interlocks on these valves. These 15 valves have position indicators, and I think there are l
16 ' interlocks when the pump starts that open these valves.
1 17 I am shooting from the hip, and I am looking for l
- 18 support from the str< '
{ 19 MR. MICHEt ON: That could be.
l 20 MR. CARROLL: A more conventional arrangement-i j 21 would be to go back to the storage tanh.
2 MR. HICHELSON: The code doeks't accept interlocks.
23 as a means of protecting pressure boundaries except in one ..
24 ,ery special case, in:the case of the reactor protection ,
a 25- system-itself, and that took:a lot of^ work-on the code to-ANN RlLEY & _ ~ASSOCMTES,'_. Ltd..
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950' .
-w
109 1 ge* that one through.
\ 1 x/ 2 Ordinarily, you can't use interlocks for over-3 pressure protection. I l
4 MR. CARROLL: The staff must have tumbled with ;
5 this in reviewing it.
6 HR. MICHEISON: Haybe the main system, I didn't 7 have time to look to see if there is yet another relief 8 valve on the main system that wasn't showing on this. It 9 could be that you also have a pressure relief valve in case 10 this thing is isolated and heated.
11 MR. SHEWMON: You have some kind of a pressure 12 relief valve on the primary vessel, and I had thought that 13 is what the system relief valve was.
14 MR. CARROLL: No.
( ' It means the discharge --
\_
15 MR. SHEWMON: I know now what it means, but there 16 is another relle. valve down there that communicates with 17 the system.
18 MR. CARROLL: You mean the 12 actor system.
19 MR. JAMES: These are closed normally.
20 MR. MICHELSON: That is the problem. This thing 21 can all be isolated, bottled up.
22 MR. SHEWMON: I know, but when it is doing its 23 job, it is injecting into the primary system, and there is a 24 relief valve in there.
25 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
U,x ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 L
1-110 4 1 MR. CARROLL:
But under ATWS conditions, primary V- 2 system pressure goes hig 'er t r."n the set-point of- the safety >
1 j 3 valve.
4 MR. JAMES: Let me show you the event that you a.'e 5 talking about here. You are postulating that this-thing
, 6 starts up with these holes closed, so it is pumping --
4
- 7 MR. MICHELSON
- What they have-done --
- 8 MR. JAMES
- . So you have a closed loop here,_ and it
! 9 self-destructs. I guess.I he .s'a question'of how we get--
1
- l. 10 there. If you start the system initially, if you press the i 11 system irin.iation button initially, the sequencer will open
- 12 up these, and these --
13 MR. FCCHELSON: You got thereifrom somebody:
14 pushing a button and. starting the pump.
15 MR. SHEWMON: He.is telling yu. When you do that 4
[ 16 the valve is open.
- - 17 MR. CARROLL
- That assumes that the maintenance
- - 18 guy hasn't rocked out the breakers to the motor-operated i
2 19 valves, and a few other things.
l 20 MR. MICHELSON: -So,: it'also assumes that the-21 interlocks are not off .of the injection 1 signal, -actuation:
22 signal. I don't-know, you'd have to chase that. I-withdraw 23 the question.
i' MR.' CARROLL: I think somebody ought toLlook at;
- 5 that' system because that's not--the way,.at least'I'would th.
,V ANN RILEY-: & ASSOCIATES; Ltd.
- Court Reporters ._
< 1612 K Street, N.W.,' Suite 300 '
Washington, D. C, 20006 (202) 293-3950 L ,
o . ~ . _ . ._ _ .. __ . _ . . _ . . - _
111 1 design it.
[s)
\/ 2 MR. JAMES: Fundamentally, what drives that is the 3 need to keep boron as far away from the reactor as 4 absolutely possible, and the way we do that here, those are 5 normally closed valves, and so there's boron solution here 6 and there's water here, and under normal circumstances, 7 those are never opened. We don't want any boron to migrate 8 into this system.
9 MR. MICHELSON* That's laid by with clean water?
10 MR. JAMES: Yes, that's right, that's all clean 11 water.
12 MR. CARROLL: What's wrong with discharging the 13 relief valve into the tank?
14 MR. WARD: If that other valve is closed, you 15 aren't recirculating.
16 MR. JAMES: I guess you could put it back here and 17 relieve, but I guess --
18 MR. WARD: Then you've got to open up the other 19 valve.
20 MR. JAMES: You're flooding, you're increasing the 21 level here and you're going to have to deal with overflow of 22 boron which is a real operational proolem in-itself.
23 MR. MICHELSON: You need a separate relief vhlve.
24 MR. JAMES: This tank, to maintain the level, 25 you've got to. dispose of boron somewhere and that's a'real
(> ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
112 7_ 1 operational nightmare.
-- 2 MR. CARROLL: Sell it to your neighbor who's 3 running a BWR.
4 MR. MICHELSON: Let me ask a different question:
5 There's going to be some requirements to keep that boron hot 6 and so forth. Is that going to be o: a safety grade 7 electrical system, the heater?
8 I didn't find it. I may have missed it, but I 9 didn't find in here, any discussion of checking that. Is it
, 10 in there?
11 MR. CARROLL: It's in the last -- it's described 12 in the last sentence of the second full paragraph on page 3.
13 MR. MICHELSON: Page 3. That's the injection 14 valve, but where is the heater?
15 MR. CARROLL: The second to the last. The heater 16 is connected to the standby power source. It's 1-E.
17 MR. MICHELSON: I did find that. I just failed to 18 remember it.
19 MR. JAMES: It's connectable,-it's not automatic.
20 [ Slide.]
21 MR. JAMES: There's really two heaters here.
22 There's a large heater -- just to explain it, there's two a 23 heaters here. There's one large heater you turn on when you 24 want to heat up the tank fast for mixing solutions. That's 25 totally non-essential.
,o
(.) ANN RILEY & . ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud Repoder; 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1 1
113 7_ 1 Then there's a smaller temperature maintenanco I
\-- 2 heater that normally runs off of the non-ossential power 3 buses, but can be connected by operator action.
4 MR. CARROLL: Where do I find a legend or a key to 5 your rather non-conventional valve symbols?
6 MR. JAMES: It's in Appendix A, I believe. I
]
7 assume you gentlemen got this.- This is our Stage 3 8 submittal, and it's in Appendix A, I believe.
9 Yes, it's just two sides of a single page.
10 MR. CARROLL: On that same paragraph on page 3 11 that we were locsing at, about the middle of the paragraph, 12 it should be 480 instead of 48 volts AC.
13 MR. JAMES: Yes, we've already got that one, thank 14 you.
(~}
v 15 MR. CARROLL: Good.
16 MR. WYLIE: Is the emergency diesels that standby
. 17 power supply -- that terminology doesn't come across.
18 MR. JAMES: Yes, it is.
19 MR. WYLIE: The.whole paragraph is confusing, the 20 way it's written.
21 hR. JAMES: Yes, standby power is the diesel 22 generator, yes.
23 MR. WYLIE: Your normal power supply is the power 24 supply that comes down to the auxillary transformer, the 25 generator breaker, and it supplies the Class 1-E buses.
r~T-U ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 3vi
- Washington, D. C. 200' J (202) 293-3950
i 114' 1 Now, down here, you're going to talk about the -- at the 2 -tail end of that paragraph you_ talk _about standby power-3 source is the Class 1-E -- from-an onsite source. I assume 4 that's emergency diesel?
5 MR. JAMES: Yes.
6 MR. WYLIE: Why not use the words like Class 1-E, 7 Division 2, Class 1-E,_ Division 1 and emergency power ~~
8 emergency diesels, rather than standby power _ source?f 9 MR. JAMES: Consistency, I guess. That standby 10 power source is a phrase --
11 MR. WYLIE: It's-not consistent with your section 12 on electrical power systems.
13 -MR. THATCHER:- This is-Dale Thatcher.from the; 14 staff. I have to-agree-with Mr.'Hylie. We're making suggestions to GE on this-particular. paragraph..
15
~
In some 16 aspects, they're actually going too far. :It seems like Mr.
17 Wylie says you would say that_this is the. class 1-E,_that's 18 really all you have to say.
g -_
19 MR. WYLIE: That's right. -q
.20 MR.- THATCHER: That system then canireceive power 21 from offsite and onsite sources.
22 MR. MICHELSON:- I'dLlike to go.back and ask,a :
23 . question on page 1.- At' the: bottom of. page 1, -- we say- that 24- .the high reactor pressure vessel is pressure?of 1125 is,one - -
2? .of the automatic-initiations-for standby liquid control.--
b- 'ANNL RlLEY &L ASSO_CIATES, 'Ltd.-
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
.(202) 293-3950;
i 115 1 MR. CARROLL: And high power.
73 3
' ')
)
\
2 MR. MICHELSON: I don't know what-high power means 3 there. Downscale, it means to me that you're actually --
4 you're at power and you've exceeded 1125, I thought, is the 5 way I read it, but maybe that's incorrect.
6 MR. CARROLL: Your high pressure scram is supposed 7 to have reduced the --
8 MR. MICHELSON: By the time you reach 1125 or 9 before you reach 1125? I didn't think they were that fast, 10 but maybe-they are. The thing I'm concerned about only is 11 that the relief val- es for this plant are set at 1100 and l-12 this means that an excursion which opens relief valve has a 13 fair chance of starting standby liquid control, and it's
/~T 14 only five pounds more.
(_-)
15 MR. JAMES: But not with this, surely. It's an 16 "and.*' ;
17 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, but the "and," means that-la you've got a real fast-response so that your average power 19 is way down already by the time you get to the 1100.
20 MR. CHAMBERS: This is John Chambers from GE.
21 That's your classic Atlas signal and there-is a time delay i 22 associated with that. It's an APRM downscale after -- I 23 forget what it is, two minutes or-so --
24 MR. JAMES: I think-it's got a downscale of three 25 minutes. You've got -- I think the setpoint is seven :
- f s,
- V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. ,
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 116 1- percent power or something like'that.- You've got to be high 2 pressure and above seven percent power for-three minutes-3 before this system is going to power.
4 MR. MICHEISON: You're caying that the relief =
5 valve would come and although you get the high pressure, you 6 don't get.the. power down --.you get the. power down side of 7 it'well before the three minutes time is out. -l ;
8 MR. CHAMBERS:- If you got a scram, it would be j 9 well below that.
10 MR. KERR: :Mr. Chairman, I'm curious aboutiwhat it.
11 is we're doing at;this point.- I had assumed we were going; 12 to make some comments on the ITAACs. We seem toLbe 13 rewriting them. lTh'at's okay_by-me;if?we can charge GE for 14 our services.
15 -Are we going to1 write a: letter saying:we think the:
16 ITAACs are good or they're not_ good,-or.are we going to
-17 rewrite them? I don't mean-to be critical of thefgentleman 18:
~~
who did all'the hard work to go through this, butf--
19- MR.-WARD: :Well, I' guess 1what we_'reldoing is 20 ! pointing:outJexamples of where the ITAACs-~seem-to'be -
21 technically not clear or=--
-22 -MR.-KERR: Have:wejmade our' point lby now or:doiwe-23 ' continue?I
'24' MR. CARROLL: z I think Lit's; worthwhile & doing one fin 25 detailLlike this.and then; generalized from whatEwe --
h ANN -- RILEY/ & LASSOCIATES, Ltd.;
. Court Reporters:
1612 K Street, N.W.,' Suite 300::
4
_ Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950i
117
, 1 MR. SHEWMON: Does that-mean we don't have
, s. 2 comments on the other-four?
- . 3 MR. WARD
- I think-Bill is_suggest;aq t tiJht be 4 time'to generalize on this one.
5 MR.-KERR: I mean, I'm not trying to be -- I'm not 6 quite sure what it is we're trying to do, but it appears to 7 me what --
8 MR. WARD: We're trying to --
9 MR. KERR: -- we're doing at.this point is 10 rewriting the=ITAAC, and if --
11 MR. MICHELSON: Bill, I think youre trying to:---
12 I hope you're trying to arrive at a conclusion as to the-13 quality control that went-into:this' document by' comparing 14 what the SSAR says,'for instance, with what'this document says.
15 16 MR. KERR: Okay.
17 MR. MICHELSON: And'if they're inconsistent, then 18 there is poor quality control.
19 MR. KERR: We have concluded by this point that:
-20 it's not very good,-haven't we?
21 MR. MICHELSON: Well, we have concluded'.that there i 22 -certainly'are discrepancies.
23- MR. . CARROLL: .- I'think.there are some other issues, ,
24 though, I'd like..to get'on the' table'_that might be helpful .
25 to the. staff and GE.=
h ANN RILEY &D ASSOCIATES,.LLtd.
- Court Reporters : l 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 ;
Washington, D. C. 20006 l
'(202) 293-3950:- 1
_ , __ _, - __ m, _ _ . ._ _
), 118 f.
1 MR. SHEWMcN: Will~they alter any conclusion we 2 draw about this particular ITAAC,,or will it affect any-3 conclusion?
d s,
4 MR. CARROLL: Well, let's just. pick a sort of e 5 general one. I note that neither the design description nor 6 the ITAAC say anything about materials of construction,-and
- 7 yet we're dealing with a boron solution that probably does.
{
8 need some special materials of construction. How-is that 1
! 9 dealt with? Is that a new general issue?
10 MR. WARD: That is a good point. Tony, do you j 11 have a comment on that?
12 MR. JAMES: As aLgeneral principal,.we've tended
! 13 to avoid materials, viewing that as a, you know,-Part-50 QA j (~5g 14 process, to make sure that the as-built meets the- '
i-(_/ ~
i 1 15 requirements in our specifications. '
i-j- 16 It gets into a lot of details.: You know, if'you
^
17 look at this, it's not -- the requirement-wouldn't.be simply E r 18 that it's all built of stainless steel.- You'd have,to say l
19 which stainless steel. It's not all stainless steel because 20 you get into valve packings that are not.
Y
[
21- You can't make a blanket statementithat.it's
? 22 stainless steel even iflyou specify the-type?of stainless-23 steel because there are.all kindsiof non-metallic in-24 packings and what have you..
25 MR. WARD: Okay. So you areLmaking the blanketi h
05 ANN RILEY & . ASSOCIATES, _ Ltd.
Coud Repoders -
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 p Washington, D.~ C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
.. - .. -- . . .. - . -- =
119 fs 1 statement that the ITAACs do not specify materials?
/ \
l
/ 2 MR. JAMES: Not totally blanket. In the reactor 3 pressure vessel, for example, we've culled out some 4 materials because of factors such as stress, corrosion, i
5 cracking and what have you. So in the reactor pressure 6 vessel, there's some material specs.
7 As a general rule, ITAACs have not addressed 8 materials. Let me rephrase that. Tier 1 has not addressed 9 materials.
10 MR. WARD: I don't know. Paul, do you think that 11 makes sense?
12 MR. SHEWMON: At someplace, they have said they 13 will meet code, and that gets a lot of the materials. I
- ('N 14 suspect the code doesn't cover what you build boron tanks L] 15 out of, but they can get a reference. I don't see any
- 16 problem with it.
, 17 MR. MICHELSON: They don't say in here,.of course, 18 that they built to the code. They say that back in the 19 SSAR.
20 MR. JAMES: Well, the co6e class is called out 21 here. We do call out code class.
22 MR. MICHELSON: You sure do, don't you. Well, 23 then you tied it into the ASME code, according to the 24 lawyers.
25 MR. JAMES: Yes. That's right.- We have.
/^
i
'u) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
120 1 MR. MICHELSON: Then by the argument I heard O
V 2 earlier, I can't -- you-know, it takes-Ja rulemaking if the 3 code changes.. You convinced me earlier you~weren't going to 4 specify codes because of the problem with tying Tier 1 into 5 a code.
6 MR. JAMES:. The exception is -- you will find as 7 you look at various ITAACs that_the exception is the -- we -
~
8 have called out the ASME code in several. places.
9 MR. MICHELSON: Of course, all of_this is-already 10 called out on the P&ID, which is in the SSAR.
11 MR. JAMES: There's nothing here.that's not in the ,
12 SSAR.
13- MR. MICHELSON: I-thought this was just a cartoon 14 to highlight-the features that.you wanted ^to-make sure were 15 properly inspected and tested.
16 MR. JAMES: Yes.
17 MR. MICHELSON: And that didn't-include-the' code 18 compliance at-all.-
19 .MR. JAMES:- Well, --
20 MR.-MICHELSON: It made no--mention of it;-
- i 21 MR. JAMES: And.we also called out code in the 22 text of .the: design description. If youlgo to Page"3, we-23 called out the code ~---meet' code, requirements', and we've 24- even got the code class and design-conditions.
.25 MR.l CARROLL: Okay. jOn Page 3, kind of a; generic ANN ' RlLEY &? ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Court Reporters -
1612 K Street, N.WJ, Suite 300
__ Washington,' D. C.- 20006 (202) 293-3950
. . -- . - ~. - . .
l 121
[,
1 issue that I'm sure applies to a bunch of these systems, I'm 2 at the end of the first full paragraph. You tell me where 3 the SLC system js located. You say it's a Seismic 1 4 structure. It's protected from things like earthquakes, 5 tornadoes, hurricanes and floods, as well as internal 6 postulated accident phenomena.
7 -You also say that because of the area it's in, 8 it's not subject to conditions such as missiles, pipe whip.
9 and discharging fluids.
10 How do you expect the inspector to verify all 11 those statements? What does he do?
12 MR. JAMES: Well, I guess I'd have to say again, 13 the way this was written, when we wrote these words, they (Q 14 weren't written with the inspector in mind. The underlying L ,i 15 assumption was that the inspector would be working off the 16 ITAAC.
17 MR. CARROLL: Yes. Okay. Well in the ITAAC, 18 where do I find --
19 MR. JAMES: I don't think we covered that one in 20 the ITAAC. In fact, I know we didn't cover that one. Let 21 me just check.
22 MR. CARROLL: Okay. The question, then, is should 23 it be covered?
24 MR. JAMES: That gets back to the issue of what's 25 the cut-off on what you cover in ITAAC and what you don't i N-()g ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 ;
i i
122 1 cover in ITAAC. The underlying assumption there was, you s-) 2 know, it's pretty well clear where the SLC is. It's 3 unlikely that it's going to get in the wrong place. I mean, 4 it's unlikely that the design will be built with the SLC 5 somewhere other than where it is in the --
6 MR. CARROLL: For example, is somebody going to l 7 run a fire water line through the room that could break and 8 wipe out both SLC pumps at an inopportane time?
9 MR'. JAMES: That flooding feature is covered under l 10 the flooding analysis in the building.
11 MR. MICHEISON: What flooding analysis? Where 12 will I read this flooding analysis in the SSAR on this 13 building? .If you tell me the chapter and the verse, I'll go 14 and read it. For the reactor building.. And then that
(~%
15 flooding analysis will explain that this system is 16 adequately protected. I think it is. Where it's located, I 17 don't have a flooding question of that same nature. But 18 there isn't what you call a flooding analysis for the 19 reactor building anymore than there is for the control 20 building. At-least I haven't found that flooding analysis.
21 I found a few allusions to it in terms of the ITAAC for the 22 control building, hardly and analysis.
23 An analysis describes a particular event and how 24 you prevent or mitigate the event, and it analyzes that you 25- have the adequate capabilities of doing that. To give the o
!. )
" ANN RlLEY & . ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i I
123
-,s 1 answer is not an analysis, and that's all that was given in x- 2 the control building case, was the answer. But in the 3 reactor building, it's hard to find even those answers.
4 I've been looking for them on reactor water cleanup, for 5 instance, the flooding analysis for that.
6 MR. WARD: Let's see if they've got a response.
7 MR. JAMES: I guess I -- I don't know the status 8 of the flooding analysis. Do any GE guys know where we are?
9 MR. CHAMDERS: It's my understanding we've done ;
i 10 one. We'll have to find out where it is and tell you where 11 to look.
12 MR. MICHELSON: We have been asking on reactor 13 water cleanup explicitly for a long time now.
l l ~') 14 MR. WARD: But, Jay, going back to your problem
\
(Q 15 with this, I mean, this description is part of the Tier 1.
16 MR. CARROLL: Yea.
17 MR. WARD: And I don't see where there would be 18 any particular problem with an inspector, as you say, or the 19 staff at some point looking at the system to make sure that l 20 this condition is covered.
21 MR. CARROLL: He is telling me the inspector is 22 not supposed to use this document --
23 MR. WARD: I mean, this is part of Tier 1.
24 MR. CARROLL: No. He's telling me the inspector 25 should be going through the ITAAC for whatever he needs to
-p V ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 124 1 do.
O' 2 MR. JAMES:
All I'can tell'you is what the GE -)
i l
3 assumption has been. - The GE'assun.ption has been that Part y
-4 52 says that-the udequacy of the plant:to load fuel in
! 5 startup will be determined on the basis of sign off of the '
l
- 6 ITAAC, which is the tables that come after these pages we've-I 7 been looking at.
- 8 MR. RUBIN: If I could direct the committee to 4 9 ITAAC Item Number-6, the SLC system components which are 10 required for injection so and co are classified Seismic i 11 Category _1 and'qua.lified for appropriate environment for 12 ' locations where-installed.= .
13 MR. CARROLL: Oh, okay.
- 14 MR. RUBIN: And this will -- and then of course 15 the inspector'will look at this, he'll read the Tier 1- ,
16 description, and he'll --
17 MR. CARROLL:- Oh, so it is in here?
18 MR. RUBIN:- Yes, sir.
19 MR. CARROLL:' Okay.
20 -MR. MICHELSON:- That'slWhere he'll hopefully go to 21 the flooding analysis.to-see what the flooding ~ questions are 22 and-determine if it's environmentally qualified for_the
-23 flood. j 24 'MR.; CARROLL: Okay. !
- MR. MICHELSON: So you have to find that:floodingj l O ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd..
Court Reporters; 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 L(202) 293-3950
\r l
l 125 i
- 1 analysis somewhere.
\J 2 MR. WARD: Let's see. Mark'was just starting to-3 say the inspector vill look at this and at the system 4 description, so the inspector will look at the system 5 description.
6 MR. RUBIN: I would certainly expect so.
7 MR. WARD: Yes.
8 MR. KERR: I hope so.
9 MR. JAMES: I'm not-saying we tron't look at it, 10 but the bas.4.s for sign-off are these tables. You know, did 11 you or didn't you meet that right-hand column?
12 MR. WARD: I guess, Tony, I don't understand.
13 Earlier this morning, you said you have a personal something O- 14 or other of trying to get people to think about Tier 1 and b 15 not about ITAAC, right?
, 16 MR. JAMES: Right.
17 MR. WARD: And that Tier 1 is the entire package 18 o f --
19 MR. JAMES: Right.
20 MR. WARD: -- requirements and implied 21 requirements and so forth.
22 MR. JAMES: Well, Tier 1 is the package of-23 material that has to be prepared.
24 MR. WARD: Yes. Okay. So the system descriptions 25 are part of Tier 1.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
,- . . . . .- .. . .. - - - _ - - . - ~ . . - _ - . . ,
k i
i 126 1 MR. JAMES: Yes. !
]. i ..
L'. 2' MR. WARD' And-so-you'd. expect an~ inspector to ,
! 1 j' 3- look at that and consider that'before -- 1 L 4' MR. CHAMBERS: Yes,_but:as part of the official ~'
5 legal sign-off of ITAAC'and whether acceptance criteria were-i-
l 6 met, we wouldn't expect him to look at that.
As part of the
+ l
- _ 7 overall construction verification program, clearly that's i
!. 8 going to be one thing he looks at, just like he'looks at the ,
- 9 whole SAR. .
! ' 10 But the purpose of the Tier 1 design _ description 11 is to provide a historical description of what the'important-
[ 12- aspects of the design 1are so-that-downstream,_when--a COL i - 13 holder might want to propose;a change to the facility,-you o 1
p 14 will- have to go' to the -design description - and see -if tliat -
.U 15 -proposed change in any.way changes =the Tier 1 design
[ ' 16 description. If it does, that's_a much higher hurdle he has-i=
! 17 to clear.to make a change to'the facility.
1
- -18 So.the primary purpose of the-Tier 11 design-
. 19 description is going to be a' historical document that'comes
, :20' -into play when-an applicant or:a: COL holder is contemplating 21
~
{ -aidesign change. .That's really the~ primary;. purpose-of it.
4 - 22= MR.-WARD: Well,-I guess _I'm'not< entirely- -r 23 satisfied with that.- If someone 'has to: lookiat- that to :
.e . 24 1 decide whether.the design change 7can':be made, then he?
- certainly has_to;look'at.iititotdecide whether theLdesigniisL
' ~
-25 p 1
- p. .,
. 1 _ ANN RlLEY.:&s ASSOCIATES, - Ltd.
Court Reporters; 1612 K Street, N.W.~, Suite 300'
. Washington, D. C.- 20006 l(202) 293-3950.:
m V m .
,,.l . . , , . , , 3 _ , . , , , . . . , . , _
.,n
d 1
127 1 realized.
l ('N
- I \s l 2 MR. CHAMBERS
- Yes, but there_is a-timing 3 difference. Where you are looking at those aspects in the 4 Tier 1 design description that have to do with design, they
- 5 have already been resolved, reviewed and resolved as part of +
1 6 the design certification ~ review. So the inspection part --
7 there's nothing there to do for the inspector.
8 Clearly, later on you have to bring -- you have-to 9 look back at both what the design implications are and.
10 whether or not.any new inspections are needed if you are-l 11 going to change those design-aspects. But there's a timing-12 thing here, where the design = aspects that show up in the l
design description,- some of those have already been-approved 13
, q(~} 14 as part of the staff's review of the design.
\,)
15 MR. WARD: All right.
. 16 (Slide.)
17 MR. JAMES: I think the. question relates more not -
18 'to future changes but, you-know, when an. inspector-is
, 19- signing off on the.first plant.' our. view is, you know,-it's 20 going to be'put in the Federal-Register that-ITAAC had.been-21 met, and this column here'is what -- the go/no-go in this 4
22 column istwhat gets into the Federal Register.
23 MR. WARD: .-All right.
24 MR. JAMES:. Now, clearly?the guy-is going to be ,
, 25 -- as the procedures-are developed for all-of this, the guy
' A[ tj ANN - RILEY &.. ASSOCIATES, - Ltd.
3Coud Repoders 1612 K Street,'N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. O, 20006
- (202) 293-3950 L
128 1 will be reading the design description, he will be reading ]
7s
\)
'- 2 the SAR and reading everything else. You know, we're not 3 precluding him from reading it. But the hard legalistic 4 have or have I not met an ITAAC is based on this column 5 right here, and that's the basis of the notice in the 6 Federal Register, whether or not I met this.
7 MR. CARROLL: Going back to Item 6, where it does 8 describe SLC as being seismic one and qualified for 9 appropriate environments, why don't I i.nd that same 10 statement on the other four system ITAa that we have 11 before us?
12 MR. JAMES: Because this SLC was -- this covers 13 the equipment qualification, the generic equipment
("}
\_/
14 qualification ITAAC that covers it all, and on the later 15 versions or later systems, we've decided not to include in 16 each system, a reference to the EQ generic, but rather in 17 the table that I mentioned earlier in Section 3, identify 18 which systems the generic EQ applies to. '
19 So, in genaral, you must not see this reference to 20 a generic in each system ITAAC, just because we didn't want 21 to clutter up 40 or 50 system ITAACs with five or six 22 referr,ces to generic ITAAC.
23 MR. WYLIE: You know, if you look at Item 5 down 24 there, you know, it says the pump heater valves controls can 25 be powered by standby again, which is wrong, the AC power n
U ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repaders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
129 j3 1 supply, as described in Section 2.2.4 which is the N]
2 description. He's got to read the description to fulfill 3 this ITAAC.
4 MR. MICHELSON: Well, he's done something they 5 said they wouldn't do anymore, and that's tie the ITAAC back 6 to the SER.
7 MR. WYLIE: Well, he did it.
8 MR. MICHELSON: I know, and I assume they're going 9 to delete those.
10 MR. JAMES: That's the design description.
11 MR. MICHELSON: That's not the SAR.
12 MR. WYLIE: That's the design description.
l 13 MR. JAMES: In that case, we've told them to read I' 14 (h /
15 it.
MR. BOYCE: I would just like to go back to that 16 point that Tony fr.de on Item No. 6 on the generic ITAAC.
17 Tony is saying that he would like to' pull that out of each 18 system from ITAAC, and the staff hasn't agreed with that
( 19 sort of approach, they haven't agreed with the matrix 20 approach in Section 3, and we haven't reconciled pulling it 21 out of each system with GE's desire, or at least industry's 22 desire to eliminate the generic ITAAC requirements in their 23 entirety. !
24 So, although'GE is saying what they're doing, the l 25 staff is not necessarily-in agreement with that approach.
-m l b ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
I Coud Repoders j 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 1 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 !
(202) 293-3950 j c
i
130
,- 1 MR. CARROLL: The other thing I see -- I'm looking
(
2 at -- well, maybe I better look some more. Do the EQ 3 generic ITAACs ccver seismic?
4 MR. JAMES: Yes.
5 MR. CARROLL: They do.
6 MR. BOYCE: Let me also comment on that. The 7 equipment qualification generic ITAAC covers three generic 8 concerns, or, at least as GE has proposed it: Seismic 9 issues, environmental qualification of equipment, and 10 selected I&C issues such as surge withstand capability and 11 EMI considerations. But you need to take a close look at 12 how GE is proposing to handle each of those issues within 13 the category of equipment qualification.
i
("'}
14 MR. CARROLL: What would I find if I did take that 15 close look?
16 MR. BO' ICE: Tnny, would you like to answer?
17 MR. JAMES: Well, if you want to get into that 18 subject, I've got some charts that show the EQ, proposed EQ l 19 ITAAC. That's going to take some time.
20 MR. CARROLL: I'm looking at it. Maybe that's 21 something we ought to consider when we talk about the-22 generic ITAACs later on.
23 MR. WARD: Yes.
24 MR. CARROLL: Okay,.but that's_the general way you 25 at least at the present are proposing to deal with this?
I' / k I
@ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud RepOders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 131 1 MR. JAMES: Yes.
-O l- 2 MR. MICHELSON: ' I had a general question.-
3- Traditionally, on standby liquid control systems, I .think 4 you've been using the Squib valves for the injection; is ,
5 that correct?
6 MR. JAMES: Yes.
7 MR. MICHELSON: Now, this is the first time we've 8 gone to motor-operators instead of Squibs.
9 MR. JAMES: Right.
10 MR. MICHELSON: And now I think you're going-to 11 have to put a lot of words-in about the sbility of those 12 motor operated valves under'all the various differential-13 pressures that they.may see and so forth, to be.able to'
/~ 14 function properly.
_ D} .
15 MR. JAMES:- Right.
16 MR. MICHELSON: I don't find any.of those words in 17 the SSAR or in the ITAACs. .This is a.Very - :this is a-18 tough application for a motor operator because-of the wide 19' variety of ATWS pressures it' sees, and so'forth.- It's going-20 oto have'to look at quite a variety of opening capabilities..
21 MR'~ JAMES: 'Right.
22 MR. MICHELSON:L The pump may or may not be-23- running, we may or may not be having ancATWSlat_the same 24 time, so you're. talking abouti1600cpounds_ differential 25 pressure capability on the motor. !
ANNERILEY &JASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers
- 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 c
l 132 1 MR. RUBIN: With the pump running, your delta-P N 2 wouldn't be that excessive. .
3 MR. MICHELSON: The pump may not'be running at the i 4 beginning of the ATWS-before it gets started and so forth.
5 I don't know. I'd have to look at a. lot-of things to find 6 out what that delta-P is on the motor operator. Of course, 7 it's two in parallel and they're both seeing the same 8 pressure and if one kicks out,-the other -- you don't have 9 either of them open and you don't get your injection.
10 You-have to look at a lot.of things, including 11 singlo failure possibilities.
12 MR. JAMES: .Yes, we do, and that's why there's --
13
( 14 MR. MICHELSON: That's why there-are two in F
15 parallel, but I'd have to .look at a lot more: than those two 16 in parallel to know whether you've taken care.of-single 17 failure or not.' I'd ~ nave to look at the power supplies and
( 18 all the other things.
(
- 19. MR. JAMES:' 'This whole system-is single-failure j 20' proof.
21 MR. MICHELSON: L It's1 purported to beland I assume 22 it is. It's really two trains.of power supplyjtoElt and'all t-( 23 that-other good stuff.
i 24 MR. JAMES:' Right,-right.
-25 MR. MICHELSON:.-It'.s got'you into another problem; r"% . . - .
U- ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters.-
.1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
f 133
.- 1 that's not mentioned anywhere, and that is, somebody better
\/ 2 check out the physical separation of all the wiring in this 3 room since it's two trains of power in one room which makes 4 for its own set of problems.
5 None of that is in the ITAAC, either, so i 6 separation -- but the motor operated valve was the first 7 question. You better be real sure that those -- that it's 8 described in the SAR and in the ITAAC, what those motor 9 operators have to do. It's not there, and I assume it's 10 easy enough to add.
11 After thinking about it a while and going through 22 all your analysis, you may decide it's a non-problem, but I 13 would like to see that analysis discussed, at least in the 14 SSAR.
V('N 15 MR. JAMES: That was the analysis of the?
16 MR. MICHELSON: Of the delta-P requirements on 17 those injection valves since they'll both see the same 18 delta-P and if the one kicks out, the other is going to kick 19 out, too, and you have a common mode of failure.
20 It's not a hard analysis to do, it just needs to 21 be done, and the specification needs,to point out the 22 requirement on the motor ope'rator. Why did you go to a 23 motor operator this time? The Squib doesn't have this kind 24 of a problem.
25 MR. JAMES: The Squib was self-imposed. That was
(")\
(. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
134 1 our selection years ago as a --
(, s)
\~/ 2 MR. MICHELSON: Traditional.
3 MR. JAMES: Traditionally being a firmer barrier j
-i 4 to boron migration that way. L 5 MR. MICHELSON: Also, when it opens, it's-not 6 worrying about delta-P's and so forth, the way it peals 7 open. It's only --
8 MR. JAMES: Yes, but it's got to be tested against 9 the Delta-P. It's got moving parts in it, just like any 10 valve, so it's -- I guess we went to this because it's
~
11 easier O&M burden. You're not taking charges out all the 12 time and testing them. It's just as reliable, and on this 13 design, we're keeping the boron on this side of these valves
()
's.J 14 so that the boron migration problem is removed from these 15 valves, 16 MR. MICHELSON: You're saying that a Squib valve 17 is no more reliable than a motor operated valve; is-that 18 what you're saying?
19 MR. JAMES: They're both highly reliable.-
20 MR. MICHELSON: Well, that's a matter of' opinion.
21 We've got a fair amount of test data now on motor operated 22 and there are very high delta-Ps that says they're-not very 23 reliable, and you people, I'm sure, are well aware of that.
24 It needs to be addressed and it's just not there 25 yet..
/~
T. )N m ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Coud Reponerst 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
135 1 MR. JAMES: That'is a ,?"7 rather than an ITAAC
[lh N- 2 issue. I l
3 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. I think you, first of all,
- 4 do it in the SAR, and then you decido from what you have 5 found in the SAR as to whether it needs to be an ITAAC issue-6 as well, and then how important the requirements are, and 7 what the difficulties might be.
8 But demonstrating ability to open under those 9 delta Pa might be an ITAAC requirement.
10 MR. WARD: Tony, you said this system is single 11 failure proof, and I guess I had some confusion about that.
12 It is not single failure ploof for the ATWS function, right,-
13 is it?
'N 14 MR. JAMES: That is true, yes. I misstated it.
. .Y 15 The design basis condition of shutting down the reactor when 16 the rods didn't go in, yes.
17 MR. WARD: For the traditional safety related.
18' function, I guess?
i 19 MR. JAMES: Yes.
20 MR. WARD: Although I don't find that clearly 21 stated in the' requirements, or in the ITAAC. Is it?
22 MR. MICHELSON: If it isn't single failure proof, 23 he has a real problem with-this.
24 MR. WARD: 'I just want to ask if you can infer?
25 MR. JAMES: The question is, did we state it (3
V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers -
1612 K Etreet, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
136 1 explicitly-in the design description?
7 g .;
2 MR. WARD:--Yes, that is-what-the-question is.
3 MR. MICHEJON: Let me read you, on page 9.3-4, 4 what the SSAR said, it-says, "The pumps-and' valves are 5 powered and controlled from separate busses and. circuits so 6 that a single active failure will not prevent system 7 operation."
8 It sounds to me like it is two train powered to:
9 the room.
at 10 MR. JAMES: Yes, itlis, clearly.
11 :MR. CARROLL:~ The-issue is whether you need one 12 pump or two pumps.
.13 MR. MICHELSON:- Each pump is on a separate power
-D 14 supply, and you only need-one pump.
d 15 MR. WARD: -For the-traditional safety related--
16 function, but not for~the ATWS.
17 MR.- MICHELSON: It doesn't:need two for ATWS? l 18 MR. WARD: Yes.
19 MR. MICHELSON: I never caughtithat little 20 subtlety.
21 MR. JAMES: ATWS has nevar been---
22 MR. KERR: .I don't understand-that, I guess, 23- because you' don't ever-need it-unless it fails to SCRAM. So- ;
- i 24 .what is new about'ATWS?: '
25 MR.-JAMES: =Whether you-do or don't have a=
h ANN RILEY & MASSOCIATES, Ltd.
=_ . ' Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950'
d 4.
D- 2 injection rates. If you are trying'to SCRAM, you have a.
3 steady-state reactor that is prcducing Hwer, no
- 4 perturbations, a
- 5 MR. KERR: You don't ever use SLC uniess you fail
. 6 to SCRAM normally, do you?
7 MR. JAMES:- That's correct.
8 MR.-WARD: Dut you don't necessarily have a f
9 transient. The traditional use of SLC is not for a SCRAM 1 -. -
10 attempted against a transient, it is just---
11 MR. KERR: What the traditional use means,-I had 12 thought that a standby liquid control system was put there l
- 13 so that in case the normal SCRAM system didn't work, it Q 14 would shut the reactor.down.
N.)
3 15 MR. CARROLL: It was a design basis.
16 MR. MICHELSON: Isn't ATWS a-transient?
17 MR. JAMES: Right.
1 -
18 j MR. MICHELSON: It is'the pressure transient, . for-
, 19 sure?
I' 20 MR. KERR: I think we are b'eing lawyersJrather-21 than engineers, but I suppose that-is inevir.able.
22 MR. WARD: No, I don't think so.
23 MR.. RUBIN:- ATWS is an event beyond design space.
24 It is a transient with multiple failures, and there is a 25 -special rule, 50.34,.and requires --
.p d ANN - RlLEY & LASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters -
1612 K Street, N.W.,-- Suite 300
- Washington,' D. C.' 20006 (202)_293-3950'
138 MR. THOMAS:
n 1
2 MR. RUBIN:
It is 62.
My apologies, 62, that requirep 3 spec.4al design modifications to give a shutdown wh a .or 4 th4n size vessel, is equivalent to 100 gpa of boron, uut it 5 doesn't require single failure given ATWS, which is already_
6 multiple failures.
MR. WARD: It doesn't have to be single failure 8 proof f,t ATWS.
9 MR. RUBIN: Right.
10 MR. WARD What else is it for?
11 MR. RUBIN There is a requirement for an rod 12 inaependent reactivity control system for shutdown.
13 MR. JAMESt _Then you need a design basis 14 requirement.
15
~
MR. MICHELSON: You are lucky because you need it 16 redundant for the motor operated valves.- You had redundant 17 on the squibs even in the old days.
18 MR. KERRt So the'only way that the_SLC works 19 normally is if-you just decide you don't.want to'use the 20 control rods to shutdswn, and you use SLCS. _Is thatiright?-
21 MR. JAMES: Or you can't use the control rods.
22 MR. WARD: It meets the requirement, what is it, 23 GDC-2690.
24 MR. KERRt I am not talkinct about what it meets, I-
-- 2 5 -am_ talking about how you would use it. . Presumably it'is.put O ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, _- Ltd.:
Coud Reponers -
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.- C. 20006
-(202) 293 3 50
139 1 in there because it makes the reactor less risky than if it 2 weren't there. Under what circumstances does it make it 3 less risky?
4 I guess it is because you decided you didn't want 5 to insert the control rods for some reason, and so you can-6 use SLC. Otherwise, you can't use SLC because it is not a 7 safety device any longer.
8 If you are at a trench, and whatever trench it'is, 9 there is something that maken.you want to shut the reactor 10 down in a_ hurry, but if that occurs, then I don't know what.
11 MR. RUBIN: It is a real requirement in the_ event 12 that the rods-cannot be driven in. Through the hydraulic 13 cor. trol system on past BWRS, if there was a total hydraulio, 14 multiple hydraulic system failure, you could shut it-down 15 using the SLC system.
15 This design has, of. course,-the electric rod 17 insertion in addition, but SLCS still remains to provided 18 the additional _ diverse rod independent function of shutdown,_
19 a design basis requirement.
20 MR. WARD: I guess-my comment is'that the ITAAC 21 doesn't seem to be very clear about this,.and even about the 22 single failure proof nature 02_the design, orfrequirement 23 for design.
24 MR. MICHELSON: It seems to be very clear,=it 12 5 says, " Single active failure will not prevent system O ANN RILEY & - ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
-Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 War.nington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
i 140-1 operation."
3 MR. MICHELSON: No. I am reading now out of the .!
l 4 description in the middle of page 2. l i
- 5 MR. WARD: That is in the description. ;
j 6 MR. MICHEISON: That is a part of it.
, 7 MR. WARD: Well, here we are again.
8 MR. MICHEIEON: In fact, this is the only part l j 9 after fuel loading.
10 MR. CHAMBERS: Again, the issue that it has all j 11 the redundant features necessary to meet single. failure l 12 criteria is a part of the design review, so that is done 13 when the staff signs off on it.
14 That gets translated into some components having i 15 to be there with certain power sources.
16 MR. WARD: So you are.saying that is the -
[
i 17 description that says single fa' lure proof.
1-18 MR. CHAMBERS: Right.
19 MR. WARD: And then_you have to go through, there.
l i
20 are enough individual requirements'on the systems, and so 21 forth, to assure that itJia single failure proof. - -
22 MR. CHAMBERS ' Right. -
. 23 MR. JAMES: I think that's right-because
- 24 fundamentally the ITAACs say' check that this is all here and 1
. 25 then1ITAAC number five says check that these are-
/"T U ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, ' Ltd.-
Coud Reponers-- _
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950:
0
R 141 1 electrically all separate so between the two of thou, it's g_ ,
- 2 confirmed that the system is sufficiently redundant.
3 MR. CARROLL: ITAAC No. 1 needs to say 850 ppm at 4 70 degrees. A concentration in parts per million in 5 meaningless unless you specify the temperature of the water 6 and that's what it says in the design description.
7 MR. KERR: Fahrenheit or Centigrade?
8 MR. MICHELSON: The acceptance criteria under Item 9 1 really needs to be rewritten because it's got the problem 10 of that 25 percent dilution and .~.at it really means. It's 11 not very clear in reading it what it means.
22 MR. RUBIN: The staff has previously commented on 13 that to General Electric and in fact our senior management 14 also does not think that's adequate.
15 MR. JAMES: Is it a matter of it not being 16 adegaate or a matter of not being clear?
17 MR. RUBIN: It's not adequately clear.
18 ( Laughter. )
19 MR. CARROLL: Take that!
20 MR. JAMES: It has 'he c right content, though, 21 right? It just needs to be readjusted. Is that-the 22 sentiment?
23 MR. WARD: I guess they can't be sure.
24 MR. MICHELSON: If.the-850 after the 25 percent 25 correction or before?
n (tf ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i .
142 '
1 MR. JAMES: After.
O2 MR. MICHELSON: That's the way it reads. I ,
3 thought we decided earlier it was before; then you've got to !
4 add 220 to the 850. !
5 MR. JAMES: After everything bad has happened, you 6 still -- everywhere you have got at least --
7 MR. MICHELSON: The correction means that you have 8 got to take what you need, which is 850 and add to it 25 f 9 percent more.
10 MR. CARROLL: That's what the acceptance criteria !
11 does for you.
12 MR. JAMES: It says assuming a 25 percent 13 dilution.
14 MR.-MICHELSON: Do you read it that way?
15 MR. CARROLL: I think so.
16 MR. JAMES: We can clarify it.
17 MR. MICHELSON: I withdraw. Everyone else says 18 it's right, it's got to be right.
19 MR. JAMES: -We are assuming that the people who 20 .are reading these things-are intimately familiar with the 21 design. This isn't meant to be a primer on how the design 22 works.
23 MR. MICHELSON: Right. I thought I understood the l 24 design-too.
25 -MR. CARROLL: .One curious statement that. appears O anu aitev a Associ4Tes, tid.
Court Reporters 4
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 l
143 1 on the top of page 3 is that you are describing what's on 2 your figure. You don't have to put it up. You say all 3 these different things are in the figure with the exception 4 of the simple check valve, and yet you do have check valves 5 on there.
6 What was the point of saying that?
7 MR. JAMES: Got to find the rest of the sentence 8 and refresh my memory here.
9 (Pause.)
10 MR. JAMES: This is referring to what indications
- 11 are in the control room. We are saying that the pump 12 discharge pressure started, et cetera, and open/close 13 indication for valves except control check valves aro e'N 14 i;1, '3 the control room.
k_
15 $h, CARROLL Okay, I'm sorry, I misread it.
16 MR. WARD: Anything else on this section?
17 We are about to leave SLO -- forever!
18 MR. KERR: What do we now conclude -- if you read 19 it carefully it's probably pretty good?
4 20 MR. SHEWEJN: There are a few comments coming I 21 suspect from the Staff.
22 MR. WARD: I don't know.
23 MR. MICHELSON: If you correct all the mistakes in 24 it, it probably will be all right, and I assume they are 25 going to be corrected.
O V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodels 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
144 ;
1 MR. WARD: We ara not responsible for pointing O 2 them all out. You certainly can't depend on us to point j 3 them out, so --
4 MR. KERR Seriously, are we convinced that this 5 approach makes sense once -- or obviously it has to be 6 cleaned up but we are being asked, I think, is to comment on 7 the process. )
8 MR. WMtD I agree. To me it looks like the 9 approach, the process makes sense but there has to be 10 considerable attention to the detail and it doesn't look 11 like Stage! 3 -- is that what we call it? -- Stage-3 is 12 completely scrubbed yet.
13 MR. JAMESt That's clear. I 14 MR. WARD: That's.'my clarification. :
15 MR. JAMES: Is it fair to say that the Committee 16 thinks that the scope of the content, the sis:e of the box is 17- about right? I don't want to'put words in your mouth but 18 from GE's perspective that's the sort of: input we'd be 19 looking for. ,
20 MR. WARD: No, that's my conclusion. .I don't know 21 what other members think about it.
22 MR. CARROLL: Well,.you can't look at that one SLC 23 in splendid isolation. You've also got to -- .
24 MR. WARD: No, we're talking about based on this 25- one, what do weithink.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd..
Court Reporters' 1812 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
.(202) 293-3950-
-, .,& -. , . , -- ,. ;- 4 . . , -, . . - , + ~ . - . . - J - + ,
145 1 MR. CARROLL: Well, I guess I need to know O 2 something more about how the generic ITAACs are going to j 3 look.
4 MR. KERR What do you think of this one? 'f 5 MR. CARROLL I can't look at it by itseAf until I !
6 know what's going to be in a generic ITAAC, in some of the j 7 generic ITAACs.
8 MR. KERR I don't understand the point you are 9 making but --
10 MR. WARD: I think, you know, we've made that 11 point, that we think we need to look at'those, but okay, -
12 then I guess the. question is, is-it appropriate to have-13 these broken down with the generic ITAAC separate from these ;
14 several, these many system ITAACs. ,
15 Do we think there's'some inherent problem in that?
16 MR. CARROLL: No. I think that makes sense.. I 17 guess I couldn't totally sign off'en SLC unless I knew the 18 implication of the generic ITAACs.to SLC.
19 -MR. WARD: I guess the materials thing still 20 bothers me. You rair.ed that, but I. guess-Paul didn't'seen 21 to have a big problem with materials. >
22 MR..SHEWMON: They're specified. Why do'you want 23 to' clutter up ITAACs with that, too?
24 MR. WARD: -Where is_it specified?.
25 MR. CARROLL: -In Tier II.
h ANN RILEY & : ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Court Reporters _
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D, C. 20006 1 (202) 293 3950-
- - -- . _ - . ~ _ . - - - . . .. _-.- . - . - - _ - . .
146 l
1 MR. MICHELSON: It's in the P&ID, the material t
2 line sizes and materials and so forth have to be specified.
3 A lot of the P& ids don't specify that, but that's just a
- 4 stage in our design development.
5 MR. SHEWMON: If I might make an un-regulatory 6 comment, I really trust the utilities and the vendor to make 7 sure that their boron handling facilities are built out of i 8 material that will handle it. That probably shouldn't be 9 said in this forum.
10 MR. MICHELSON: No carbon steel.
11 MR. WARD: Anything_further?
12 (No response.)
13 MR. WARD: We are not making terrific time, but 14 before going to the next ITAAC, I think it would be a good 15 time to take our luncheon break.
16 MR. JAMES:- If_I could be sc bold, Mr. Chairman, 17 you still want to continue with the_ plan.of RHR?
18 MR. WARD: Yes.
19 MR. JAMES: And then control building?
20 MR. WARD: Yes. It's going to_go-a lot faster !
21 after lunch.- We'll take a break'until 1:00..
22- (Whereupon, at-12:00 p.m., the~ Committee recessed 23 for luncheon, to be reconvened this same-date at 1 00 p.m.).
24 25 ANN RlLEY &L ASSOCIATES,_ Ltd.
I.: Court Reporters.
L 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-l l
147
_ . . 1 AFTERNOON SESSION s/ 2 (1 00 p.m.)
3 MR. WARD: Let's pick up again now with the 4 discussion of the R"2 system ITAAC, and that's Mr. Chambers, 5 I believe.
6 (Slide.)
7 MR. CHAMBERSt I guess we're going to talk about 8 the RRR system. I'm John Chambers from GE. I guess we can 9 just dispense with this first one, and get right into the 10 design description.
11 (Slide.)
12 MR. CHAMBERS: This is similar in format to the 13 SLC system where we've just gone through and explained what 14 the design does and what all the important features are.
15 We're waiting for you guys to decide where you have 16 questions.
17 MR. WARD: We're sort of looking to decide.
18 MR. CHAMBERSt Okay.
19 [ Pause.)
20 MR. WARD: You say that the system is entirely 21 designed as a safety-related system; is that right?
22 MR. CHAMBERS: Yes.
23 MR. WARD: You would -- all the functions it 24 performs are single failure proof?
25 MR. CHAMBERS No, not necessarily, and that's why
,m
!J ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 i (202) 293-3950
148 l
1 this statement is made there. Some of the functiono-of the I l
2 system, certain modes are not safety-related functions in '
3 that they're not taken credit for in-the design basis safety 4 analysis.
t
! 5 However, because they use, typically, components 1; 6 that are shared with other functions that are, essentially ,
7 everything is.
l, -
i 8 MR. WARD: So the components are all designed --
1 9 _
MR. CHAMBERS: Wherever we -- we use for non-10 safety related function, they meet that requirement.
i*
11 MR. WARD: But the system is necessarily,-=with
- 12 regard to non-safety functions?
i 13 MR. CHAMBERS: Yes, the only thing I can think of l
14 is maybe the tie to the fuel pool cooling system where it
, 15 provides a backup fuel pool cooling system that's not l 16 necessarily safety-related, but the ability to flood the 17 fuel pool is safety _related.
18 So,.it has a single line, but yet that's a backup 19 function to the fuel pool cooling cleanup system that's e
20 discussed elsewhere, but essentially, it's going to be ,
1 21 single failure proof,- everywhere.
22- (Pause.)
23 MR. CARROLL: Page 2. i 24 MR. WARD: Yes.
25 RMR. CARROLL:' 'In the first complete sentence,~the .
- ANN RlLEY & f ASSOCIATES, .Ltd.
Coud Repoderst ..
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 g ~ Washington, D. C. 20006
.(202) 293-3950
)
149
- 1 LOCA, the energy present within is dumped. That seems like
\ 2 strange terminology to me. Energy present relative to what 3 datum? It's just not a very precise technical statement.
4 MR. CHAMBERS: Basically, that's obviously 5 intended to mean whatever the assumptions are they have to 6 make in doing your Chapter 6 and Chapter 15 analysis. There 7 may be a way we can more explicitly state that.
8 [ Pause.)
9 MR. CARROLL: I guess I was thinking about an 10 intervenor lawyer with a smart technical person.
11 MR. CHAMBERS: Clearly, that's -- as we continue 12 to review these, we're going to have to go back through 13 these with a finer tooth comb, because we're picking up f'T b
14 things that may not be as clear as they could be, and that 15 is the concern.
16 MR. CARROLL: Yes, okay.
17 MR. CHAMBERS: So noted.
18 [ Pause.)
19 MR. CARROLL: I didn't have any more until we got 20 to the ITAAC.
21 MR. CHAMBERS: Any other questions on that?
22 MR. WARD: I have none.
23 MR. WYLIE: At the top of page 4, where you talk 24 about "Each of the three subsystems is powered from," and to 25 me it would be more clearer to say, "Each of the three im V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
150 1 subsystems powered from a separab. Class 1E division bus 2 that can be supplied from either an off-site power or the
, 3 emergency generator."
l
! 4 MR. CARROLL: But you also can power one bus from i
! 5 the gas turbine.
l 6 MR. WYLIE: You can, but --
I l 7 MR. CHAMBERS: You are right, but it is still the l
8 'same bus that you are powering that from. You are powering l 9 that bus from a different source.
l 10 I think we probably should do that on all of
- 11. these. The buc-that supplies power to the pump is the same )
12 bus, it just may get its power from some other source.
l 13 MR. WYLIE: That's right. The combustion turbine l
14 has to be hooked up, in fact, or connectable, j- 15 MR. CHAMBERS: That sounds like a common thing-l 16- that comes up where we probef;1y need to go back. through all 17 the systems and clean that up.
18 MR. CARROLL: Table 2.4.1.
! 19 MR. WARD: Yes, it looks good.: I thought;that 20- section was pretty well done.
21 MR. CARROLL: To me, it was a-better write-up than-22 SLCS, ~ although I- have had the impression SLCS has really had
-23 a lot of-attention'.
24 MR. CHAMBERS: Actually, RHR has, too.- We used 25L RHR in a lot of the early. discussions with NUMARC. So in
. ANN RlLEYL& ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Repo ters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Wuhington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
. - . . . - - - ~
151 1 the background it actually did get a lot of attention early 2 on.
3 [ Slide.)
4 MR. CARROLL: I am on acceptance criteria 2.a, and 5 here you do you use greater than or equal to gpm, but my 6 problem is, at 40 paid, fon't you really have to say what 7 the "d" is, it is vessel to drywe11' pressure?
8 MR. CHAMBERS: Yes. I think at one point in time-9 we did have that in there, and pulled that back out. Yes, 10 clearly that is what we mean.
l 11 MR. CARROLL: You.have described it in the design-12 description that way, but I~ guess my impression is, you are 13- trying to make these tables stand alone.
14 3.a, I don't have Ivan here for help, but what-in 6 15 the world is a heat exchanger, " Effective heat removal-16 capacity.K coefficient?" -
17 MR. CHAMBERS: This is our classic one where;you 18 have difficulty.doing an actual.t.ast to show what you-are 19 really claiming it will do'. one, because part of the. test-20 is really a. start up power ascension test rather than a pre-21 op test. You are not going to get a lot'of --
22 MR. CARROLL: I knov-it for,that-issue,-but what 23 is a K coeffient?-
24 I~am used to thinking of a U'or;a'OA.
25 MR. CHAMBERS:- It:is similar. It-'is an' effective (f ANN RlLEY & - ASSOCIATES,= Ltd.
Court Reporters a y .
/ 1612 K Street,~ N.W., Suite 300 L_ Washington, D. C. 20006 .
-(202) 293-3950:
L :
4- 1 i
152 1 heat removal capacity that takes into account that secondary l O2 side that you are rejecting to, and its specific flow rate I
3 and temperature that you may not know. !
4 We have taken, basically, the ultimate heat sink j 5 temperature and the amount of heat you have to remove from [
6 the reactor, the decay heat you have to remove, and without I 7 knowing the actual size of the heat exchanger, basically 8 just knowing the flow rate through it, this is what you come- ;
9 up with.
10 MR. CARROLL: SoLif I were to go to a modarn book 11 on heat transfer, I would find K coeffients described, it is 12 just that I use McAdams which doesn't have -- )
13 MR. KERRt You can ignore the parenthetical 14 remarks, and just read what it'says.
15 MR. CHAMBERS This is very specifically explained 16 in a table in the SSAR. '
17 MR. KERRt The parenthetical ~ remark is just to i
18 explain-what it means. If you would read that, you would 19 understand. ,
20 MR. CHAMBERS Again, there is a footnote that'is 21 several sentences long,- and it describes how we come up with .
22 ~this number, and what it means,_and that'is in'a specific' ,
23 table in Chapter 6 in the SSAR.
)
i 24 MR. WARD: But the degrees fahrenheit,nthat-is the
]
25 temperature differential between the heat sink and,'I ANN _' RILEY .& L ASSOCIATES, Ltd.- .
Coud Reponerst 1812 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington,- D. C. 20006
- (202) 293-3950_.
153 1 guess --
O' 2 MR. JAMES: It is the hot end and cold end.
3 MR. WARD: Right.
4 MR. CARROLL: So what you are saying under 3, 5 Inspections, Tests or Analyses, is that you are going to, by 6 test, demonstrate tha fl0W rate, and by inspection of vendor 7 test data-demonstrate the effective heat removal capacity.
8 That sounds like you are suggesting the vendor will have 9 done some sort of physical test.
10 MR. CHAMBERS: Yes.
11 MR. CARROLL: He will?-
12 MR. CilAMBERS: Yes. He will have either done a 13 test on the size of the heat exchanger.he is already 14 supplying, so he can certify, yes, it will remove this much
)
15 heat. That is liable to include both, again, some tests and 16 some calculations, but he is going-to have some sort of 17 documentation that says, this heat exchanger is going to 18 remove this amount of-heat, and it will. depend, again, on --
19 MR. CARROLL: That was what was bothering me. You 20 don't really allow for analysis of the way it is written.
21 You are making assumptions.
22 MR. CHAMBERS: But we did say, vendor data.
23 MR. CARROLL: What?.
24 MR. CHAMBERS: How about " vendor data" rather than 25 " vendor test data?"
O ANN RILEY & L ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
_(202) 293 3950
154 1 MR. CARROLL: That would help.
2 MR. CHAMBERS: That is probably more clear. This 3 is one of the areas where I think the staff would say, we 4 want tests in there because we want to make sure that the 5 vendor does a test, and doesn't do something else.
6 MR. CARROLL: But that implies to me that he is 7 going to take the actual heat exchangers you are going to 8 use, which are humongous things, and have a test facility 9 where he can really test these at the heat transfer rates 10 that it was designed for.
11 That is a pretty tall order.
12 MR. CHAMBERS: Right. I would agree.
13 I will scratch this out-for now, and make a point 14 to look into that.
15 MR. CATTON: Is the data standing by itself?
16 MR. CARROLL: I don't think so.
17 MR. CATTON: I don't either. It's still the same.
18 MR. CARROLL: Yes. Test._ data and_ analysis would 19 be better, I think.
20 MR. CHAMBERS: Okay.
21 MR. CATTON: You want-and/or.
22 MR. CARROLL: And/or.
'23 MR. CHAMBERS: Okay.
24 MR. CARROLL:l Ivan, why_ don't you read 3a and tell~
25 me that sounds okay.
O- ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1812 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
Washington, D.- C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950/
_= _ _ _. ._ ..
155 1 MR. KERR: Just look on the slide, Ivan.
O 2 MR. CHAMBERS: Actually, the parentheses there, I 3 think, are in the wrong place; that no, it's not only a K 4 coefficient, but the K coefficient includes tnose items.
5 That's what that's meant to say.
6 MR. CARROLL: That would help.
7 MR. CHAMBERS: The parens are in the wrong place.
8 MR. CATTON: What is the K coefficient?
9 (Laughter.)
10 MR. CARROLL: You are dealing with a professor of g 11 heat transfer fluid flows.
12 MR. CATTON: What is it?
13 MR. CHAMBERS: It's an effective heat removal 14 capacity. It's specifically -- I don't remember what it 15 specifically it. It's explained in a footnote in Chapter 6 16 in the table where we come up with this number. But it's 17 our way of saying what the capability has to be when you 18 don't know what the specific sizes of the heat exchanger is 19 on tt; secondary side.
20 MR. KERR: Ivan, it's a number that you multiply 21 by the difference between the hot inlet temperature and the 22 cold inlet temperature to get the total heat transfer.
23 MR. CATTON: If that's what you mean, why don't 24 you just take that stuff that's in parentheses out of there.
25 Effective heat t.;.msval capability is enough.
O C ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponersi 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 :
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
156 1 MR. WARD: I don't think this is really getting us O 2 anywhere.
3 MR. CARROLL Well -- all right.
4 MP. WARD: Perhaps we should move onward.
5 MR. CARROLL: So I am not as out of date as I 6 thought I was. ,
7 MR. CATTON: They use U. !
i 8 MR. WARD: UA is what I would have called it, but l 9 that's not -- it depends on how U is defined.
10 MR. KRESS: Yes. That's defined in terms of a log l i
11 mean delta T usually. l l
12 MR. HARD: Right. ,
i 13 MR. KRESSt- And this is -- if it's in terms of two 14 inlet values, then it's a different thing.
15 MR. CARROLL Yes. I think that's the 16 distinction.
17 MR. WARD: Okay.
18 MR. CARROLL _Again, this is the_ kind of thing 19 that if it's not well said is going to'cause grief in terms 20 of hearings and stuff.
21 EMR._ CHAMBERS: Well, this certainly becomes a 22 difficulty with these, is how you explain in a few'words 23 what you mean, and that's4why, again, originally sna didn't- r 24 start with numbers._.I mean,cthe real acceptance 1 criteria j 25 here is the containment design pressure doesn't exceed 45 O AR EEY & J ASSMMES, Ud.
Coud Repoders
.1612 K Street, N.W,, Suite 300 L- Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
157 v
1 pounds. But there's a lot of stuff you do to get there, and 2 that's where we kind of settled on, but then it begs a lot 3 more quest. ion.
4 (Slide.)
5 MR. CARROLL: I guess I was a little concerned or 6 confused about Number 16, the jockey pump. What is a keep-7 fill function? Do you mean keep full?
8 MR. CHAMBERSt It'slto make sure tne discharge 9 piping is full to avoid potential water hammer. ,
10 MR. CARROLL: All the-way up to the isolation 11 valve.
12 MR. CHAMBERS: To the discharge -- yes, the vessel.
13 injection valve.
14 MR. CARROLL: .Okay. And.is it keep full or keep 15 fill? ,
16 MR. CHAMBERS: I don't know that there's any big-17 difference there.
18 MR. CARROLL .-Keep filled?
19 MR. CHAMBERS: It's a keep fill system. When you 20 go into tenses, I'm not sure what's the correct tense on 21 that.
22 MR. CARROLL: You can get a technical editor to 23 worry about that.
]
24 MR. KERR It depends on whether you have leakage 25 or nut. If you have leakage,.then it's keep filled. If h ANN RlLEY & _ ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293 3950 1
158 1 there is no leakage, it's keep full.
O 2 (Laughter.)
3 MR. CATTON: If there is no leakage, they do not 4 need it.
5 MR. CARROLL: I guess in inspection test and 6 analysis, I think that was one I did have somn problems 7 with. What do you have to -- what are you demonstrating?
8 What's assumed in terms of leakage or whatever? How big 9 does this pump have to be? How is this demonstration going 10 to be performed?
11 MR. CHAMBERS: Well, that's a good question. I 12 would envision this test being performed is that you have 13 assumed some leakage, you agree that that's a good 14 assumption on leakage.
15 MR. CARROLL: Where do I find where that 16 assumption is, or what is that assumption?
17 MR. CHAMBERS: I'm not sure what it is for'this.
18 Clearly it's in our design: records.- I_ don't even know;if 19- that specific number is discussed in the SAR. The capacity-20 of the pump is, but --
21 MR. CARROLL: ESo,this poor inspector, to sign-off 22 on this particular item, has'got to back to your desP n- 3 23- records?
24= MR. CHAMBERS: No. :For the:- 'again, for-ITAAC,-
25 at a high level,-the important_ function here'is that this -
O ANN KEM ASSOCIMES, ud.
Court Reporters L.1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950.-
_. ___,-,_-_.---.--,-,-,--_--,----u. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. a.ax.-- --- - - - - - - - -
159
- 1 pump is there. It pumps water into this section of pipe,
\# 2 and if you open a high point vent, you get water out.
3 That's how I would write a procedure to do this particular 4 item. To me, that's saying it's keeping the pipe filled.
5 MR. CARROLL: Yes, but it could have a capacity of 6 1 cc per hour to do that.
7 MR. CMAMBERS: Assuming you had less than 1 cc per 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> leakage.
9 MR. CARROLL: Yes.
10 MR. CHAMBERS: Yes.
11 MR. CARROLL: So there's got to be more to it than 12 that. You have to have made some assumption as to how much 13 leakage you have and demonstrate the pump will deal with O 14 that.
O 15 MR. WARD: But it's hardly critical. I mean, it's 16 not a really critical number.
17 MR. CARROLL: I would --
18 MR. WARD: Isn't there room for common sense in 19 some of these things?
20 MR. CARROLL: Well, I don't know. I don't think 21 so. I think you're dealing with a legalistic document, 22 Dave, and common sense doesn't apply, apparently.
23 MR. WARD: Anything else on this table?-
24 (No response.]
25 MR. WARD: On Number 18, we're talking about NPSH q
V AHN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 3 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
160 1 characteristics of a pump. Does this' assume that if these 2 are some sort of a standard designed pump that -- I mean is
! 3 type testing for this sort of thing accepted? Is that whr' 4 this says?
5 MR. CHAMBERS: Well, for the most part, this-is 6 going to be analysic. The vendor is going to say this pump 7 needs X feed of head.
8 MR. WARD: Yes.
9 MR. CHAMBERS:- We're going to have to show that 10 the as-built installation is going to supply that.
11 MR WARD: okay.
12 MR. CHAMBERS: Now, we've already done 13 calculations --
14 MR. WARD: Does the vendor -- my point is, how 15 does the vendor -- how do you support the vendor's claim 16 that it needs X feed of head? ,
17 MR. RUBIN: The-staff has been looking for as-18 built pump head requirements, so we anticipate and we have 19 asked for clarification, which-is'substantially better here 20 than in the first version, that the pump test, the vendor 21 has pump test data that show head' requirements versus.as-22 built construction verification for head available.
23~ MR. WARD: Okay. .But would you insist that it b'e 24 on this particular pump, or'if he has a.--
25 MR. CHAMBERS: We envision this pump. l p
, V ' ANN ' RlLEY1 & ASSOCIATES, Ltd..
. Court Reporters .
1612 K Street, N.W.,- Suite 300 L Washington,' D. C. 20006 >
b (202) 293-3950 l
161 1 MR. WARD: -- catalogue of pump types --
2 MR. CHAMBERS: This pump.
3 MR. WARD: This pump.
4 MR. CHAMBERS: We have actually got some words 5 that we're trying to -- we put together to try to make this 6 more clear, so that we -- when we look at NPSH 7 considerations, we use a standard set of words for each 8 system. That's not' reflected heref that's in the iteration 9 we're going through right now.
10 MR. WARD: But'I mean if these pumps were part of-11 the manufacturer's standard line or something,--it would seen 12 to me the manufacturer could-demonstrcte the NPSH 13 requirement without there being a test or. the pump that was 14 going to go in.
15 MR. RUBIN: Well, pump performance,-safety pump-16 performance is certainly a key safety item. We think-if-17 anything needs to be validated it's that the pump has i
18 sufficient head and its performance-characteristics are.as 19 envisioned when the design was done. So'we think it should 20 be as-built pump performance data.-
21 MR. KERRt . Well,-it's-.one thing to collect a whole 22 set'of data.on head-versus whatever, and it's another thing 23 to demonstrate that the pump ~can provide the amount of water 24_ you need in.a given set of conditionsi isn't it?- Which do >
25 you want?
h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Cowt Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.~, St'ite 300. 1 Washington, D. C. 20006
_(202) 293-3950.
162 1 MR. RUBIN: Well, we want aspects of both.
2 Clearly you can't test a pump installed in the plan. during 3 pre-op tests or ITAAC tests for its full range of expected 4 performance, but you can get -- you can get the minimum 5 flow, the 4200 gpm. But we need also to know that the pump 6 characteristics over a relatively wide range are about what 7 they should be, and the --
8 MR. KERh; Are you going to get those b) test?
9 MR. RUBIN: We would expect vendor test Cata on 10 that pump would be provided, and the COL holder would verify 11 as-built pump performance, he would verify as-constructed 12 head available in the plant to complete the picture 13 analysis and test combined on this issue, and show that pump 14 performance will be adequate.
15 MR. MICHELSON: Why can't you do this after 16 construction?
17 MR. CHAMBERS: Oh, I think we are going to do it.
18 MR. MICHELSON: I thought the inference was that 19 you can't do some of these tests. You can do every one of 20 these tests, and that's traditionally done. It's to an open 21 vessel. It's part of the pre-op program at that stage of 22 the game.
23 MR. CARROLL: He said under every operating 24 condition.
25 MR. MICHELSON: Well, you hit every operating O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Streat, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
^
L ,
163 1 condition in your pre-op test.
O2 MR. CRAMBF.RS: .Not pressurized. Not against 3 pressure, you don't 4 MR. MICHL" 't I be your pardon?
5 MR. CHAMBERS: Not against pressure, you don't.
6 MR. MICHELSON: Well, sure you can if you set up 7 your test right.
8 MR. JAMES: But one key --
9 MR. CHAMBERS: You can't do that during the pre-10 op - --
11 MR. JAMES: With respect to Item 18, which started 12 this discussion, which is NPSH, a key consideration is the 13 suppression pool temperatura. That really is the key 14 determinant on NPSH.
15 MR. MICHELSON: You get your intermediate points, 16 by the way,-by running your test return line, and that's how 17 you pick up the intermediate._ You get your: full' flow' 18 maximum delivery _by_ going _directly to the vessel-because-you- -j l
19 can't get enough through the~ test teturn-line.
20 MR. JAMES: Yes, but --
21 101. MICHELSON:' But_you can get the full range if 22 you want to.
23 MR. JAMES: Not on temperature.
24 MR. CATTON: . But not_on temperature.
25 MR.-JAMES: Just,-to(follow up-the~ statement made-h ANN ' RlLEY- & L ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
. Washington, D. C; 20006 (202) 293-3950 -
164 1 by the staff that you can't duplicate all of the design O 2 basis conditions, a key one you can't duplicate here is the 3 suppression pool tesperature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
4 MR. MICHELSON: Right. Right. And the vendor 5 won't do that, either. I I
6 MR. JAMES: And that's very important to NPSH. H 7 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
8 MR. JAMES: So, you know, you cannot do a test 9 that directly measures NPSH performance.
10 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. But the vendor can't do that ,
1
- 11. either unless he's got a very special laboratory, test 12 laboratory. You can't get the 212 degrees at a vendor shop 13 normally. You're talking now about pumping through a 14 simulated system at 212 degrees with a maximum delivery rate
)
15 of 10,000 gallons a minute,aor whatever these pumps are 16 rated at.
17 That's not a vendor test, either. . They'll do it 18 with cold water, and_you can repeat all those cold water 19 tests and more, too, when you_get to the full-scale plant.
20 .You can pick up all your data points, but it'll be for cold 1 21 water.
22 Now, if you really-wanted to -- nobody'has.ever
- 23. required it -- you could heat the suppression chamber by 24 other means'and gtt the.212 number.too. But I don't think-25 anybody has to do that.
ANN' RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950:-
165 1 MR. JAMES: No.
2 MR. MICHELSON: But it's possib.ie.
3 MR. JAMES: The vendors do do NPSH testing.
4 MR. MICHELSON: Oh, yes. The NPSH test they can 5 do with cold water.
6 MR. JAMES: Yes. In terms of the required head, 7 it's usually more severe at lower temperature conditions.
8 MR. MICHELSON: It is a hot water problem.
9 MR. JAMES: Well, in terms of the required over-10 pressure, it tends to be -- the required over-pressure tends 11 to be more at low hamperatures. With the higher 12 temperatures --
13 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
O b
14 MR.-JAMES: -- you tend to lose the over-pressure.
15 But in terms of the pump performance and the degradation 16 that you get With that inadequate NPSH, it tends.to be worse 17 at lower temperatures.
18 MR. WARD: Anything else on this one? _
19 (No response.)
20 MR. WARD: Well, I guess I don't have a lot of 21 prc.blems with.this. Maybe this is one of the easier ones c.:
22 do or something.
23 okay. So let's go on to the next one. We were 24 going to go to the control. building.
25 ; Slide.)
ANN RILEY &^ ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
, Court Reporters.
1812 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,- D. C. 20006 1 (202) 293-3950
166 s 1 MR. JAMES: I guess I was going to cover the 2 control building. to put out for discussion purposes a "
3 cross-sectional, which is one of tha figures from the Stage 4 3 package.
5 MR. MICHELSON: Do you want to start out with the 6 general description first?
7 MR. JAMES: I guess following the pattern here, we 8 will discuss the design description first.
9 MR. MICHELSON: That first pag), the thickness of 10 the steam tunnel in the SAR is 2 meters. On your ITAAC it 11 is 1.6 meters. Has that been changed or something? '
12 MR. JAMES: Yes. My understanding is it's 1.6 13 meters.
14 MR. MICHELSON: Then you need to cottect the SSAR.
{"')N
~-
15 Amendment 21 still had 2 meters in it.
16 [ Pause.)
17 hR. MICHE160N: One of the things I.cannot find 18 but I am sure it's buried somewhere in all of the paper and 19 that is there apparently is heating and ventilating 20 equipment provided for the L2.et chase which is a part of 21 the control building as well as a part of the reactor 22 building. I can't seem to find those heating and 23 ventilating connections. I am quite interested in
- hem 24 because they are going to have to withstand 11 pounas 25 pressure and I can't seem to find them and here you' allude 1
) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950:
. - . - - - .~ . - . ..
167-.
1 to them as well.
2 -Is there actually a heating - how- do you keep 3 the steam tunnel cool? 'Is that going to be a chill-water 4 -with a local air handling' unit or is-it-going to be part of
- 5 the reactor building closed heating and ventilating system,-
6 or do you know?
j 7 Some way you've got.to take the heat out of the 8 steam chase because it.gets e.wfully hot in there. 4 9 MR. 'AMES: You n" talking about the steam tunnel 10 that runs over here?
l 11 -MR. MICHELSON: Yes, yes.
l- 12 MR. JAMES: That basically communicates with the L
13 turbine'. building. It's closed at one end against the l
I O
I 14 reactor-and open to the turbine building.
15 -MR. MICHELSON: Yes. That was the next question.
l 16 Is there another blow-up panel at the turbine 17 building end of the wall? -You:can't tellifrom. drawings.- .
18 There is one of course between the reactor building and 19 control building. Is there-another. blow-out' panel:in. ,
p -20 between? 1 21 MR. JAMES: Oh,-this just vents right'out'into the 22 turbine building. ;
23 MR. MICHELSON: No, it doesn't quite do that. The 1 drawing show a vent' shaft going up-to'the roo'f so if it's1
~
24 25 got a" vent shaft it better have some kind of plate there to y\
U ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters .
L 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D. C. 20006 L (202) 293-3950L u
i-
,. - .. _ , . . , - , , . - - , - . . , , , - - . . - , - , ,-....m.
- .- .= . - . .
. ~
1 1 l
l 168 !
1 keep it from going into the turbine building and venting 2 out -- it vents at the very high end of-the turbine
~
3 building through a long vent shaft and 7 just wondered ---
4 it doesn't look like a very good natural cooling
- - 5 arrangement, so it must have some1 kind of local cooling.- -
i j 6 You call it a vent shaft, exactly, and it goes and 7 vents at the very top of the turbine building, way above the
- 8 elevation of the lines. It's'shown up tc be :right next to 9 the roof of the turbine building is where it vents out to so in it's not a natural ventilation arrangement with a big, open-11 end hole and a horiuontal run. It's a ve tical run of ,
i
- 1. probably several storeys to a vent shaft opening at the 13 ceiling -- if I believe your SkR-drawings.
14 Now the steam-lines actually penetrate a wall 15 there of some sort and-I assume there's a baffle, otherwise-16 this witole steam vent shaft would.be useless if you didn't 17 divert.
18 I assume it is a: purposeful diversion to the 19 ceiling, therefore cooling of that tunnel is needed.
-20 MR. JAMES: I think we are going tolhave to defer 21 this discussion, Mr. Michelson. Ifcame-prepared to talk 22 abotit the control building.
23 - MR. MICHELSoN: _ Well,.I wondered _how inl--
l 24 MR. JAMES:'~And ventilation'of this is not part'of 25 it, s.o --
l O ANN' RILEY. & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Court Reporters l
l 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 - l Washington, D. C. 20006 i j- (202) 293-39501
l 169 1 MR. MICHELSON: -- wondered how in the control k- 2 building you cooled the steam tunnel.
3 MR. JAMES: In effect, the control building 4 doesn't know this exists in terms of venting and HVAC. That 5 is part other systems. I have to defer discussion to 6 another time. .
/ MR. MICHELSON: That's fair enough. Fair enough.
8 MR. BURTON: Excuse me, Mr. Michelson. This is 9 William Burton, Plant Systems Branch.
10 There is a sephrate main steam tunnel HVAC system.
11 It runs off of the secondary containment HVAC.
12 MR. MICHELSON: Is it bringing air-into the steam 13 tunnel or is it bringing chilled water to the local air G 14 handling units within the tunnel?
b 15 MR. BURTON: If my memory serves, you are asking 16 about the cooling coils and what they are cooled by. I 17 believe that's HVAC normal cooling wat: .. I'd have to --
18 MR. MICHELSON: Oh, no. I think you are missing 19 my point. How do you get the cool air in and out.of the 20 tunnel or do you do it by cooling the air locally with an 21 air handling unit?
22 MR. BURTON: Oh, I see.
23 HR. MICHELSON: Because it makes a big difference.
24 If you go with the heating and ventilating external, it's 25 got'to have 11 pound rated ductwork and baffles, dampers and (n) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,' Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
170 l I
1 so forth,'and;I doubt that you can buy them for 11 pounds !
2 differential.
3 MR. CHAMBERS: I am pretty sure.these are local 4 area coolers.
5 MR. MICHELSO:4- I couldn't find them. I looked.
6 I didn't look hard but it will come up later at another
- 7 meeting.
8 I nave no other questions on the first page.
9 MR. CARROLL: Ist's go to page 2.
10 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
11 (Slide.)
12 MR. MICHELSON: On page-2, a few lines down from-l 13 the top, you talk about a detailed analysis of the site-l 14 specific control building design. I assume =that this is-15 going to be a standard design.and not a site-specific 16 control building design but I am not-sure when I read _those 17 terms what it meant.
18 MR. JAMES: :Yes,.those terms are a little 19 misleading. .The answer:is that-it-will be one design, at.
1 20 this level of design definition.
21 MR. 'MACHELSON: Be a standard design though.
22 MR. JAMES: -At-this-level.of: design definition, 23 that-is correct.
24 MR. MICHELSON: - Okay. - If I went toisix sites of-25 this' plant I'd. find exactly the same1 design at.six sites?
l l
- ANN RiLEYL& ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders - . _ ,
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
_ Washington, D C. 20006 ;
- . .(202) 293-3950i l 1
171 1 MR. JAMES: At least ca defined at this levol, (3
\~) 2 yes. Whether they have all got the same rebar patterns in 3 every --
4 MR. MICHELSON: I just wondered, the configuration 5 in general though is not site specific?
6 MR. JAMES: The basic strategy is this design has 7 been the design for envelope of seismic conditions and 8 tornado, et cetera, and it's portable to a number of sites 9 but in each site you'll have to make sure the site 10 parameters are within the bounds of the seismic and tornado, 11 et cetera, we assumed.
12 MR. MICHELSON: Down near the bottom of the page 13 you have five items relating to internal flooding.
/'%g 14 The first item dea's with elevation differences V 15 and divisional separations for the remainder of the control 16 building. What do you mean for the remainder? What is that 17 sentence about?
18 MR. JAMES: That means within the control 19 building, where there can-be flooding, on this section it's 20 these lower floors but these three zones here are basically 21 the three divisions --
22 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
23 MR. JAMES: Where flooding can occur here there 24 are elevations, more elevations or water-tight doors that 25 separate them.
V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders l 1812 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
_L___-._m_:_____ . _ - - . . - _
172 1 MR. ' MICHELSON: . As a matter of fact, of course,-
\- -
2 water-tight doors internally are only at the lowest ,
3 elevation. Externally they are up at this.-- there is one 4 between there and the service building.at the higher 5 elevation.
6 MR. JAMES: Yes, there's a couple. There's one-7 here and there's one there.
8 MR. MICHELSON: But internally they are only at 9 the lowest elevation,-and water tight doors?
10 MR. JAMES: That's correct.
11 MR. MICHELSON: At least that's what-is shown in 12 your drawings.
13 MR. JAMES: That's correct, yes.
14 MR. MICHELSON: Now the second item says now I 15 have got a drainage system to divert water to assigned-floor 16 and location.
17 What are you saying there?' We do not have any 18 details on drainage systemscin the-SSAR.= I-can't find-a -
19 drain drawing anywhere, or even the criteria for drainage.
20 MR. JAMES: Fundamentally what ve'reLsaying is 21 that if there's any leakage.or. water-injection?tolany of 22 these zones, it will be -- -it will either: be held upL at - the 23 floor: level here by sills ~or there will:be drainage systems i- 24 that take it down-into'the basement.
a 25 For-example,11f-there's some' pipe chases-that run' l
h ANN RlLEY ' & ' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters
-1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950'
173 1 up these walls that contain the RCW water --
L~ 2 KR. MICHELSON: Somewhere, I'd like to be assured 3- that'all your~ drain systems are'divisionalized.- I can't 4 find that criterion anywhere, and it's not being checked by 5 an ITAAC,-but can you assure me.that you're going to specify 6 divisionalized' drainage systems? Is there somewhere where
'7 drainage _-- is somewhere in the SAR where I can find a 8 description and the requirements.for drainage systems?-
9 They're extremely _important from the flooding-viewpoint.
10 They've got to be divisionalized, otherwise you 11 end up draining your water into the opposite division 12 through a drain line.
13 MR.-JAMES: .They've-clearly got to be 14 divisionalized, there's no-question about_that..
15 MR. MICHELSON: But somewhere, you're: going to.put 16 those requirements in, I assume?,
~
17 MR. JAMES: Yes.- I'm pretty sure they're in the 18 SAR as is, but:I'll confirm that.
-19 MR. MICHELSON: .That may be.- I.think they_.'re 20 'important enough that they should'be verified in-the'ITAAC 21 that you,-indeed,-have divisionalized. -We've got,too much 22 experience with people discovering water coming in where-it -
23 should never come in,.and it'certainly ought to be checked.
24 MR. CARROLL: ' I definitelyfthink that belongs'in-25' -the ITAAC.-
ANN RILEY- & ASSOCIATES, lLtd.
Coud Reponers -
1812 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
t 174 1 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, it belongs in there 2 somewhere.
3 MR. SHAW: It's possible in the-floor drain-4 system in a different ITAAC. Robert Shaw from GE. It may 5 be in the floor drain ITAAC.-
6 MR. MICHELSON:. Is there a.section-somewhere in 7 the SSAR called floor drain systems?
8 MR. CHAMBERS: Yes.
9 MR. MICHELSON: Do you happen to know the number?
10 I'll look it up. If you just tell me._where to head,-I'll 11 read it. 'I looked, but-I didn't look exhaustively; I got--
12 exhaustive looking and I didn't find it. I'm sure it must 13 be in there somewhere,.but that criterion, I think, needs to 14 be pulled out for important buildings like the control' ,
15 building to make sure that they assure divisionalized 16 drains.
17 of. course, the same is-true of HVAC, but there, 18 that's well defined in the SAR and I have no' problem. Now, 19 - at'the bottom of page 2, you talk about the steam tunnelihas 2 0 -- 'the main steam piping.and the feedwater piping and there'are 21 no penetrations and a high energy line break will vent-out 22 of the turbine building.
23- Now, somewhere, there_has..to be'an analysis in the 24 -SSAR that confirms what:the; maximum pressure _will--be'when
- 25 venting out of the turbine _ building from the~. worst' case-l - (j l
- ANN- R! LEY _L& ASSOCIATES, Ltt'n i
. Court Reporters
. 1612 K Street,- N.W.~, Suite 300 -
Washingto_n, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
175 1 break, and I-found a number of 11 pounds, which is the
-2 answer, but not the method or the ---I don't know what:
3 technique they used. I don't know whether it's a e 'd 4 calculation,_-bad,' indifferent or a; guess.
5 But certainly you must have detailed calculations
~
6 because this is an extremely important number. You can blow-7 the building apart-if you're off-too far. Eleven pounds;is 8 already getting tough for a building. You build a box out 9- of concrete for li-pounds and_'it's getting there. This is-10 not cylindrical; it's a box.
11 I just wondered, where is the -- somewhere have 12 got-to be the calculations and the - _now, what youtdo atL 13 the ITAAC stage is look at the-actual,'in-place plant and go 14 back to see if it's confirmed by the calculation and confirm-15 that the assumptions in the calculation were all= met by the 16 design in place. It's-just as important as-ECCS.
17 MR. CHAMBERS: Clearly, we've.done those 18 calculations.and we've submitted those results to the staff...
19 I believe we've had-some extensive discussions on them and 20 they might have even been out to-San Jose to look at'the 21 actual calculations. Clearly, that's a lot offdetail1that
- 22. often doesn't get_into the SAR. ;It's in our: design records.
23 MR.-MICHELSON: But now with this -- would 'to -
24-' -ITAAC confirm that thescalculations are verified by the --
25 and the assumptions'in'theLealculationsJare verified by the -
h ANN RILEY ;& ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders _ _
<1612 K Street,.N.W.,- Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 J
176 1 as-built plant?
\. 2 MR. JAMES: The sequence would be, we assume that 3 the analyses were done and that the it was confirmed that it-4 would be 11 PSI and you need this design to withstand 11-5 PSI. The intent of ITAAC would strictly now be to confirm -
6 that this has got built to the right dimensions and has the 7 right characteristics.
8 MR. MICHELSON: That's right, and that the Wall
~
9 thicknesses-are what you assumed in the calculation andTso 10 forth.- For-instance, maybe I did the calculation with a 1.6-11 meter wall -- I mean, a 2 meter wall and now you've got a ,
12 1.6 meter wall and has the calculation been rerun since you 13 come up with the 1.67 'I assume it has.
{ 14 MR. JAMES: Yes.
15 MR. MICHELSON: You've got to make sure the 16 structures will withstand -- the thinner structure.will
- 17 still withstand the pressure of the event.. I assume it-has.
18 MR. JAMES: I assume it has,-and-we'll certainly, 19 confirm it. I think--the point is' worth making that that
- 20 issue is really an SAR review issue.
l-
, 21 MR. MICHELSON:- I think it's a-verification issue
~
22 to the extent _that the assumptions used'in determining that 23 11 pounds was your pressure are still fulfilled:by.the as- -
- . 24 placed design, as-built plant.-
25 MR. JAMES: -Yes,.but-the ITAAC-is strictly it does O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-.
Court Reporters -
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300.- l Washington, D. C. 20006 l 1(202) 293-3950:
1 177 1 the design correspond to the design that was found V 2 acceptable in the SAR? Does it have the right wall' 3 thickness, the right-vent?
4 MR. MICHELSON: Well, --
5 MR. JAMES: There's no question that ITAAC would E be a rerun of the analysis of that.
7 MR. MICHELSON: Did I miss it, or somewhere in 8 here, did you discuss that the inspection is to verify the ;
9 calculation then, which is what you would really want to do?
10 MR. CHAMBERS: The calculation is already done-and 11 approved. We just need to verify key assumptions-in the 12 calculation.
13 MR. MICHELSON: You have to verify that the key 14
{}
Ad assumptions made in the calculation are still fulfilled by 15 the design.
16 MR. CHAMBERS: Which, in this case, is wall ,
17 thickness.
18 MR. MICHELSON: Well, there are others that I'm 19 going to get to. I'm sure you've got penetrations of this 20 wall. You have to get in there with the HPCI,-RCIC return 21 line. You have to get into there with the reactor water-22 cleanup line. Several penetrations of this tunnel have to 23 occur in the reactor building side.
24 Now those penetrations are designed for 11 pounds 25 and-that's another problem, designing pipe penetrations for n.
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
178 1 high pressure. It can be done; it just takes a special kind
,Q b 2 of penetration.
3 I don't find the information in the SSAR that 4 you're going to do it, nor do I find the confirmation in 5 here that it's been done right.
7 MR. MICHELSON: In the ITAAC, yes. That's really 8 what I'm asking. Now, for the control building, you assured 9 me there are no penetrations,-therefore, it's a non-problem 10 in the control building, except for heat removal.
11 It certainly is a problem in the reactor building.
12 It certainly also is a problem of that blowout panel that's 13 going to be put in there. I don't know anything about the
") 14 blowout panel, other than there's going to be one. There's 15 one shown on a drawing.
16 I don't know what it's rated for, when it opens, 17 how it opens, whether it blows away, tears out, what it 4
18 does. There's just nothing. I think'that it's a very 19 important component and there should be;enough in the ITAAC 20 so'that the presence of that component is verified at the 21 time the plant is allowed to operate. That blowout panel is 22 extremely important.
23 MR. CARROLL: The present and the design. l 24 MR. MICHELSON: .Yes, and the design acceptability.
25 Well, it's more the -- the design, hopefully, is right, and 4
o L/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
179 1 then-you just put it in right.
b
\2 2 MR.' CHAMBERS: Yes. Again, its presence might be- !
-3 something-that falls into ITAAC.- How much of'the design 4- . details, again, that's a judgment call.
5 MR. MICHELSON: I guess that probably the reactor 6 building ITAAC, since it's-between the reactor and the 7 control building; but.I think it's considered a part of the 8 reactor building.
9 MR.' JAMES: I don't think so.
10 MR. MICHELSON: Is it part of the control 11 building?
12 MR. JAMES: I don't think'that blowout' panel into 13 the turbine building _is' covered under-the reactor building.
14 MR. MICHELSON: Oh, I didn't look. I didn't have' 15 time to go through everything. But it should be. It's 16 somewhere. It's either_got to'be on this building or on.the-17 other, because it's in between the two. And there should be 18 some requirement to verify that it's there and it's;what-l- 19 it's supposed to-be.
20 Now there may even have.to be a test requirement.
21 on it, I don't know. What does it look like?' WhatLis there 22' there to test? I have no idea. I don't' know.if it's a 23 rupture disk or a swinging-door or just what. Okay.
24- (Slide.]
25 MR. MICHELSON: I've got-another problem-at the-O)
( ANN RlLEY .-&. ASSOCIATES, ' Ltd.
COud RepOders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293G50 '
180 1 very top of page three. Now we're talking about_the B1 ;
I,)
-\ ' 2 floor, which is the first floor of the basement of the 3 control building; is that right?
4 MR. JAMES: ' Right. Yes.
5 MR. MICHELSON: It's the first floor below grade.
6 Apparently you've got some drains in there that, 7 if you rupture the fire hose, it drains over to the reactor 8 building, which is the only place you've got a minus 82 9 elevation. You don't have that in the -- let's see, does 10 the control building have a minus 8200?
11 MR. JAMES: Yes. Right here.
12 MR. MICHELSON: It does? Okay. Well, maybe --
13 MR. J AMES : Yes. That's basically if there's fire
(~N 14 system ruptures --
15 MR. MICHELSON: Okay.
16 MR. JAMES: -- up here. That was part of the 17 drain that we talked about earlier.
18 MR. MICHELSON: That's 8200 in the control 19 building it drains to?
20 MR. JAMES: It drains down into here.
21 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. I understand. Thank you.
22 Okay.
4 12 3 That's all I had on the description.
24 [ Slide.]
25 MR. CARROLL: On the ITAAC,-I guess I don't find-() ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W.,-Suite 300
~ Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
I 181 s . .
3 7-11 the acceptance criteria in two very satisfying. _You say
% 2 you're. going to review the' construction records and visually i
i 3 inspect flood control features. If-there's a -- for.
4 example, a -- 2.C, if there's.a water-door I'm happy.as;the 5 inspector. I guess I'd want to know a little bit more. Is
! 6 -it a water-tight door that's rated for *Ne assumed flooding,-
!.- 7 or is it -- where it says penetration -- piping penetration?-
l 8 Is the penetration -- was it properly specified for the-1 9 flooding condition? I'm back to" Carl's point. That-doesn't-i 10 say it. It just says if somebody can take me out and point 11 me at a water-tight door I should be happy.-
~
12 MR.HJAMES:- Well, yes. The underlying assumption-13 is that-if it's there it will have been provided to meet all 14 of the requirements that.were identified-for it. Since-this
- 15 is a seismic category one building, thatithatLwould be' l-16 subject to the regular QA processes,.to make sure all the-i 17 equipment gets delivered per requirement.
- 18 MR. CARROLL
- All right.
19- FGl. JAMES: That's the underlying' assumption.
20 MR. MICHELSON: - But the design-. requirement for the
- 21 dcor should be in the SSAR,Las to the_ head requirement and 4- 22- so,forth, and I couldn't' find those; water-tight-doors-23 specified as-to the head they must withstand. . I'm sure 24 you've got some_ number in mind, but=I don't know what it is.
125 Maybe11t's in there and I' haven't found it. I'll admit-l nfs !
<V
+-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders i
1612 K Skeet, N.TN., Sune 300
~
- Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
182 l
-s 1 that's a possibility. But those water-tight doors have to
\ -) 2 be at least specified in the SSAR so the inspector, if he 1
l 3 wants, can look them up.
4 MR. CARROLL: Has the staff looked at this point?
5 MR. BURTON: Yes. Butch Burton, Plant Systems 6 Branch.
7 Yes. One of our comments, after review of the 4
8 Stage Three ITAAC, was specifically that the water-tight 9 doors -- you need to identify what's the maximum static of
, 10 water load they need to withstand.
11 MR. CARROLL: And penetrations?
12 MR. BURTON: And penetrations.
13 MR. MICHELSON: The most important thing -- you're r~T 14 going to have to review the analysis, and none has been V,
15 provided I don't believe thus far for flooding in the 16 control room -basement -- or control building basement, so 17 that you know what the anticipated elevation might have been 18 in order to know that the doors are selected correctly.
19 MR. BURTON: Yes. I want to say_one thing about 20 the doors and the penetrations. There was an analysis 21 submitted for a break in the reactor service water piping.
22 And, you know, we've gone through several iterations of that 23 -- the latest assumed drainage in two or three kilometers of 24 pipe and the resulting water level.
25 Our comment was either that the penetrations (R
t) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud Repoders .
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 J
183 7- 1 either be placed above that maximum anticipated water level
~- 2 or that the penetrations wuuld, in fact, be able to 3 withstand that static load.
4 MR. MICHELSON: But you also have to know whether 5 or not you have already draineu the ultimate heat sink into 6 the control building without isolation. You have to get 7 somebody to tell you what the design arrangement is and the 8 single failure assumption will be and so forth before you-9 know how much water you're even dealing with.
10 MR. BURTON: Right. As part of that --
11 MR. MICHELSON: I haven't seen any of that 12 information yet.
13 MR. BURTON: Well, as part of the reactor service 14 water system, we've gotten that.
()g
\_
15 MR. MICHELSON: So you now how -- are they using 16 redundant isolation valves on both the supply and return?
17 MR. BURTON: Yes.
18 ICR. JAMES: With automatic isolation from level 19 centers in there.
20 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. Then you're getting in the 21 right direction. So, all you deal with now is the time 22 delayed to isolate and whatever water comes in during that 23 period nd .ltimately drains from the pipes themselves on 24 both the supply and the discharge sides?
25 MR. BURTON: Right.
b AMN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
! Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950 l
1 184 hR. MICHELSON: Okay.
2 And that gives you several feet in the basement?
3 MR. BURTON: That's right.
4 MR. MICHELSON:
5 On just the one compartment?
MR. BURTON: That's right.
6 MR. MICHELSON:
7 Hopefully there's no drain lines 8
in the meantime that have gotten to the other compart ments.
Yes. Okay.
9 MR. BOYCE:
10 This is also one of the analyses we've 11 asked GE to cross-reference and show us where technical 12 features resulting from the analysis have been incorpor ae t d into the design in both the SSAR and the ITAAC 13 list.
It's on the 14 MR. JAMES:
15 Perhaps we'll demonstrate where our features are addressed in the ITAAC.
16 MR. BOYCE:
17 That's my only point -- is that the 18 road maps -- we've asked for a road map in this area , and i that you're working on that.
19 MR. JAMES:
20 You seemed to indicate we were road-21 mapping the SAR and that's not what we're doing.We're 22 taking the SAR and identifying where in the ITAAC it si being treated.
23 MR. BOYCE: Okay.
24 The road map -- we can work out exactly what we mean.
25 But the road map that you've indicated here in your stage three submittal i ncludes SSAR I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
.i
(
185 1 entries and cross-references them to the ITAAC..
2 MR. JAMES: Yes.
3 MR. BOYCE: I'm envisioning, or at least my 4 concept was you'd be doing a similar pattern for these sorts 5 of analyses?
a 6 MR. JAMES: Yes. Exactly.
7 MR. BI,YCE : All right. We're-saying the same
. 8 thing.
j 9 MR. MICHELSON: One other item now. Your item F, 10 under external. flooding is dealing with the steam tunnel.
11 'You. talk about high energy breaks being vented. That's ,
12 good.
- 13 The next question.is though, since you're not 14 taking leak before break in that line, have you done the -
15 analysis to determine the thickness of walls relative to jet 16 impingement and pipe whip into the walls? And'where would I 17 find that analysis?
18 MR. JAMES: Well, that's just a' subset of the 19 earlier discussion of where the subcompartment analysis 4- 20 : package is.
21 MR. MICHELSON: :I'm'not dealing nor with the
~22 pressure effects, but rather the whip' effects.
You standard-23 review plan 3.6.1 requires that you-take a worst: case' break j.
24 and check the wall's. ~ \nd it's an arbitrary break, in that-t 25 ~ case, for. checking the structures. -And you have' agreed to
~ G
. Q. ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd..
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950': .
- y g- ,-
l 186 1
,-s that in another part of the SSAR and there's no problem
'- 2 there. But I just wonder where does that kind of an 3
analysis show up, so people can verify that they agree with 4 the analysis? And maybe there's certain aspects of the 5
analysis assumptions that have to be verified at the time 6 the plant is built. I don't know, because we don't know 7
hangar arrangements and a lot of other things.
8 I just wondered how do you handle the pipe whip 9 jet impingement questions on the steam tunnel?
10 MR. JAMES: I'm sorry. I have to give you the 11 same answer. We really didn't come equipped with the people 12 --
13 MR. MICHELSON: Okay.
14 MR. JAMES:
('] -- to discuss the details of that.
< \_/
15 MR. MICHELSON: I'll leave it 's kind of open.
16 MR. BOYCE: Carl, I think that's -- 1sn't that in 17 piping DAC SAR, a discussion of it?
18 MR. MICHELSON: There's some discussion in there, 19 but that's the general discussion. And you do have to do a 20 specific analysis on that steam tunnel, taking the worst 21 case location and break the pipe circumferentially and look 22 at the whip.
And that depends on where you put all your 23 strengths and everything as to what the worst whip is. And 24 you've got to make sure of that. I think there is probably 25 substantial wall there, but I can't prove that until you do
(,
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun RepOners 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
187 1 the analysis.
S 2 MR. LYONS: This is Jim Lyons from the-Plant 3 Systems Branch. But thatcis part.of the ining DAC, is 4 determining the pipe-locations-and deterr ' the dynamic 5 effects.
6 MR. MICHELSON: Then that's. assumed nat that will 7 be done at all locations in the buildings? Because it ,
8 doesn't say just steam tunnel.
9 MR. LYONS: It's not just steam' tunnel.
10 MR. MICHELCON: It's'a general---
11 MR.=LYONS: It's throughout, yes.
12 MR. MICHELSON: ' And-I'll just assume they.do the-13 same thing in the steam tunnel? You are supposed to know 14 the same thing'is being done.
15 MR. BOYCE: You may want to goirecheck that1and
. 16 what the piping'DAC actually says.= I'm trying to remember 3 17_ if it actually says that there will be a-corresponding check 18 within each compartment in each building. And I don't q 19 recal]'that~it says-that.
20 MR.; MICHELSON: That's11nferred. Because, as-I:
21 recall, it says they're going to use a1standardireview plan.
22 Andfif you_use a standard review-plan, it:will:get'you into 23 all of -- it will get you-in therright places all right.
.24 It's a good standard review-plan. You-just'hase to make
-25 sure that it's carried out and verified;that it=vas carried-
- b. ANN :RlLEY: &. ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- COud Reponers -
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..______--_m_______---__---- 'I
. . . - . .- . - - ~= -
i' 1.
188-1 out. And it's the verification part that I'm wondering i -
, %s 2 about getting done when you con't flag it.
3 You see, all it takes is.one little statement
- 4 here, just like the "F" Statement, you've got a "C" under 5 that because you now want to-verify the-pipe whip and jet
- 6 impingement effects, except it isn't quite internal-flooding-t i 7 either. It's another category you'd have to put in.
i l
8 MR. LYONS: We.have that same comment in our 9 comments.
! 10 MR. MICHELSON: All right. Good. Thank you, j 11 MR. CARROLL: Let's-see. We,'a bit ago, were h 12 talking about this issue under two of -- it sounds'like what 13 the inspector does is just making sure it's-there. And you i
/'- 14 made-the comment that that's all he really has-to do because
.k
! s- -
15 the QA program is going to assure ~the right thing was a
16 procured and installed. I think that's<an_important point
- 17 that wo cught to take note of.
18 .You can almost get rid of'all theiacceptance l
19 criteria if you wanted to. hide behind that enough. LSo, what l
- 201 we're dealing.with here is kind of~a question of judgment as
- j. 21 to where you apply.that concept, as opposed to having some '
L p 22 numeric acceptance criteria.
-23 MR. JAMES: Yes.
24- MR. CARROLL:. That's just-a-comment on my yert.
25 -I'm not asking;you a question. -That's-the status.
P g-- .
- ( ANN RILEY & .' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders ..
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
.(202) 293-3950:
189 7- 1 MR. JAMES: Then again, lik3 I said this morning,
(' ' ~ 2 it gets to the heart of one of the discussions here is how 3 much is in ITAAC and how much is in the regular Part 50 QA 4 processes. Because there are thousands and thousands of 5 commitments in the SAR, and we're not checking them all with 6 ITAACS. It's just a matter of being selective on the top 7 most important stuff.
8 MR. CARROLL: OkGy. Now, I think that's it.
9 MR. MICHELSON: Why don't we go to the next page.
10 (Slide.)
11 1R. MICHELSON: Under item four, tornado 12 acceptance criteria, you indicate that the roof and walls 13 above grade are designed for greater than a half a meter. I
('T 14 don't know if you meant to say it quite that way, but that's V
15 not my point. My point is I believe the roof is three-16 tenths of a meter and the walls are a half a metar. You 17 might want to correct -- even your drawings show that. You 18 can see that the roof is thinner than the side walls above 19 grade. Part of it is at least. See, it actually goes 20 through a structural change before it gets to the top floor 21 and shows at least thinner walls. The roof is clearly 22 thinner than the lower part above-grade. I found the 23 numbers in the SSAR and they said the roofs were three-24 tenths.
25 The main reason for raising this question though p.,
(> ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
190 1 was is three-tenths good enough for tornado? Because maybe i7D
-' 2 -- if this is under tornado and you're saying they're a 3 half, and I say, okay, you've checked it and a half is 4 certainly good enough. Is three-tenths good enough?
5 MR. CARROLL: Well, I guess another basic question 6 is how do we have these kind of errors?
7 MR. JAMES: Well, it's not an error. I guess I'll 8 have to say it again. It's the synchronization in the SAR 9 versus ITAAC preparation.
10 MR. CARROLL: Yes. But it's the kind of thing 11 that can get you into deep trouble if somebody doesn't, at 12 some point, bring everything into synchronism. I 13 MR. JAMES: Well, that's right.
1 That's part of J
(^'s 14 the plan. The SAR has got to be upgraded to reflect all the K- / f 15 !
design changes that have been promised. And part of the I 16 plan for the ITAACs is in like November there will be a QA i
17 cycle through this to verify that tne ITAACs are compatible i
18 with the SAR. But the SAR is a moving target so we can't do 19 it right now. So, maybe I'm giving you a defensive reaction 20 when somebody uses the word error. But, to a large extent, 21 it's a synchronization problem rather than outright errors.
22 MR. MICHELSON: An inconsistency.
23 MR. JAMES: Yes.
24 MR. MICHELSON: For whatever reason.
25 MR. JAMES: Right. It's inconsistent. But --
("'N V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) P93-3950
191 1 MR. WARD: Well, what, in this case, what drove
' 2 the change? &
I mean apparently,'at one point, the roof-was 3 going to be half a meter thick and, for.some reason, there's 4 a change? Have the designers -- I mean,-when you say it's 5 synchronization --
6 MR. JAMES: The control building has gone through 7 a couple of design cycles here. I haven't been intimately-8 involved in the cycles. But there-have been a-couple of 9 cycles. And also, as I remember, the design basis tornado- 1 10 changed fairly recently. So that required a-redesign of the 11 control building.
12 Mk. WARD: .W ell, what was the change'in the. design 13 basis tornado? What's that about?
A 14 MR. JAMES: About 280 miles'an hour to 300 miles
.d 15 an hour. Plus there was an increase'in the definite,.or --
16 MR. MICHELSON:- That would thicken the walls, not 17 thin-them.
18 MR. LYONS: Jim Lyons-again.
I don't-.know what 19 the numbers are, but it was my understanding that, based on 20 the. design basis, some of-the building walls-and; ceilings 21 and. roofs were going to have toibe made. thicker. And that 22 would cause -- there is a cascading effect there-that.would 23 cause that.
24- -MR. MICHELSON: Three tenths of a meter-is getting 25 a little thin for some-of.these big telephone poles..
/'
d ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Court Raporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
.. _ =
192 1 MR CHENG: This is Tom Cheng with Structural ib) -2 ; Engineering, Science Branch.
3 Based op our understanding of-the design basis
'4: tornado, the maximum wind speed increased from 260 miles'per 5 hour to 300 miles pcr hour and also the missile spectrum 6 being redefiaed. So, in doing this, our.-- the staff
~
7 already noticedLthat the reactor' building roof and the wall 8 would be thickened. And I would assume the same thing would 9 happen for control building. 'So, I think it is a redesign 10 process.
11 MR. MICHELSON: As long as you are aware of it, 12 that's fine, 13 MR. JAMES: -So, _
these numbers will all probably.
14 change a.little bit.
15 -MR..MICHELSON: The next item under tornado was 16 the HVAC dampers being-greater than 1.46' psi differential 17 capability. I didn't_have any time to-check this out,-but 18 it sounded-low'because'_I assume you're still'. designing for a 19 three psi differential on tornado vacuum, or-are you?
20 MR.-CHENG: The pressure drop also-has been 21- redefined.
22 MR. JAMES: -Yes. This number-has changed as a-23 Lresult of'the decign:ba' sis - :
-24: MR. CHENG: Yes. Being; redefined.- If1you want to 2 5 -- know the number, I_have it-in here.-
q ANN L RlLEY & : ASSOCIATES, Ltd. -
Court Reporters 1 _
1612 K Street, N.W.,~ Suite 300
, : Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
193 i
1 MR. MICHELSON: No, no, no. It does look a little 7-
' 2 low here. But I just wanted to see where to find it. But, 3 if it's still in flux, I don't need to know.
4 MR. CHENG: I think the whole table for the sight 5 parameter is 2.0-1, being redefined.
6 MR. MICHELSON: Now the item six on that same page 7 is getting into the question raised much earlier this 8 morning, where now you're specifying compliance t'_th ACI and 9 AISC. You're going to find out how to do that?
10 MR. JAMES: Well, that gets to the heart of a lot 11 of these comments that we're getting in this.
12 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. ' just bring it to your 13 attention to circle or check, if you decide to change it.
l
(~' 14 MR. JAMES: It's crucial to our discussion of L,
15 ITAAC.
16 MR. MICHELSON: But that's a legal isJue as much 17 as anything I gather.
18 MR. JAMES: But if you really wanted to show 19 compliance with these codes, you'd end up writing a manual 20 this thick, because there are literally hundreds of issues 21 here.
22 MR. MICHELSON: But if you reference the code 23 apparently you're writing it into the rule.
24 MR. JAMES: You're referencing the code and j 25 you're, in effect, giving a very slushy acceptance criteria, lI V> ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. o Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950 i
4.h__L_mMJ 4-M. - _ h _ __
194 1 which is a barn door for legalistic challenges.
2 MR. MICHELSON Yes. Okay.
3 MR. JAMES: But we don't know how to do it tighter 4 without writing a designers manual over here for literally 5 hundreds of issues that you've got to demonstrate compliance 6 with the concrete codes.
7 The utility perspective on that is remove the 0 whole item. But we haven't discussed theit approach with the 9 staff yet.
10 MR. BOYCE: Is this a case where the specific 11 addition of the codes and standards in the specific 12 applicable por*fons would be specified in the SSAR?
13 MR. JAMES: -Not really.- The issue just referencer 14 the code like that. If you really go through an engineering 15 analysis of how you demonstrate comp 1hnce, there's 16 3iterally hundreds of steps. There's concrete quality and 17 rebar and slump characteristics-and allowable crack widths 18 -and et cetera,_et cetera,-et cetera. And if you put all:
19 that stuff over here to make it a tight unambiguous 20 acceptance criteria, you've got a manual;here, a concrete 21 designer's manual down here, which clearly we don't want in 22 tier one.
23 So, it's almost an unresolvable Monflict of how we 24 say we're_ going to, meet the. codes:and getting-the:J.in tier
-25 one with tight unambiguous acceptance criteria. It's not O ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C, 20006 (202) 293-3950
195 1 obvious how we do it.
2 MR. BoYCE: An additional question is is even if 3 we specify them today, in 15 years when a facility is being 4 built, those standards may have changed. And which ones are 5 we going to require compliance with at the time of 6 construction?
7 MR. MICHELSON: Are you going to go to the 8 drawings?
9 MR. JAMES: Yes.
10 MR. MICHELSoN: Okay. I don't have any question 11 on the first one, unless somebody else does?'
12 (L11de.)
13 MR. MICHELSON: The-question I have on the second 14 drawing, which is the 2F floor, is the note there indicates 15 that you've shown an asterisk where you raised the sills, 16 and I find the asterisk where the stairwells are. I don't.
17 find the asterisk in_the other areas. Like, for-instance, 18 the-chiller unit A area is a blue area,.and.yet-right 19 outside the door is a red area. I thought if I went from 20 blue to red I would have at least a raised sill, but nothing 21 is-indicated.
22 Also there's a very large doorway shown. I don't 23 know if that's a large door or double door or_what the heck 24 it.-is. You don't show the doors. It's on the.right-hand 25 side of the drawing, chiller unit'A.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D; C. 20006 (202) 293-3950' )
)
T- 1 196 )
1 MR. JAMES: The question is there's a door here?
2 MR. MICHELSON: That's a divisional barrier there.
3 MR. JAMES: I don't believe so.
4 MR. MICHELSON: Well, according to your color 5 drawings it is.
6 MR. JAMES: I'm sorry. I don't have the benefit 7 of the colored drawings.
8 MR. MICHELSON: I thought I had them with me. :
9- Yes,-I looked for the boundaries according to your color 10 drawings, and that one is shown as a boundary. I don't have 11 the drawing with me either.
12 The supply C red and that corridor is red, out the 13 chiller A is a blue chiller, for instance, and the chiller B 14 on the other side is a yellow. Now, the yellow side is 15 o.W ' . That's all yellow over there. But, on the other 16 side, it's mixed _ red and blue, and you don't put the 17 asterisks in.
So, I think it's --
18 MR. JAMES:. Yes. 'Because these here - -there's an 19 asterisk there between B and -
20 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. And you didn't need it there 21 because --
22 .MR. JAMES: Yes.
23 MR.- MICHELSON: -- your drawings-show that's alli 24 the same division.
25 MR. JAMES: But between here and -- ,
'O ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
V
_ Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
= Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
197 1 MR. MICHELSON: And that chiller --
2 MR. JAMES: -- the B to A that you clearly need.
3 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. No. You don't clearly need 4 it either, because it's red outside the door. Where you 5 need it is between that corridor and the chiller A.
6 MR. JAMES: What vintage are-these color pictures 7 you're looking at?
8 MR. MICHELSON: I don't havn them with me. They 9 were your latest and. greatest that I'got it. I know it's up 10 to date because of the nature of the layouts. Basically, 11 it's your SSAR layouts with your coloring added to it for 12 fire protection and so forth. I think the staff perhaps has 13 them. I don't know; maybe I'm privileged as being the only- ,
14 one. We've got copies of them around here if you really 15 vant to get them. But I don't think they're right in the 16 room at the moment.
17 MR. CARROLL: I would say they're like-three 18 months old, four months old.
19 MR. MICHELSON: I looked at them. The new set is 20 even better than that.
21- MR. CARROLL,- BGtter than that?-
22 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. It's not exact, but it's 23 very close. Well,- we'll pass it. Check-it though. I think 24- you'll find that you've got a1 problem. -
25 Your chiller B, for. instance, is a red room, but b l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3957
198
-s 1 your exhaust A -- pardon me, your control room exhaust A is
\'# 2 a red room, but your control -- is a blue room, and your 3 control of HVAC B is read, and you don't show an asterisk 4 there either. I think you just need to check it, okay?
5 Just make sure.
6 Those chiller rooms show very largo doorways. If 7 those are double doors, those have special requirements on 8 them too. See, we don't even know what you're doing there, 9 because you don't show doors in the control building. The 10 reason I think is you haven't designed the control building 11 to the level that you did the reactor building because you 12 couldn't copy the Japanese design in this case, so you had 13 to come up with a new one.
14 I think throughout out the -- all the floors, b(~T 15 you've got some missing asterisks, and you've got some.in 16 the wrong places. I think, if you just pull your color 17 drawings out you can tell right away which need to be 18 divisional -- which are the divisional boundaries. They're 19 shown very clearly on those drawings, unless those colored 20 drawings are wrong, of course. I have no way to know that.
21 MR. JAMES: That's why I ask the vintage.
22 Because there have been some changes here. But I don't 23 think that --
24 MR. MICHELSON: I've gotten two sets. I threw out 25 the old set when I got the new set. The new set is pretty V(O ANN R! LEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C, 20006 (202) 293-3950
199 7.
1 close to up-to-date. Because I checked some points against 2 the SSAR drawings. It looks like it's the same drawing, as 3 far as I checked.
4 I don't have a question on the building until we 5 get down to the basement 3F.
6 (Slide.)
7 MR. MICHELSON: Why aren't there raised sills on 8 any of the doors in that area? It may be a good reason 9 that's not obvious to me. But -- and there's no --
10 MR. JAMES: I think down here we're clean 11 divisionally, aren't we?
12 MR. MICHELSON: No. You've got three divisions on 13 tl.at drawing.
(~T 14 MR. JAMES: Yes, but they're right here.
()
15 MR. MICHELSON: No. But you don't have any water-16 tight doors between them or any doors at all between the 17 divisions shown. I think you've got some sills shown, but 18 I'm not sure of that either because there are no asterisks 19 to tell me.
20 MR. JAMES: Oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry. We're 21 not at the basement.
22 MR. MICHELSON: The next one above?
23 MR. JAMES: Yes. Okay. This is the floor. Yes.
24 I'm sorry. This is the floor above the basement.
25 MR. MICHELSON: Right.
, U(~h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. l l Court Reporters i 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D. C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950 i
. . . .__.._ __ _ _. _- ._. _ _ .. _. - _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . _ = _. - _ _ _ _ _ -
h 200 1 MR. J AMES : Okay.
2 MR. MICHELSON: 3F. See, you've got some small 3 area where the heat exchanger is that's two-stories -- two 4 floors high. The rest of the areas are one floor high.
5 MR. JAMES: Right.
6 MR. MICHELSON: And they've got equipment in it 7 that I don't know -- unfortunately you don't locate much 8 equipment arodnd yet, so I can't always tell. But I think 9 that's probably equipment that might have water sources, 10 unless there arc do water sources in any of those rooms.
11 And that may be the case.
12 MR. JAMES: I think that's the case. Because down 13 here the fire hydrants -- there's no water down here. The 14 fire hydrants and the RCW yo up through these chases here.
(} 15 MR. MICHELSON: How, and the next question though, 16 an the one that is important: Where are the divisional 17 boundary doors between the three divisions at that level? <
R18 MR. JAMES: Well, the division is basically on-19 here.
20 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. Now, are.the doors there?
21 MR. CARROLLt No.
22- MR. MICHELSON ' None shown, but I can't tell.what ,
23 that symbol means for sure.
24 MR. JAMES : - No. Those are walls.- Those are walls 25' ' all the wayJaround.
f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters .
1612 K Street, N,W., Suite 300 -
Washington,~ D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 t.-. .__,.a - . , . . . -.._e, y , , _ , . . . , , ,.J,. m. - , - -, , -,
201 1 MR. MICHELSON: Those are solid walls?
7-2 MR. JAMES: At this level -- let's see, there are 3 stairwells here.
4 MR. MICHELSON: Okay.
5 MR. JAMES: That will cascade down into --
6 MR. MICHELSON: A line going across like that 7 doesn't tell me it's a solid wall, it just tells me there's 8 some kind of a curb arrangement. But you can make a solid 9 vall and take those lines out and you're all set.
10 MR. JAMES: You're talking about these?
11 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. See, those lines that go 12 right on through them indicate that it is not a wall, it's 13 something else. What it is I'm not sure. But if it is r'T 14 really a wall all the way then you're okay.
O 15 MR. JAMEst If it is not it should be a sill that 16 should be shown.
17 MR. CARROLL: It must be a sill.
18 MR. MICHELSON: It's got to be doors. It can't 19 be just a sill, or the environment would be -- you know, 20 you've got to have fire codes and so forth.
21 MR. JAMES: Yes. It would either be waterproof 22 doors.
23 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. They're either waterproof 24 doors or a fire wall.
25 MR. JAMES: Or fire doors.
t s
i l
d ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
202 1 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
2 MR. JAMES: Or solid walls.
3 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
4 MR. CARROLL: Well, there wouldn't be any point 5 for having the middle section if --
6 MR. JAMES: Yes, right.
7 MR. - MICHELSON: Well,-the middle section is one of 8 the three divisions.
9 MR. J AMES: Yes. I understand the issue.
10 MR. CARROLLt I know. All I'm saying_is what 11 would you use that for if it were a solid wall?
12 MR. MICHELSON: I don't know. %t's just a guess 13 that --
14 MR. CARROLL: How would you get in?
15 MR. MICHELSON: -- it was a solid wall even. I 16 don't now what it is. The symbol is'--
17 MR. JAMES: Yes. This line is confusing.
18 MR..MICHELSONt- Yes.- I think-it's got to be.a 19 doorway with water -- I don't.know if it has to be 20 watertight. That depends on where your flood level is. But 21 it certainly-has to be h fire barrier.
- 22- MR. JAMES
- Got'to be a fire door. If it's a door
'23 'it's got to be a three-hour fire door.- And I'm-not sure 24 whether it needs a sill!or not, because I'm.not sure if I 25 there are ruptures in here that can leak out here.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders.
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
- (202) 293-3950- .
203 1 MR. MICHELSON: On water sources then you don't 2 need a sill. )
3 MR. JAMES: Because the heat exchanges are here 4 and the flow -- any leakage will be down in here. And I 5 think the --
6 MR. MICHELSON: But there are big pipes going up.
7 I don't know exactly where all those big pipes are going up.
8 And they may go through these rooms and a rupture might be 9 in the room and the water will run out the door.
10 MR. JAMES: They fundamentally go up through these 11 chases, up above.
12 MR. MICHELSON: Okay.
13 MR. JAMES: If they break here, they'll be down
! (^T 14 into the basement, into the totally separated' divisions here V
15 with the waterproof doors between them.
16 MR. MICHELSON: All of your water lines are going 17 through the A, B and C chases. None of them are coming up 18 through the building.- I thought those chases --
l 19 MR. JAMES: If you got higher up --
l 20 MR. MICHELSON: I think you'll find those chases 21 are just for your service water.
l 22 MR. JAMES: Yes. You get higher up and you've got 23 some fire hydrant -- fire water hydrants.
24 MR. MICHELSON: You've got chillers -- you've got 25 big pipes going up through that building to go through that n
U ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 200>3 (202) 293-3950
204 1 chiller system. You've got six and ten-inch pipes, as I 2 recall, running up there to the big chillers, supplying the 3 cooling water for them.
4 MR. JAMES: Right.
5 MR. MICHELSON: And they, I think -- they might 6 end up going through these rooms, in which case you've got 7 to take a look.
8 MR. JAMES: They do go through the rooms. Yes.
9 There's no question they do go through the rooms. But 10 that's where we get into the drainage, where the drains are 11 designed to drain them back down into here.
12 MR. MICHELSON: Without going out the door first?
13 MR. JAMES _ Or, if they're up here, depending on- 1 i
14 the volume of water, the volume is such that it will be
)
15 retained by the sills. l 16 MR. MICHELSON:- Yes. But you didn't show sills 17 further down. =That was the-whole question. No sills, and 18 we cleared up the doors. There have got to be-doors between 19 the divisions.
20 MR. JAMES: This one I'm not-sure about. We'll 21 have to check on that one.
22 MR. ' MICHELSON: Okay. That's all-I-had. I ran 23 into a little confusion that you betterEcheck out. -And that 24 -is your drawing figure-1.2-2 in the SSAR shows the feedwater-25 lines to be-above-the steam lines as_they go through-the ANN RlLEY--& ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,: D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
205 1 chase. All your other drawings show them to be parallel to 2 each other.
3 KR. JAMES: What figure number was that?
4 MR. MICHELSON: Figure 1.2-2. It clearly shows 5 feedwater line well above the steam line, as near as I can 6 read it. And I think they're parallel all the way. It's 7 just a Japanese drawing interfacing with an American drawing 8 and it got mixed up.
9 The other thing that I don't find described-10 anywhere is the interface--- you've got the spacing between 11 the control building and the reactor building and between 12 the control building and the turbine building. I don't now 13 how many feet it is but it's finite. And what's the 14 structural-transition for this steam chase going through the 15 control building as it jnterfaces with the turbine building 16 and the reactor building? Is that a boot or a wall or what 17 the heck is it? I think it's got to retain 11 pounds 18- pressure whatever it-is. But I=can't find-it described-19- anywhere. It's shown, you know, on the cartoons. Because 20 the control building drawings are not very. detailed. But 21 there's got to be some' kind of a transition structure there.
22- How do you make-that transition? Do the buildings -- the=
23 -buildings clearly.are separated by a few feet,_but not at 24- that-point, they're butting together. And-I 1 don't know how 25 that L butt is done, and it could make a-difference on the h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
' Washington, D. C, 20006
-(202) 293-3950,
206 1 offect of a steamline break.
2 MR. JAMES: I will just make a note of that.
3 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. I think you just needed to 4 check it.
5 Is there anyone yet who can tell me about this 6 steam tunnel vent shaft? The staff? Have you looked at 7 that? It's the way you vent the steam tunnel after you get 8 to the turbine building.
9 MR. BURTON: Yes. Butch Burton, Plant Systems 10 Branch.
11 We recognize the same thing that you did. It's 12 not clear at the turbine building and at the main steam 13 tunnel what structure is there. But it's cbvious, from the 14 turbine building elevation drawings-there is a vent path up
)
15 through the turbine building.
16 MR. MICHELSON: There's also an inference that' 17 there's a rupture disk in that vent path. There's lines 18 drawn across the-path which told-me there-must be a rupture.
19 disk or trap door or some darn thing to keep the birds out 20 or whatever. But -- and I can't find it described. And, 21 clearly,_anything that can potentially obstructLthe. steam 22 tunnel-shaft has to be checked out at the time of -- leefore 23 you operate to make sure it's right. Because otherwise you 24 could-potentially blow-up the tunnel if you get a pipe 25 break.
h - ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
Coud Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
[ - Washington,' D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1
_ - . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ - - ~ . _ _ . . _ _ - _ _ . __ . _ _ _
207 1 That's all I had. Thank you. I think that is all 2 I had. I'll check it real quick.
3 MR. WARD: Okay. Any other comments or questions 4 on this one?
5 MR. CARROLL: Is it intended that you're 6 ultimately going to do dual units on.these drawings?
7 MR. JAMES: No. The basic design --
8 MR. CARROLL: English units as well as metric?
9 MR. JAMES: Oh. I thought you meant two reactors.
10 The intent is to make the ABWR design certification-11 application metric.
12 MR. MICHELSON: You haven't finished doing that 13 then? Because your ITAACs, some of them still have got l 14 inches in them. l 15 MR. JAMES: Our strategy in preparing ITAAC was 16 really to follow ~the SAR. Whatever the SAR.says we'll use 17 it in ITAAC. So, the sequence will be, there will be an 18 update of the SAR, which will run through the ITAAC.
t 19 l'd. MICHELSON: When you state, in the ITAAC the 20 idea that in lines one inch and under_you don't have to do i
21 thus or so, what lines on flow diagrams are going.to be one-22 inch'and under?- How do I figure that out? .Because there-23 aren't any one-inch' lines. I don't even know,what a 20 l 24L millimeter.line is yet until.somebody: supplies me a Japanese 25 pipe code that goes through those seven classifications of-l-
O ANN RlLEY & . ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
.- Washington, D. C. 20006 ,
(202) 293 3950
208
, 1 piping and tells me what the pressure ratings and wall 2 thicknesses and IDS and ODs are. I don't know anything 3 about it. I wouldn't know how to read it. And just 4 converting it won't help you any.
5 You've got to have the Japanese code. We have 6 been asking for a copy. The staff doesn't apparently have a 7 copy. I don't know how you cope with the questions of --
8 when you see something that says one inch and under you 9 don't have to do -- how do you decide -- I mean, that's fine 10 for the ASME code, but they're not going to use ASME code..
11 They're really-going to use the Japanese code. Because it's 12 going to be metric piping with entirely different 13 dimensions.
14 MR. JAMES: Well, not entirely. 'The way it's been 15 handled - the metric code that we use for Japan has got a 16 one-for-one correlation. They are classified in.A's, which 17 is, in effect millimeters.
18 NR. MICHELSON: Wait a minute. What are you 19 saying?
20 MR. JAMES t . They are on a one-to-one -- on piping 21 at least, in the metric piping --
22 MR. MICHELSON: You mean:I can find a one-inch 23' pipe in their code?
24 MR.fJAMES: In the metric piping, as we've been 25 Lusing it on.the Japanese project, there's a series of pipe b : ANN RILEY-;& ASSOCIATES; Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,' Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950.3
209 1 sizes defined in metric, like 50A, that sort of --
2 MR. MICHELSON:
That's right.
3 MR. JAMES -- that-pretty much correspond to the 4 standard sizes-here. We've been unable to verify that !
5 that's at all true. And we've asked for a copy of whatever i 6 you're looking at that shows that-they're the same thing or 7 close enough to the same thing. Because dimensionally you 8 come off -- any reasonable conversion comes way off. And I 9 just wondered how you --
10 MR. JAMES: Oh yes,_you can't.just multiply by the l 11 conversion factors, it doesn't make sense.
12 MR. MICHELSON: So, how do you make sense out of ,
1 13 it?
14 MR. JAMES: We'll use the metric standards that
- 15 we've used on the Japanese project.
I' 16 MR. MICHELSoN Which-means you'll have to i
, 17 eventually get a -- you'll have to get a table of the t
- 18 dimensions of-20 millimeter pipe, and also you have to know 19 the schedule. They have a different means of saying the 20- schedule. But, you have to know which particular rating 21 that pipe is so you can_then determine what the: wall 22 -thickness is and the ID to sea if -- and the oD to see-if it .
23 matches a one-inch US pipe.,.It's the only way I can read
'24 one inch and' convert it. And.I don't know how you do:that.
25- -You have something.in mind I'm'sure, and eventually you'll ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W;, Suite 300 ,
Washington, D. C. 20006
- (202) 293-3950
, ,,,--.r-- - ra, --, . . . .-- .,n,,..,
210 1 tell us.
7-2 MR. JAMES: I guess this question came --
3 MR. MICHELSON: Can you supply us the information 4 showing the seven classifications of Japanese pipe and what 5 their dimensions are?
6 MR. JAMES: Yes. Let me do that. I will get --
7 MR. MICHELSON: I've asked for it several times.
O I hope to get it this time.
9 MR. JAMES: I'll make sure you get it.
10 MR. MICHELSON: We even called San Jose and they 11 didn't have one. How's that? We maybe didn't call the 12 right person.
13 MR. KERR You didn't ask for it in Japanese.
/ 'T 14 MR. MICHELSON: No. We told them what we needed.
b 15 They understood it. And one of our fellows even called the 16 local Japanese manufacturers represented here in town and he 17 was trying to find a copy of it and couldn't. It certainly 18 must exist. I thought I had more information on that peint, 19 but I don't. At any rate, eventually you'll get it.
20 MR. CARROLL: Haiking back to my question then.
21 When all is said and done on the ITAACs, I will be loosing 22 at building drawings like this that are in metric units?
2.1 MR. JAMES: Yes.
24 MR. CARROLL: And you're not going to put in 25 parenthesis the approximate elevation in feet or whatever or
}
U, -~3 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
211 1 distances?
2 MR. JAMES: That's my understanding of the latest 3 direction we're headed.
4 MR. CARROLL: Okay.
5 MR. JAMES: Pure metric, no parens, English.
6 M' . MICHELSON: Then how are you going to -- when 7 you go to standard review plan 3.6 which you've nicely 8 committed to, and it talks about pipes six inches and under 9 you handle this way, pipes four inches and'under you handle 10 a different way and so forth in' determining your pipe break i 11 locations and whatever -- how are you going to do th: ' , - -
12 follow that standard review plan?
13 MR. JAMES: There has to be a correlation that 14 says that a 12-inch schedule 40 is the same as a 500 or a 15 200A metric.
16 MR. MICHELSON: I think you'll-find that will be 17 impossible to do. But we'll see. You're. going to supply me 18 that correlation, right?
19 MR. JAMES: Yes. We'll see what -- yes.
20 MR. WARD: I don't understand whyyou think it 21 would be so difficult to make that -- there-might be a-22 little. ambiguity whether it's this one or that one, but --
23 MR. KERR: I'm sorry,.Mr. Chairman, he did not say 24 'it would be difficult, he said-it wold be impossible.
25 MR. MICHELSON:- It's impossible to do'it. That's' b ANN RlLEY &f ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters -
- 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 L
Washington, D. C. 20006
'(202) 293-3950i V ... . - .-. . ..
212 1 right. It's impossible to do that. Now you won't come up 2 with an equivalent pipe, but you'll come up with as clnse a 3 one as you can find. And the inference here, I think, that 4 it's very close. And I'd like to see how close that is.
5 MR. WARD: Isn't that good enough?
6 MR. MICHELSON: It will be if it's that close. We 7 tried and made just a few sample calculations to see if --
8 MR. WARD: How far off does it have to be for you 9 to be worried? I 10 MR. MICHELSON How far off do you have to be 11 when you don't comply with the code when it nays six inches 12 and under. Is 6.2 inches okay? If it's okay with the code,.
13 then you might be okay. I don't know how to read the code 14 other than literally.- And when they talk six inch, they 15 aren't talking about six inches OD or ID, they're talking 16 about six-inch nominal, which neither has an ID.or an OD of 17 six inches. It depends on the schedule as to'what its ID 18 is, and its ODs are on 6.3 or something like that.
19 MR. CARROLL: Just a point of curiosity. If a 20 U.S. utility were to buy one of these, would they end up 21 with a plant with metric piping in it? .Would that be the
-22 only way you could do it?
23 MR. JAMES: Yes.
24 MR. CARROLL: .So they'd have to go. overseas to get 25- all their piping?
O Anw aitev a Associares. 'ta.
Court Reporters
.1812 K Street, N.W.,- Suite 300 Washington, D,' O. 20006 -
~ (202) 293-3950-
213 1 MR. JAMES: I think pipe suppliers in this country 2 provide metric piping.
3 MR. CARROLL: Okay.
4 MR. CATTON: They can do it but it would be 5 expensive.
6 MR. MICHELSON: It's metric everything. You know, 7 the pump manufacturers now have to go to metric pump casings 8 and metric and things. They're just not set up to do that 9 for a few things. It's not worth it.
10 MR. CARROLL: Many U.S. utilities -- one I'm 11 particularly familiar with are still old-fashioned enough to 12 vant to buy American.
13 MR. KRESS: That is not our prob 1'm. e 14 MR. CARROLL: It was just a point of curiosity. ,
15 MR. CHAMBERS: My understanding of most of this 16 issue on metric was driven by the staff's desire to do 17 everything in metric, not our desire to use Japanese l
18 equipment.
19 MR. CATTON: It sounds to me like they're being 20 unfair _to you.
21 MR. MICHELSON: I didn't beat on GE particularly.
22 'The staff is ---but I-know what: drove them, it's the 23 Congressional edict that.says where practical you shall go l 24 ~ metric.-
25 MR. CATTON:
Is the-combustion engineering 80-O ANN RlLEY &L ASSOCIATES, - Ltd.
Court Reporters -
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
214 1 plus metr!.c?
2 MR. CARROLL: No sir.
3 MR. CATTON: It is? )
i 4 MR. CARROLL: It is not.
5 MR. CATTON: I didn't think so. .
l 6 MR. MICHELSON: They just have a competitive edge i 7 then. l t
8 MR. CATTON: That's discrimination if you ask me.
9 MR. CARROLL: This is all news to me. I thought 10 GE -- it was metric because GE had already designed it in 11 metric.
12 MR. JAMES: Oh,_no.
13 MR. CARROLL: I didn't think the staff had f
14 anything to do with it.
15 MR. JAMES: No.
16 MR. MICHELSON: That's how.you tell-the Japanese- '
17 design from the GE design is whether it's coming in in ,
18 metric or English.
Because your designs are coming in'yet -
19 in English, most of'the flowsheets, at-least, I've_seen. i 20 But a~few of the flowsheets I've got are all in metric. And 21 I asked why and it turns -- well those were copies of the 22 Japanese..
23 MR. CARROLL: 'Okay.
'24- -MR. WARD:- Okay. We had two more that we could 25- just have covered by asking._for.any questions from the h ANN RlLEY ::& ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters j
1612 K Streat, N.W., Suite 300 - !
Washington, D. C. 20006 I (202) 293-3950: j
-._u._ . _;- -
. . . _ - - . . ~ - __ .. __ .,
215 7_
1 members. Which one do you want to evoceed with? Let's 2 2 start with the diesels.
3 MR. CHRISTENSEN: 4. c ;arl Christensen, 4 General Electric.
5 (Slide.)
6 MR. WARD: Charlie do you want to start out with 7 questions?
8 MR. WYLIE: In your description you discussed the 9 starting of the diesels in the 22nd and applying loads and 10 timing as specified in the plant --
l 11 MR. CARROLL: Where are you reading, Charlic?
12 MR. WYLIE: The first page, at the bottom, last 13 paragraph.
14 And you say: "In supplying its loads in the
)
('J 15 sequence and timing specified in the plant design 16 documents."
17 Now, that's obviously the SSAR. Does this tie the 18 requirements of the SSAR into tier one?
19 MR. MICHELSON: Where were you at again, Charlie?
20 MR. WYLIE: Down a the bottom of the page, first 21 page.
22 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. That's wiist I thought.
23 MR. WYLIE: The last paragraph.
24 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
25 MR. CARROLL: Sure do. That was the sort of thing O ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l 216 1 you were saying this morning, and the lawyers tell you you
[s\
'V 2 shoula't be doing.
3 MR. JAMES: That was the sort of thing where we're 4 working with the utility groups and with the staff to modify 5 that to add those references. There's a couple of places 6 where that has occurred. And the basic intent te put the 7 information in there.
8 MR. WYLTE Okay.
9 Then, on the next page --
10 MR. MICHELSON: I've got a question on the same 11 part of the page you were on.
12 When you talk about restarting a pump on a load 13 sequence, you have to recognize you're going to restart it
(' 14 with the valves wide open this time instead of with the V] 15 valves closed. And it's quite a difference in loading. And 16 it should somehow be in words here that you do have to 17 include the valve wide open. Because see, you can't get the 18 valves closed again and start the pump and get it, unless 19 you want to go through a whole starting cycle some how, 20 shutting the valve an reopening it. And normally you don't.
21 You just start them with the valve wide open, and they load 22 then -- the motor is different than a valve shut off. In 23 some cases it's a very largo difference depending on the 24 particular pump.
25 MR. CHRISTENSEN: So, when you're talking about V(~x ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
217-1 injection systems, then you're also talking about -- you're 2 still starting against the check valve.
3 MR. MICHELSON: A check valve is meaningless. It 4 depends on what's on the other side of the check valve as to 5 whether it's meaningful or not.
6 MR. CHRISTENSENs No. What I'm saying is you'll 7 still have the same shutoff head you were starting against, 8 whether it's a valve opening against that or it's through a 9 check valvo and thein --
10 MR. MICHELSON: Let's model it correctly then.
11 You started the pump and you open the injection valvo, and 12 the flow was proceeding at full flow and you've lost the 13 power.
14 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Only after it opens the check 15 valve correctly.
16 MR. MICHELSON: Oh, yes. It has to open the check 17 valve.
18 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Right. So,-it's still pumping 19 against the shutoff head' generated by_the check valve.
20 ME, MICHELSON: I don't know what.is pumping. It 21 depends on how. big the LOCA was as to whatlit's pumping 22 against. That' depends on what_the LOCA was. Now, a big 23- LOCA, it's down in 15. seconds. A valve takes ~that long to 24 -open.
25- MR. CARROLL: -What he_is saying, Carl, is on the h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders-1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
L Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 h 1
218 1 first start the MOV opened, the pump opened, the MOV started 2 opening. Eventually the pump built up enough pressure to 3 flow through the check valve and through the MOV. Now the 4 pump has conked out. The check valve is slammed closed.
5 How when I restart I still have to get the pump up to enough 6 speed so that it's going to reopen that check valve.
7 MR. MICHELSON: It's very little, of course. It 8 doesn't take much.
9 MR. CARPOLL: Even though the MOV is still open or-10 hasn't closed yet.
11 MR. MICHELSON: But the check valve -- it better 12 be a very small pressure drop. You don't want a very big 13 pressure drop check valve.- That's a fraction of a pound.
14 MR. CHRISTENSEN:
(~}
V I think I was missing the. point.
15 You're talking about the' difference in pressure across the 16 motor valve?
17 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. . The' difference in pressure 18 between the discharge of the-pump and-the-reactor vessel, 19 which is now down to almost no pressure. And'the pump this 20 time has got to start against a valve wide open condition.
21 MR. KERR: Why:does one have to put all that in 22 Lthis thing, since it's apparently common, knowledge _that this-23 is the case? ,
24 MR.-MICHELSON: Well, it'sEnot always common 25 knowledge. And. people have found later,~in doing'their-O ANN RlLEY &; ASSOCIATES, Md.
Coud Repoders l
1612 K Street, N.W.,- Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3950
219 1 calculations, they hadn't taken it into account, and then it 2 has to be fixed. And it takes a little bigger diesel.
3 MR. KERR: Are we talking about a test here or a 4 calculation?
5 MR. MICHELSON: No. We're talking about the size .
6 of the diesel capacity to handle the start.
7 MR. NYLIE: Capability of the start.
8 MR. MICHELSON: That's all.
l 9 MR. CHRISTENSEN: The design aspects of the system i 1 >
10 itself. l
-11 MR. MICHELSON: If you can show thct the pump
! 12 takes the same in-rush and so forth as it did with the 13 valves closed, you're fine.
14 MR. KRESS: Don't you specify that long before you 15 get to the ITAAC stage though?
l 16 MR. MICHELSON: I hope so. 'I don't find it in-the l
l 17 SSAR. I'm just bringing.it up to someone.
18 MR. WYLIE: This is basically a description of the 19- system.
l 20 MR. MICHELSON:- Yos.
21 MR. CHRISTENSEN: -Shall we go to'the second page.
l 22 [ Slide.)
- i. '
l 23 MR. WYLIE:- Yee. At the top of the-page you-l 24 discuss the starting for the diesel under a sustained drop) 25 in bus voltage below 70 percent.
Now that -- you specified I' ,
l v ANN ' RlLEY' &' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters -
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D. C, 20006
'(202) 293-3950; i
l 220
, 1 that the diesel has to come up in 20 seconds. Then you've
\-- 2 got to initiate the diesel to start the drop in bus voltage.
3 Isn't there a time associated with that based on your safety 4 analysis?
5 MR. CHRISTENSEN: I'm not real sure I understand.
6 You're --
7 MR. WYLIE: It says sustained drop. I mean, is 8 that three minutes, five minutes or 30 seconds or 10 9 seconds?
10 MR. CARROLL: Or a few cycles?
11 MR. CHRISTENSEN: I'm not real sure. I'd have to 12 check and find out.
13 MR. WYLIE: Based on your safety analysis.
14 MR. CHRISTENSEN: The overall time of getting the 15 diesel started and getting up is what's -- and I don't know 16 what that timing value is. And I think that's what you're 17 asking, right?
18 MR. WYLIE: Yes.
19 MR. CHRISTENSEN: I will have to find out and get 20 back to you.
21 MR. MICHELSON: Okay.
22 Nhy did you put 70 percent in the ITAAC 23 description, where the SSAR says 25 percent drop or 75 24 percent, depending on which way you want to look at it?
25 .You're saying 70, the SSAR says 75.
(~h t) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 ;
i
.~ . .- - . .... . - - . - .
221 1 I also have a question of while the motor operated 2 valves are-being rated for 80 percent, is it all right to 3 let the bus voltage drop down to -- you know, and this is 4 during the cycles of loading -- is it all right to drop back 5 down to 70 percent when the motor-operated valves _re only 6 rated for 80 percent? And they may drop out at 70.
7 MR. CHRISTENSEN: That particularly is bothering 8 me, because I thought the motor-operated valves had to 9 operate at 70 percent -- all the 1A equipment. l 10 MR. MICHEISON: As I recall, the last time I found 11 it, somewhere in there it was.80 percent. But recheck that.
12 But the 25 percent drop is on 8.3-9 of the SSAR. It says 25 l
13 percent voltage drop at the terminals. And you're saying 70 l 14 percent voltage, which is 75 -- 25 percent drop is a-75 15 perecnt voltage. So, you'need to check that. It doesn't 16 correspond to f.he SSAR. But. check your-motor ratings too to 17 make sure you're buying. motors for 70 percent if,.'indeed, ,
18 you are.-
19 MR. JAMES: , Hey, Carl, isn't there some allowance t
20 for the voltage differences between.the output from the diesel generators as~such-and.the loads of the valves?- I
' remember some discussion along those-lines..
23 MR. CHRISTENSEN: There-is an expected voltage 1
24 . drop. _
-25 MR. MICHEISON:
Oh, yes.
b -
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N,W., Suite 300
~
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 & 50 n- -- u v -- -
~,,e,w----v. ee.----,-r v- x, w
i i.
, 222 E 1 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Okay.- But I think the point i
2 being here that -- ,
) 3 MR. JAMES: Yes, right.- But don't these numbers
- 4 reflect that?
5 MR. CHRISTENSEN: -- is that this may be 70 4
6 percent at the load rather than at the bus.
7 MR. MICHELSON: I don't-know. I thought this was i
8 at the bus.
9 MR. CARROLL: Rating of the, bus.
i 10 MR. WYLIE:- This is on the bus.- 4
~
' MR..CID! STENSEN:- I will have tx) check it because .
12 something is bothering me about it right now too.
13 MR. MICHELSO" Just check out the motor-operated 1
14 valves. They should be specified in here because they're 15 probably one of the most critical items to make sure you
- l. 16 don't drop too low-on voltage on, becaub+ you'can get in t'
- 17 trouble.
~
i 18 EMR. WYLIE: This-is just the initiation signal.
19 MR. MICHELSON:- No. I thought'this is more than 20 that?
! 21 MR.-WYLIE:- No, no. - It?says'it; starts the diesel 22 when i t drops below 70. percent..
p 23 L MR. MICHELSON: .Yes. It means the voltage;on.the !
- 24. bus then-must be-below --
25 MR..WYLIE:: ~For a sustained period of time, J0;
~
ANN RlLEY &. ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters.
- 1612_K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
1 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
i 223 1 whatever that is.
73 2 MR. MICHELSON: Well, then they better put in 3 another spec as to what the minimum voltage can be during 4 loading. That would be safer. If there was any doubt, then 5 write a separate spec for the minimum voltage during the 6 loading sequence. And it should not drop below the rating 7 of the components being loaded, which I think is 80 percent 8 on your valves, but you need to check it. It's the more 9 important criteria actually than this one.
10 MR. WYLIE: The other thing. Paragraph -- let's 11 see, it's one, two, three, four -- fifth paragraph on page 12 two, where it starts: "The transfer of each Class 1E 13 bus..." -- I find that sort of a' strange paragraph. It's 4
14 inconsistent, I believe, with the.SSAR, in that normally you
{a'}
15 shed, when you use the diesel and the emergency diesel, you 16 shed the load, then the initiation sequencers pick them up.
17 MR. CHRISTENSEN: My recollection of this is 18 consistent with the SAR. And the intent was to -- if you 19 had those motors running and those loads-operable, and then 20 lost your offsite power, you want to keep them there to 21 coordinate the coast down, and stabilize the coast down and 22 inductive loads and all to get it down as fast as possible.
23 When it gets down, then you shed them and then you restart 24 your sequancing after you load the diesel'on.
25 MR. CARROLL: So you would not start sequencing O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C. 20006
'(202) 293 3950
224~
fs 1 until you --
\-' ) 2 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Until after you have checked
~
3 first, loaded the diesel and sequenced.
4 MR. CARROLL: Okay.
5 MR. CHRISTENSEN: So, it is a drag down, if you 6 will, or a stabilizing characteristic to get the bus voltage 7 down as quickly as possible to keep from inducing back into 8 the bus from those big motors.
9 MR. MICHELSON: How much time do you think it 10 takes to decay the bus and get-it back -- the diesel back on-11 and ready for. reloading?
12 MR. CHRISTENSEN: I would have to do some 13 checking. I do not know. I really don't.
/ 14 MR. MICHELSON: I've often asked for that analysis I
(\)
15 in other cases in the past. It's surprising how long it 16 takes. And then you've got to go and' add that to the ECCS 17 analysis because it's a delay in the delivery of water by 18 that amount of time. And people hadn't been doing_that in 19 doing their ECCS analysis. And I think it's something you 20 want to watch.
21 MR. CHRISTENSEN: I believe this process is an 22 attempt to speed that up.
23 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. You have to be careful to 24 make sure it's fast enough so you don't jeopardize your ECCS 25 response if you would lose offsite power -- just at'the -
1 p
l V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.-
l Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
- ,~ - . _ . = - . ~. . . .-. - . . .
-225-1 worst moment is when you're just ready to start, everything 02 is ready.to do and then you lost it-and_you've_gotsto~ start-3 oVer.
4 MR. CARROLL: That has become unimportant though, 5 now that we're not having double-ended guillotine breaks I 6 don't think.
7 MR. MICHELSON: We haven't declared. leak before 8 break yet. That's an issue that'GE is still wrestling with, 9 I'm not_even sure if you decided. -Inside containment do we 10- have-leak before break now for ECCS?, I thought ECCS had to 11 be'-- you couldn't use l'eak before break.-
12 MR. BOYCE: No. -I-don't think GE_is-asking for 13 leak before break-in anything.
14 -MR. MICHELSON: I don't think so.
15 MR. BOYCE:: No.
16 .MR. MICHELSON: So,_you've got to'do the full 17 guillotine analysis with the time' lost in.the' loading.-
18 MR. KERk: You-may. But when-pipe' break - ;it's-19 not going to break that way. ;j 20 MR..'MICHELSON: What?
21 MR..KERR:._ I?say you may_do the analysis, but when
-22 a pipe breaks itts not goingLto break that way.:
23 MR; MICHELSON: It~ depends.= That's another whole-24 _ question. Either-you're' going to design for.it/or-.you're 25 (going'to change the regulations. _ Which?do you want'to do?-
h ANN RlLEYT & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
_ _ Court Reporters.
1612 K Street, N.W,, Suite 300-J
. Washington, D. C; 20006 1
(202).293G950 1
226 1 Now, if you believe that then get the regulations changed.
n/
N- 2 MR.-KERR: First we want to change the regulations 3 to be realistic. -But, in the meantime, I suppose you'might l 1
4 as well foul things up by designing for an-unrealistic 5 situation.
6 MR. MICHELSON: Well, we do it in a number of 7 other areas.
8 MR. JAMES: I think perhaps we're missing the 9 point here. The point is with the AWR core cooling analysis 10 is a lot of margin.
11 MR. MICHELSON:- Yes.
12 MR. JAMES: We show no core heat up. So, we've 13 got a fair amount of defense against --
14 MR. MICHELSON: I'm not~saying you have a problem
) .
15 at all. I'm just saying you have to include it in the 16 analysis that shows you have no problem. That's all you 17' have to do -- put that time delay into.the analysis, and 18 it's-taken care of, a five-minute job; unless'you show you-19 have a problem,.and then it may get a.little longer.
20 MR. WARD: Any other -- well, 21 MR.-WYLIE: I want to go on to the ITAAC portion
.22 now.
- 23 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Page three.
24 [ Slide.]
25 MR. WYLIE: On that first item,-that they're ANN: RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders , .
l 1612 K Street, N.VL, Suke 300 -
l Washington,' D. C.' 20006 i: (202) 293-3950.
._. . ~. _.
227-1 mechanically and electrically independent. Does that-2 include fire, smoke, flooding?
3 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Electrically and mechanically 7 4 independent. Yes. They're physicallyLlocated in three 5 different quadrants of the building. They have their own 6 equipment rooms. Separation is provided. They're not 7 connectable between each of hhe_three divisions. And the 8 separation is provided wherever -- in.the case'of the slick 9 system, in any given room.
10 MR. KERR: Were you' cort of asking Charlie if the 11 word " physically" was left out intentionally? Or does
- 12 mechanically -- 1 1 13 MR. WYLIE
- Yes.
14 MR. KERR: -- mean physically?
-15 MR. CHRISTENSEN: The way I would respond to that f 16 -- the term " physically" seems to be a legalistic issue.
17 There are means of providing. separation other than --
l 18 MR. CATTON: Why.not' environmentally?-
19 MR. CHRISTENSEN: I can't get into_the--- I don't 20 have the knowledge --
- 21 MR.-CHAMBERS
- Mechanically,means;---
- 22 MR. CHRISTENSEN
- Just recently we've_been through 23 a legal things with our attorneys. And'the word 81 physical" 24- seems to have some legalistic connotation that they. prefer
- 25. not to --
i-p J ANN - RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.--
Court Reporters -
4 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20000 (202) 293-3950-
.. . - ..= . - =. . .
l 228
,, 1 MR. CHAMBERS: Mechanically means that support 4 O 2 systems aren't shred.- 'So, cooling water systems for. ope l 3- diesel aren't used for another diesel.- The same with 4 electrical power sr.pport systems.
5 MR. MICHELSON t But they could be in the same i 6 rbom?
7 MR. CHAMBERS: That's why we also say-physical 8 -separation. ThatLimplies -- ,
9 MR.-CARRO' : Where is the physical -- <
10' MR. CH,. u2RS: -- different rooms, all the flood, 11 fire protection and that sort of stuff.
12 MR. CARROLL: Where does it say that? Where does
, 13 it say physically separated?
() 14 15 MR. MICHELSON: -But that's for the mechanical and electrical independence.
16 MR. CARROLL: I don't know. I think they do have
- 17 sort of a logical problem. The commitment -- it seems to'me
, 18 that it should say mechanically-andzelectrically 19- : independent.
i 20 -MR. MICHELSON: A7d physically separated.
~
21 Mit. CARROLL:- And physically located.
22 MR.~MICHELSON:~ Fhysical separation.is prescribed
-23 in the SSAR, in terms of' fire barrier.and' curbs and all-th'e 24 other good stuff, doors, whatever.
25- MR. JAMES: Yes. We' agree.- There is -- in the p
v ANN' RILEY &r ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Cc irt Reporters
.1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 '
1
l 229 1 building-ITAACs there's a basic divisional separation
,f -
k '> 2 discussed just like we got through on the control building.
3 But I think -- and this comment has been made before -- all 4 of these safety systems probably need some standard words in 5 there that say they are physically and mechanically 6 separated.
7 MR. WARD: Onward then.
8 MR. WYLIE: Just a general question. In your 9 testing, how do you demonstrate the operability of your 10 auxiliary system -- the batteries, the air system, cooling 11 water, all the auxiliary systems that support the diesel?
12 MR. CHRIS1'ENSEN: I am sorry,.can yuu repeat that 13 questio:.?
) 14 MR. WYLIE: You don't show independent testing of
(~'/
N_
15 tne support system -- the auxiliary system.
16 MR. CHRISTENSEN: In the ITAAC here it does talk 17 about testing the fuel transfer system, on one of these.
18 The air start system.
19 MR. WYLIE: What about the air start system?
20 Where is it?
e 21 MR. CHRISTENSEN: If I can find it.
22 MR. CARROLL: Six.
23 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Six. The fuals transfer system, 24 the support system, the trip functions on the diesels are 25 tested. The fact that it can come up to voltage and load is O,m. ANN RILEY & ' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
- 1 tested. So, fundamentally, by assuring that ycil can load
\/ 2 and carry a load with a diesel and have it stay on the line 3 for the required test time and its recovery functions and 4 all has to, by definition, test all of its auxiliary and 5 support systems or it would overheat.
6 MR. WYLIE: So, independently, you don't test 7 them, you just input it?
8 MR. CHRISTENSEN: The overall view is -- overall 9 performance is to test the system itself which, by 10 definition, we'll end up testing its support systems, or it 11 won't function.
12 MR. JAMES: I would supplement that by saying if 13 there are separate systems that support the diesel
(~T 14 generator, for example, like cooling water, then that V
15 cooling water system, in its own ITAAC, will address the 16 issue of the divisionality of that system. But the 17 difference here is that the systems come as part of the 18 diesel generator, like the air starters and what have you, 19 are tested as part of the diesel generator test, y 20 MR. CHAMBERS: Now, clearly, when you're actually 21 constructing the plant, you might, as a protection measure, 22 want to test those systems first. But, as far as high-23 level and ITAAC cut, they do'get tested' implicitly as part 24 N the overall system test. But, just to protect yourself 25 when you're actually doing the pre-ops,-you night do some
/~'s
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washin,qton, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3G50-
231
_ 1 tests on those systems first anyway.
k- 2 MR. MICHELSON: Now, you're talking about the 3 diesels own air-start system? It's got a lubrication 4 system, a jack of cooling water. It's got a whole bunch of 5 these systems, none of which are mentioned in the ITAAC are 6 they?
7 MR. CHAMBERS: No. But, again, they are 8 implicitly tested if the diesel will run as long as it needs 9 to run. It's purely an investment protection measure to --
10 MR. MICHEISON: Well, these aren't investment 11 protections. There are a number of protective features in 12 the air start and in the fuel lubrication system and so 13 forth which have to work.
l 14 MR. CHAMBERS: And they will work if you do all y("N 15 that testing and it's s ccessful. And that will be 16 implicitly shown.
17 MR. MICHELSON: It's implicit that all the 18 auxiliaries that are discussed separately -- you see, these 19 are discussed separately in the SSAR under separate 20 sections. They aren't part of the --
21 MR. CARROLL: Somebody made the judgment that you 22 don't need to put all that detail in here if you're going to
! 23 run the integrated test.
24 MR.'MICHELSON: It's well enough integrated.
l 25 MR. CARROLL: Item 10.
fw)
(_ ANN RILEY & ' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
232
, 1 MR. MICHELSON: . How about item four first?
N- 2 On item four you're saying that I can have 6.9 3 kilovolts minus 10 percent. And if-I'take that 10 percent 4 and add on to it the 70 percent voltage that you allow on 5 the bus before closure, I'm down to 60 percent roughly.
6 When you throw in plus or minus 10 percent, you've got to 7 atsume it's on the low side when it closes, and therefore 8 the boards gets even lower.
9 MR. CHRISTENSEN: That 70 percent is 70 percent 10 from nominal, not from'a plus.or minus 10 percent.
11 POR. MICHELSON: . Well, yes. But now, how do I --
12 is there something magic'that when I get a minus 10 percent 13 on my supply side that this thing is going to poop itself-up 14 to be adequate? Because I didn't make my nominal before I 15 close. I hit 10 percent-below or am-allowed to hit 10 16 percent below according to the acceptance criterion. This 17 is number -- item four.
18 It puzzles me.how I'd treat that110 percent and 19 then treat this otherL70 percent-and so forth.-
20 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Okay. The 70 percent that ye're-21 discussing is your on -- you're being fed from offsite 22 power.
l 23 -}U1. MICHELSoN: Only.
24 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Cnly..
25 MR. MICHELSON:. Okay. -Now what happens-when I go l
h ANN RILEY &- ASSOCIATES, Ltd. -
Coud Repoders-1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950:
233
,_ 1 on diesels to these same loads?
\/ 2 MR. CHRISTENSEN: All right. Below the 70 percent 3 you transfer or you drop the offsite power and the diesel 4 starts and comes on and will come up to within 10 percent of 5 the nominal 6.9kV.
6 MR. CARROLL: Within 20 seconds?
7 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Within 20 seconds.
8 MR. CARROLL: But the voltage regulator will 9 eventually take you up to --
10 MR. MICHELSON: Well, I'm going to start loading 11 Defore.
12 MR. CHRISTENSEN: The voltage should bring you j 13 right back to nominal voltage, right?
f-}
LJ 14 MR. MICHELSON: If you wait it will, yes.
15 MR. KERR: But within the timeframe.
16 MR. MICHELSON: But, within the timeframe, I can 17 be in 10 pc cent below if I understand the acceptance l 18 criteria, and then I start loading right away. I don't wait 19 until I'm up to nominal. I start loading at 20 seconds.
20 MR. KERR: But that doesn't have anything to do l
l 21 with the 70 percent on the bus that turned the diesels on 22 initially does-it?
23 MR. CARROLL: No.
24 MR. MICHELSON: It has nothing to do with what it 25 was initially. Right. All that's 70 percent .is doing
/~T C) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
COud RepOders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. G. 20006 (202) 293-3950
234 1 initially is monitoring the- decay out. of the voltage cnt the-2 board.
3 MR.-WYLIE: I don't think--it makes any difference 4 as long as you demonstrate you can do it.
5 MR. MICHELSCN: Yes. As long as you can 6 demonstrate that you can start out at l'0 percent _under and 7 load the moters and everything, the diesel can handle it 8 fine. That's not what's required here, but -- it's unclear 9 what's required. It sounds like it can come in 10 percent 10 under.-
11 It could be within 10 percent of it and that would 12 still be all right, even at the steady state.
- 13 MR. WYLIE:- As long as you can do it.
-14 MR. MICHELSON: As long as you can show -- but-I 15 think the showing then has to be-done at 10 percent under.
16 (Slide.)
17 MR. CHRIGTENSEN:= I think this number five,1the-18 acceptance criteria, does that answer the question I believe 19 you're asking?
20 MR. MICHELSON: No. I think the1 question =I'm_
21 asking is the starting point or_even the acceptance 22 criteria. LDo I have to-get 6900 out-of the diesel-to begin-23- with?--
24 MR. CHRISTENSEN: That's the'.-design goal.
25 MR. MICHELSON: . Number four,-I'm not sure.
h ANN RlLEY & - ASSOCIATES,- Ltd.
Court Reporters 1812 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 L
235 1 MR. CHRISTENSEN:. Right.
7-
\
's '
l 2 MR. MICHELSON: Well, I'm not sure reading four 3 that I ever have to reach that goal. I'm allowed-69 plus or 4 minus 10 percent. I can come in with a machine that's 10 5 percent under and be okay. Is that correct? If it never 6 gets to 6900 it's okay, as long as it doesn't miss by 10 7 percent.
8 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Yes. That's -- apparently the 9 voltage regulating tolerance, the maximum tolerance on the 10 voltage regulation.
11 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
12 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Okay. And then item five says 13- that you will not go below 25 percent and will restore to
/~'s 14 within that tolerance during the load sequencing.
NJ 15 MR. MICHELSON: All I'm saying is you must start 16 out then at 10 percent below 6900, and looking at the 37 ratings of your starting voltages on your equipment, the 18 motor-operated valves the-whole bit. It's got to be even.a 19 lower voltage-than you thought, because I never got to the 20 6900 because I wasn't required to.
21 I think that number ought ma have been 6900 22 myself, plus 10 percent, fine, but minus'10 percent, no.
23 Not unless you go back and change a number of other -- or 24 clarify the other specs.
25 MR. CARROLL: At 20 seconds you may not-be up to e
(x) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
236 1 full voltage.
2 MR. MICHELSON: But you may never get up to full 3 voltage and still-pass it.
4 MR. CARROLL: :Well, I think the -- well -- l !
5 MR. MICHELSON: Well, if you just change-it to 6 require that you reach 6900 in 20 seconds. That's one way 7 to fix it. Another way to_fix is'it to show that when you. ,
8 reach 6900 your time is still acceptable. _That's another-9 way'you can fix it. That's not what is says. _It's 10 ambiguous. It's unclear.
11 MR.;WYLIE: Chr that you can just _ accelerate. '
12 MR. KERR: -Well, it's not unclear if what is meant 13 that you-only nave to reach 90 percent of 6900.
I 14 MR. MICHELSON: That would be-clear. And that's 15 what I assumed. -And therefore when I do my loading tests I-16 start out at 10 percent reduced _ voltage and show that i can i
17 start the motors and go through_the whole sequence, getzthe 18 motor-operated valves and everything to work,. at110 percent 19 load to begin with on the supply side.
L 20 MR. KERR: Isn't that what this~1s saying - 'that 21- you have to be able to det;onstrate --
22~ MR.'MICHELSON: I don't know.
l' 23 MR.'KERR:= -- that?
L L '24 MR. MICHELSON: I think-that's not what was N 25_ intended, but-maybe it is. I think that's what it's saying, l n
U ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, _ Ltd.
COud Rapoders
.1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D..C. 20006 i
(202) 293-3950 j
237 p_
_ 1 And I was only asking is that what was intended? It's just I
\/ ) 2 a little tougher rating on the motor.
3 MR. CARROLL: Okay. In the last two minutes.
4 Item 10. Does that mean that the manufacturer has to 5 conduct reliability tests on the units that are going to be 6 involved in this plant?
7 [ Slide.]
8 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Yes.
9 MR. CARROLL: On these actual units?
10 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Yes. That's my understanding.
11 MR. CARROLL: Not on --
12 MR. CHRISTENSEN: I think it falls on the same 13 category as the question that was asked previously. These
, (-] 14 diesel generators must be tested.
15 MR. KRESS: Each unit will have a reliability 16 test?
17 MR. CHRISTENSEN: -Yes. As far as I understand.
18 MR. KRESS: Will that be specified somewhere?
19 MR. WYLIE: We've got to define what that means.
20 MR. CHAMBERS: Ther.e is a specific Reg Guide that 21 deals very specifically with the tests you've got to do on.
22 diesel generators. And I believe the intent of this-23 commitment was to capture that. I forget what Reg Guide it 24- is. It is Reg Guide 1.9.4 or something.
25 MR. WYLIE: I do not think'that's a reliability
((.) ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, - Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 ,
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
P 238 1 test.
2 MR. KRESS: It's not a reliability test.
3 MR.-WYLIE: That's a requirement of performance.
4 MR. CHAMBERS: _Oh, no.- It's like X-number of-5 starts and then you've got to run it so long, and you've got 6 to run --
7 MR. KRESS: Are you going to reference that here?
8 Because'this says reliability,-which is something else 9 besides that.
10 MR. CARROLL: Again, Intervenor lawyer could have 11 a lot of fun with this.
12 MR. WYLIL: Performance-test-is what he's talking.-
13 MR. CHAMBERS: So noted.
14 MR. WYLIE: I think you've got to be-careful using 15 that word.
16 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Manufacturer?
17 MR. CARROLL: No. - Reliability testing.
18 MR.- WYLIE: Reliability.
19- MR. CARROLL: That can mean anything.
20 -MR.- CATTON: Ask Hal.
21 :MR. CARROLL: Yes.. Ask Hal.
22- MR.-KRESS: ' It's got a very, specific meaning.
-23 MR. WYLIE:' IJdidn't get through with:five. Let 3
-24 me go-back to five. '
I 25 Five'says-that v.he-automatic. load': sequence begins: -
h_% ANN -RILEY & ASSOCIATES, L Ltd.
Court Reporters 1812_K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
_(202) 293 '1950 ,
239 ,
1 1 at 20 seconds and ends at 65 seconds. I'm not sure why, but
/ f ~h
2 it says that. The question I asked earlier had to do with 3 when you initiate the start of the diesel after you get a 4 voltage of 70 percent. That's tied into your safety 5 analysis. What I've been talking about here is --
6 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Total time?
7 MR. WYLIE: You get a loss of voltage safety for a 8 period of time. Now, you haven't specified that it was the 9 same -- you can look into it. Then you start the diesel, 10 and you have to show -- in 20 seconds you come up to speed.
11 You're saying though that you're starting the load sequence 12 in 20 seconds from what?
13 MR. CHRISTENSEN: You get the sustained voltage 14 reduction. That will clear that breaker, the source, right,
\ (~))
15 start the diesel. The diesel will start. At the time the 16 diesel is starting you're also dragging the voltage down by 17 connected loads if they're running during that interval.
i' 18 okay?
19 During the start interval that the-diesel is 20 coming up to speed, you've already cut loose from the 21 offsite power-source. So, any large motors _are dragging 22 down that voltage until it gets low enough. And I'm not 23 real sure whether that was down to 30 percent bus voltage or 24 something equivalent to that. And then it will clear the 25 loads. The diesel will then close in after it has started,
' ("'y . .
V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
240 1
and then the sequencing will start as soon as bus voltage is k-' 2 re-established.
3 MR. WYLIE: So, what you're saying is that you 4
initiate the sequencer timer at the same time you initiate '
5 the start on the diesel?
6 MR. CHRISTENSEN: No.
7 MR. WYLIE: That's what you said I thought.
8 MR. CHRISTENSEN: It should not say that. Because 9 your timer doesn't s'. art until the bus voltage is 10 reestablished.
11 MR. WYLIE: I guess this -- well, it doesn't say.
12 It says the automatic load sequence begins at 20 seconds.
13 Now, 20 seconds from what?
/T 14 MR. CHRISTENSEN:
l O I think what the gist of this is 15 is that this needs to be clarified to define exactly when.
16 MR. WYLIE: Well, it has to be tied in with your 17 safety analysis, 18 MR. CHRISTENSEN: _Right.
19 MR. WYLIE: And start in on the diesel and then 20 sequence and load to the diesel.
21 MR. CHAMBERS: Well, in the safety analysic it is 22 20 seconds, because that's the assumed maximum time that the 23 diesel is going to get back up to speed and load back to the 24 bus. So, your first load --
25 MR. WYLIE: No. Forget the diesel.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
241 1 MR.= CHAMBERS: Okay.
V 2 MR. WYLIE: When did you need your first load?
3 MR. CHAMBERS: If you haven't lost offsite' power, 4 they're all there, 5 MR. MICHELSON: They all start together. -There's 6 no sequencing on offsite power.
7 MR. WYLIE: I know that. I'm saying you --
8 MR. CHAMBERS: 'Okay. So, if you've lost offsite 9 power, there's some assumption that the bus is going to get 10 under voltage. that's going to start the diesel. The bus 11 is still~ going-to go down.- At some point, it's going to 12 clear all its loads.
13 As soon as the diesel loads it back again, time 14 zero, the first motor.is there, because itLnever got 15 cleared; time five, another one gets added; time 10, another 16 one gets added.
17 Now,-the assumption >is-that_the first one is at 20
~
18 seconds-in the-safety analysis because that's'the-maximum 19 time it's going to_take for,the diesel to reestabl'ish 20 voltage on that bus.
21 MR WYLIE: Okay. Well,_that's'what.I'm asking i 22 you.
23 MR.. CHAMBERS: If-it: starts _in'10, the first one 1
24' is there at 10. I 25 MR. MICHELSON:- You're monitoring voltage, IT j.
h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
-(202) 293-3050:
242 1 assume?
iQ k d- 2 MR. CHAMBERS: Right.
3 MR.- WYLIE: So the first load is applied then in ,
a 4 10 seconds after something?7 5 MR. CHAMBERS: No. the first load is applied as'
. 6 soon as voltage is reestablished on.that bus.
7 MR. WYLIE: Well, I know. But that's 20 seconds -
8 -
9 MR. CHAMBERS: No. Times zero of reestablishment
! 10 of voltage.
11 MR. MICHELSON: It's not to exceed 20 seconds._ -
i 12 MR. CHAMBERS: It's not to exceed 20 second's. -And, i 13 therefore, we assume 20 seconds in-the safety analysis; 14 because that's going to allow more water level decay before a 15 we start pumping water back in.-
16 MR. KERR: Okay. Where do you establish time l-17 zero?
l 18 MR. CHAMBERS: For loads coming-back on?
19 MR. KERR: This=is 20 seconds;from something. And 20' ~the something is times zero. What is the something?
,- 21 MR.-MICHELSON: Offsite power?
22 MR. KERR: -It is the loss of offsiteJpower?-
lf 23 MR.-CHRISTENSEN: ' Loss ^offsite power or' bus
-24' voltage being cleared from the grid' essentially starts > thel
- 25 diesel. -That's times lzero.-
h ANN RlLEY . &E ASSOCIATES, _ Ltd.
- Court ReportersL 1312 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-i
243
,_3_ 1 MR. WYLIE: Eut that loss of offsite power
(' ') 2 detection is based on your relay that says the bus voltage 3 is down below 70 percent for a certain duration?
4 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Yes. That's correct.- And your 5 concern being that maybe -- you're extrapolating and saying 6 that may be 15 minutes it's down that long. Right now it's 7 undefined in the ITAAC, and I'm not sure about whether in 8 the SAR. I believe it's in the SAR, but I would have to 9 check, okay?
10 And your concern being there's this --
11 MR. WYLIE: Twenty seconds.
12 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Your concern appears to be more
- 13 toward the drop-out of the bus from a low-voltage condition,
~% 14 as opposed to initiation of the safety system.
(b 15 MR. WYLIE: The time interval in 20 seconds.
16 MR. CHRISTENSEN: Yes.
17 MR. KRESS: It's a few seconds. <
18 MR. MICHELSON: He's got to get to his other 19 meeting.
20 MR. WARD: Do you want to continue this or should 21 ve + -
22 MR. WYLIE: No. I'm about through I think.
23 MR. CARROLL: Why don't you wrap it up?
24 ER . WARD: okay. Let's wrap it up, and just take 25 a minute to talk about presentations tomorrow. We have this O
C/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1912 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washhgton, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
244 7- g 1 on the agenda for the Pull Committee tomorrow morning
( )
2 beginning at 8:45 and continuing until 11:00, with a 15-3 minute break in there. There is about two hours. What I'll 4 suggest, and I'll ask the other subcommittee members to 5 comment -- is that we begin with a -- I'll have a short 6 introduction. But then I think we need some introductory 7 comments from both NRR -- I presume that will be you again, 8 Tom, and from GE, with Mr. James, I presume -- of pretty 9 much of the sort you gave today. I know this is going to be 10 a little repetitious for you. But those of us here today 11 are slow learners. And there will be some more additional 12 members there tomorrow. So, if we allow about 20 minutes a 13 piece for that.
14 Then I think we'll need, again, a discussion of 15 just one of the system TTAACs, the sort of discussion you 16 gave today particula;1y for the benefit of the additional 17 members there tomorrow. It could be either the SLCS or the 18 residual heat removal system. I don't know which -- do the 19 members have their druthers on that?
20 MR. KERR: Let's start with the SLCS.
21 MR. WARD: Okay. We'll start with the SLCS. And 22 then we'll allow some time for questions on the other four.
23 And perhaps you can just have all the slides available and 24 sort of page through them quickly, just.so the other member 25 have an appreciation for what's in the ITAAC.
V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 245 1 MR. JAMES: All right.
O, 2 MR. WARD:- Then we'll have a little time at the 3 end for a general discussion-among-the members -- what we 4 will want to say in the letter. I guess, by'that-time,~some 5 of us will have firmed up some proposed ideas for what a 6 letter would include.
7 MR. MICHELSON: Is Russell going to be here 8 tomorrow?
9 MR. BOYCE: I belie"e Mr. Russell and-Mr. Murley 10 are planning on attending for:a short time, as we kick off 11 the meeting.
12 MR. MICHELSON: I would have time to ask a few key-13 questions.
(~N 14 MR. WARD: I think it will be plenty of time to
\~
15 cover the sert of thing we need to.
16 All right. Well, thank you_very much, gentlemen.
- 17 I appreciate your cooperation today.
L l 18 [Whereupon, at 3:10 o' clock p.m., the above-19 entitled: meeting was adjourned.)'
20 i
! 21 22 l.
23 24
-25 L ANN RILEY &-- ASSOCIATES, ' Ltd.
- . Court Reporters l
~
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950-
REPORTER'S~ CERTIFICATE This is=to certify thae.the attached : ed-
.ings before the inited St.ates Nuclear Regulatory Commisstoa in the matter of:
NAME-OF PROCEEDING: ACRS. Joint Decay Heat and ABWR DOCKET NUMBER:-
' PLACE OF PROCEEDING:Bethesda, Maryland were heid'as herein--appears,;and:that this-is the-original transcript thereof_for the file of the, United States- Nuclear' Regulato ry Consis s Lon:
taken by_-me and thereafter.-reduced te typewritLag by me' or under the direction o f -the court report-ing-company,.and that:.the transcript is a.true g
and accurate-record _of the foregoing _ proceedings.
lg .
'l (
/
O f f icial-' Repo r te r :_ _ _
_ Ann Riley 5 Associates, Ltd.
O o Q ;
e
- . PR ESENTER:. TOM BOYCE ,
PROJECT MANAGER, NRR
SUBJECT:
- . INSPECTIONS,; TESTS, . ANALYSES, AND
.i ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (ITAAC) FOR THE' .GE ' ABWR eh l
t i: .,
< +
- August :5-6, .1992 -
e , . -
O. O O- ,
ITAAC FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS
SUMMARY
OF ITAAC STATUS
-* STAFF AND INDUSTRY ARE DEVELOPING ITAAC,.. WITH SENIOR MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT
- ITAAC DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES TO BE ITERATIVE, AND o MANY ISSUES UNDER.' DISCUSSION e SOME INCONSISTENCIES. 'HAVE BEEN NOTED .IN SSAR/ITAAC
- ITAAC lMPLEMENT SEVERAL ASPECTS. OF 10 CFR PART 52 l
l-
^ "
O O O .
LITAAC FOR DESIGN ^ERTIFICATIONS BACKGROUND e REQUIREMENT FOR ITAAC IN 10 CFR 52.47t -)(1)(vi)
- SEGY-91-210 ' DISCUSSED RELATIONSHIP OF FDA AND ITAAC
- SECY-92-053 DISCUSSED CONCEPT OF DAC
- SEGY-92-196 : DISCUSSED RAD PROTECTION AND PIPING. DAC
- SECY-92-214 DISCUSSED CURRENT STATUS : OF ITAAC
- SECY .FOR I&C AND HFE DAC EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED. THIS MONTH ww, m--ww w - wa -a nn.-mn--- L- - ----LL-- - -- ~ --
m- - - - -
9 - -
,j L
O -
.O O a ITAAC FORLDESIGN . CERTIFICATIONS F
STATUS OF THE REVIEW !
2
- STAGE 1 - NINE
- PILOTS * - SUBMITTED SEP 91 i t
- STAGE 2 - 40 SYSTEMS SUBMITTED APR 92 l
r
- STAGEi 3 - FULL ITAAJ SUBMITTAL JUN 92
- - l
[
i a
(
)
e I f"
i
__ . ~ . . . . _ _ . _ _ . . -
..__..._..._.a
~
l' O O O ITAAC FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS STATUS OF THE REVIEW
- - DRAFT FSERS ON CONTROL- ROOM AND ' l&C DACS SUBMITTAL WILL BE PROVIDED IN SEGY PAPER TO._ BE ISSUED IN
.. AUGUST;- DRAFT FSERS ON PIPING AND RAD PROTECTIONS DACS
~
WERE PROVIDED IN SECY-92-196 ISSUED .MAY 28, 1992
- COMMENTS-.ON STAGE .2 SUBMITTAL BEING PROVIDED AS ;
PART OF AUGUST DRAFT FSER l
- COMMENTS :ON STAGE 3 SUBMITTAL BEING PROVIDED VIA_. SEPARATE. CORRESPONDENCE
= "GREYBEARDS* AND REGIONAL REVIEW. AND COMMENTS ON
-DESIGN CERTIFICATION MATERIAL 1WILL"BE PROVIDED
= 1NTERACTION WITH NUMARC SCHEDULED FOR LATE AUGUST l-
4 O O O j
, i
~
- lTAAC- FOR DESIGN: CERTIFICATIONS
! STATUS OF THE REVIEW (CONT.)
i l o , l
~
- STAFF .lDENTIFIED INCONSISTENCIES IN SUBMITTALS BETWEEN ,
SSAR,: DESIGN DESCRIPTIONS, AND ITAAC F *-- GE IS u RESOURCE CONSTRAINED, .RESULTING IN DELAYS IN j
- i. SUBMITTALS AND RESOLUTIONS OF ISSUES i- !
L' -
- FSERf(AUGUST) TO- INCLUDE INITIAL EVALUATION- OF STAGE 2 I SUBMITTAL;-- GE -MUST -HAVEi TIMELY SUBMITTALS TO CLOSE !
! -lSSUES' AND SUPPORT SCHEDULE FOR FDA I
f t
^
[
4 i- ;
5 [
p;. .j l
I
[
i
O O O .
1
- ' SYSTEMS ITAAC" FOR SYSTEMS OF DESIGN l;
- ' GENERIC ITAAC" FOR GENERIC CONCERNS ACROSS SYSTEMS
. CROSS . REFERENCED TO SYSTEMS WHERE APPROPRIATE l
, PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS (E.G., TRAINING, ETC.) ,
i * ' INTERFACE ITAAC" FOR SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN (E.G., ULTIMATE
- HEAT SINK, ETC.)
I j- * 'DAC" FOR SELECTED ~ AREAS OF THE DESIGN ;
F -
[
3 ,
a l
- i
^
h i
1 -
i
, ~ - - . , . ,
( 9 o o1 :
l ITAAC FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS RELATIONSHIP OF DESIGN DESCRIPTION TO ITAAC l ...
- DESIGN DESCRIPTION CERTIFIED IN DESIGN CERTIFICATION RULE j WILLTCONTROL' PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DESIGN BY A FACILITY
! THAT REFERENCES' THE CERTIFIED DESIGN !
i' !
L l e 'ITAAC WILL BE USED --FOR FUEL LOAD DECISION AND SUBSEQUENT
- FACILITY MODIFICATIONS 'TO THE DESIGN 1
I
- STAFF IS EVALUATING WHETHER ALL . ELEMENTS OF DESIGN DESCRIPTION REQUIRE A CORRESPONDING ITAAC t
- STAFF 18 EVALUATING GE PROPOSAL THAT -CERTAIN SYSTEMS SHOULD HAVE DESIGN DESCRIPTIONS WITHOUT CORRESPONDING L
ITAAC, BASED ON SAFETY.. SIGNIFICANCE ~ OF SYSTEM y
- t
v .
~ .:
- LO
- O O q L 'l
- ;lTAAC FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS _
i TREATMENT OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS NOT IN ITAAC i.
L-
- SOME REQUIREMENTS MET AFTER FUEL- LOAD, BUT PRIOR TO '
. OPERATIONS: (E.G, START-UP 'AND INITIAL POWER TESTING) j ,
1
- THESE ISSUES TREATED . AS CONDITIONS OF THE COL; I ANALOGOUS TO PLANTS LICENSED UNDER 10. CFR. PART 50 WHERE
! TESTING ' OCCURED . AFTER OL ISSUANCE
[ .
a i-
- MODIFICATIONS TO THESE PROGRAMS WOULD BE. LICENSE
- j. AMENDMENTS, PROVIDING. OPPORTUNITY FOR .PUBLIC COMMENT
! i I
t I
i t
- - i l- ....
i 4: i I
5' .
{.
10 O O .
ITAAC FOR DESIGN ' CERTIFICATIONS TREATMENT OF N_ON-TRADITIONAL ITEMS
- INSIGHTS FROM- PRA' AND ' SEVERE ACCIDENT ISSUE RESOLUTIONS (E.G., SEGY-90-016, ETC.) INCORPORATED INTO SSAR
' .. IMPLICIT CONFIRMATION OF THESE -ISSUES SINCE ITAAC VERIFY DESIGNilN SSAR'
.. STAFF MAS REQUESTED L
llGE- TO DEVELOP CROSS REFERENCE OF SSAR-
.:XSSUESHTO 'ITAAC;L EXAMPLE. PROVIDED IN SECY-92-214 FOR ;
CONTAINMENTi PERFORMANCE ANALYSES l l
.i l
i:._._:_m.
LOL :o O
- q L ITAAC FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS
. ITAAC REQUIREMENTS FOR FDA 1
i
- SECY-91-210 - DISCUSSED REQUIREMENTS TO REVIEW AND APPROVE ITAAC- PRIOR TO ' FDA ~
e' REVIEW OF ITAAC IS RESULTING IN AMENDMENTS TO SSAR; FOR 3 . EXAMPLE, JUSTIFICATION OF ITAAC ENVELOPING VALUES SHOULD
. BE'IN SSAR, WHEREAS SSAR CURRENTLY MAY HAVE ONLY LISTED
[ NOMINAL , VALUES '
j
- RULEMAKING FOR . DESIGN ' CERTIFICATION CANNOT BE INITIATED i UNTIL' REVIEW OF TIER 1. MATERIAL .lS -COMPLETE e STAFF ' CONCLUDES THAT DESIGN AND ITAAC REVIEWS - ARE
{ FUNDAMENTALLY: LINKED AND .SHOULD BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FDA i.
I
- COMMISSION SUPPORTED THIS CONCLUSION IN SRM ON SECY-92-037 l BY.. INDICATING THAT THE STAFF MS BOUND BY. THE SAFETY E DECISIONS:IN ;THE FDA i i !
e !
.. - . . . . - . . --.. - , . .- -. - - . ___l
- ~
-1 O O
- O:
- ITAAC FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS
SUMMARY
OF ITAAC STATUS c
t
- STAFF cAND' INDUSTRY ARE DEVELOPING ITAAC, WITH
-SENIOR MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT 2
- LITAAC DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES TO BE ITERATIVE,. AND i MANY -; ISSUES . UNDER DISCUSSION
- ' e SOMELINCONSISTENCIESJHAVE BEEN NOTED IN SSAR/ITAAC ,
[ l i
- ITAAC IMPLEMENT' SEVERAL ASPECTS OF 10 CFR PART 52 t
i.
f i
L i
i -.
- , , - - , . s + s , ,.-e , , , , - . .-- - - _ - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - _ - _ - - . - . _ _ - . - . . . . _ _ ._
T ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION
, O sesier AcRs susc0MsITTre REvIEv i
GE PREPARATION OF.
ABWR TIER 1 MATERIAL O
A. J. JAMES-MANAGER, MECHANICAL SYSTEMS DESIGN GE NUCLEAR ENERGY (408) 925-6002 O
1 AJJ-1 L
' 8/5/92 't
.____....__.._.._.2.. _ _ . . . _ , _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ .
ABWR DESIGN. CERTIFICATION 8/5/92 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW .
GE PRESENTATION ON TIER 1/ITAAC STATUS AGENDA o OVERVIEW OF GE APPROACH TO A. J.-JAMES ,
PREPAAATION OF TIER 1 MATERIAL o STATUS OF ABWR TIER 1 DEVELOPMENT A. J. JAMES ,
~
, - SUCMITTALS TO NRC
- INDUSTRY (NUMARC) REVIEW o EXAMPLES OF TIER 1 MATERIAL FOR A. J. JAMES FIVE ABWR SYSTEMS:
- STANDBY LIQUID CONTROL SYSTEM (SLCS)- A. J. JAMES
- RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL (RHR) J. C. CHAMBERS REACTOR BUILDING COOLING WATER (RCW) R. D. ROBERTSHAW
- EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS (EDG) C. F. CHRISTENSEN-
- CONTROL BUILDING (CB) A. J. JAMES-i o
SUMMARY
A. J. JAMES O 1 AJJ-2 8/5/92-
O O o..
i ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION 8/5/92 ACRS SUSC0fftITTEE REVIEW -
P BASES FOR GE APPROACH TO PREPARATION OF TIER I MATERIAL
- ,. . APPRDACH BASJi
! CERTIFICATION IS TWD-TIERED ENDORSED BY THE CONNISSION (SRM FEB. 15, 1991) 4 t-TIER 1 IS RESERVED FOR TOP-LEVEL PART 52 STATEMENTS OF CONSIDERATION.
I INFORMATION :(1.E. , A SUBSET OF THE SAR) SECY-90-241,91-178 I 'ITAAC (INCLUDING DAC, GENERIC AND EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED IN 10CFR 52. 79(c) t s.
INTERFACE) . ARE TIER 1
- .t i ITAAC VERIFY CONFORMANCE WITN TIER 1 ; PART 52. ...AND (THE PLANT) WILL OPERATE IN DESIGN CORFORNANCE WITH THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION."
VERIFICATI0N'0F NON-TIER l'IS VIA EXISTING PART 52 INVOKES PART 50 QA PROCESSES PART 50 PROCESSES L AJJ-3 i- 8/5/92 e
ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION O ats>.nz acas suecoaa nter aev'ev ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN TIER 1 ELEMENT INTENT DESIGN DESCRIPTION (S) THE CERTIFIED DESIGN I
INSPECTION, TESTS, ANALYSES VERIFY THAT SPECIFIC FEATURES AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 0F THE AS-BUILT FACILITY l (ITAAC) COMPLY WITH THE CERTIFIED i DESIGN O oestsa accert^ ace cartrata (DAC)
^a Ita^c oa tas ots15"
""^'55 WHEN DESIGN DETAILS A,.. .oEGITIMATELY):NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF DESIGN CERTIFICATION INTERFACE ITAAC VERIFY THAT SITE-SPECIFIC FEATURE (S) COMPLY WITH
-REQUIREMENTS OF THE CERTIFIED DESIGN ,
GENERIC ITAAC VERIFY-THAT GENERIC-ASPECTS 0F:THE AS-BUILT: FACILITY COMPLY WITH THE. CERTIFIED :
. DESIGN (sis., EQ):
"O AJJ- 4 8/5/92;
. . . u
A8WR DESIGN CERTIFICATION 8/5/92 ACR$ SUBCOMITTEE REVIEW GE APPROACH i !
4 o STRUCTURE T' i 1 ON A SYSTEM-BY-SYSTEM APPROACH
- NOT SAR STRUCTURE
, - COVER MOST PLANT SYSTEMS o GRADED TREATMENT OF SYSTEMS THAT REFLECTS SAFETY
'IGNIFICANCE ,
o STEP 1: PREPARE TIER 1 DESIGN DESCRIPTION FOR V.ACH SYSTEM
- PRINCIPAL-DESIGN BASES AND DESIGN FEATURES O
o STEP 2:. PREPARE ITAAC TABLE FOR'EACH SYSTEM
- DERIVES DIRECTLY FROM THE DESIGN DESCRIPTION ENTRIES o- STEP 3: PREPARE OTHER TIER 1 ENTRIES AS NEEDED KEY CONSIDERATIONS
'o . DESIGN DESCRIPTION AND ITAAC CONTENT REFLECT THE TIERED APPROACH TO CERTIFICATION:- ;
o EXISTING PART-501 VERIFICATION PROCESS ARE APPLICABLE. :
AND PLAY A KEY. ROLE'IN PART 52-
.O AJJ-5 8/5/92-a 'A _ .Y . .;. -..--..-,_a--,. -...;...-,-,-..-.--.-
- ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION O aisier iCa5 SuBCoaaITTEE EviEW CHARACTERISTICS OF TIER 1 ENTRIES DESIGN DESCRIPTIONS 1
o DESCRIBES THE PRINCIPAL DESIGN BASES AND DESIGN FEATURES OF THE FACILITY; DRAWN FROM SAR DESIGN DESCRIPTIONS i
SYSTEM BASED APPROACH WITH LEVEL OF DETAIL GRADED T0 :
o REFLECT SYSTEM IMPORTANCE'T0 SAFETY' o CONTAINS ONLY TECHNICAL INFORMATION ALREADY COVERED IN TIER ,
O z <saa>
o DOES NOT ADDRESS PLANT OPERATING CONDITIONS (COVERED BY.
TECH. SPECS,)
1 F
o INCLUDES NUMERICAL INFORMATION-T0 THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO '
IDENTIFY PRINCIPAL DESIGN BASES AND FEATURES o SELF-CONTAINED AND-AVOIDS DIRECT REFERENCES TO TIER 2 DOCUMENTS:
o MAY: INCLUDE SIMPLIFIED 'P&ID'S,. ONE LINE DIAGRAMS, GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS WHICH ADDRESS THE' DESIGN FEATURES IN 0 tat text or iat Tita 1 oestaa atscatetroa AJJ-6 8/5/92.
-,-,--.-.-...--....-....._.--..--.-..-.-.-..--.2
-_ . - . . - . _ . - - . . . - . _ ~ _ . . .. - - - -
ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION O e/siezACRsSuBCDaaITTrenEvIE0 CHARACTERISTICS OF TIER 1 ENTRIES ,
ITAAC o AIMED AT CONFIRMING THE AS-BUILT FACILITY COMPLIES WITH THE CERTIFIED DESIGN o SYSTEM BASED AND DERIVED FROM (AND ADDRESSES MOST 0F) THE TIER 1 DESIGN DESCRIPTION o NUMERICAL' VALUES MAY HAVE RANGES OR TOLERANCES o THE ITAAC PROCESS ENDS AT FUEL LOAD POST-FUEL LOAD TESTING NOT IN'ITAAC (LICENSE CONDITION) .
r
^a' O a u't'1zt c'tacars or exts'2aa auC't^a rowta VERIFICATION PROGRAMS I
AJJ-7 l
8/5/92
A8WR_ DESIGN _ CERTIFICATION Q 8/5/92 ACRS SUBCOMITTEE REVIEW TiPICAL TIER 1 ENTRY FOR AN ABWR SYSTEM I
l QESIGN_ DESCRIPTION (TYPICAL) ENTRY PER SYSTEN 1/2 - S PAGES OF TEXT 0 - 5 FIGURES, DIAGRAMS l
INSPECTIONS TESTS, ANALYSES AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR EACH SYSTEM TABULATION CONTAINING 2 - 20 ENTRIES-CERTIFIED INSPECTIONS, t DESIGN TESTS, ACCEPTANCE C(MlITMENT ANALYSES CRITERIA DERIVED:FROM THE- WHAT ACTION WILL: WHAT! CONSTITUTES-SYSTEM DESCRIPTION BE TAKEN'T0 ACCEPTABLE. [
VERIFY THE:.CDC7 --
.RESULTS-0F-THE-ACTION?
O i L AJJ-8 8/5/92-
ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION 8/5/92 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW STATUS: GE/NRC REVIEW UF ABWR TIER 1 l l
o GE HAS SUBMITTED 100% OF PROPOSED ABWR TIER 1 MATERIAL
- 115 SYSTEM + OTHERS i
- ROAD-HAPS AND OTHER CLEANUP ITEMS IN PROGRESS
, o INTERACTIONS TO DATE INDICATE CONSENSUS ON BASIC SCOPE AND '
CONTENT MANY DETAILS'OPEN o NRC CURRENTLY REVIEWING.THE MAJOR JUNE l'.STASE 3 SL?MITTAL 1
COMENTS EXPECTED FIRST HALF.0F. AUGUST
-. "L0TS'0F WORK REQUIRED" o FITICIPATE INTENSIVE INTERACTIONS-OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS-AJJ 9'
.8/5/92
- g. r
ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION
)
Q 8/5/92 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE. REVIEW STATUS: . INDUSTRY REVIEW OF ABWR TIER 1 o REVIEW CONDUCTED UNDER AU$PICES OF NUMARC 3TANDARDIZATION .
OVERSIGHT '10RKING GROUP (50WG) ,
- UTILITIES EPRI-1 -
INP0 A/E'S ,
o REVIEWS IN PARALLEL WITH NRC- ;
APPROXIMATELY 20 SYSTEMS COVERED S0 FAR MAJOR ACTIVITIES SCHEDULED IN. AUGUST / SEPTEMBER o SEVERAL TRENDS ALREADY CLEARi l
CHANGES HEEDED TO REFLECT LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF TIER 1
- ACCEPTANCE. CRITERIA NEED TO BE M0kE PRECISE, -
UNAMBIGU0US-REDUCE;THE AMOUNT GF TIER 1: MATERIAL'FOR NON-SAFETY. SYSTEMS.
- STRONG DESIRE TO ELIMINATE GENERIC ITAAC l
o ADDITIONAL REVIEWS 1 SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST / SEPTEMBER'AND
' INTERACTIONS WITH NRC BEING. PROPOSED FOR:SEPTEM3ER/0CTOBER ,
O :
AJJ-10.
8/5/92 1
ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION 8/5/92 ACRS SU8COMMITTif, REVIEW
, $UMMARY o REVIEW OF ABWR TIER 1 MATERIAL NOW MOVING CENTER STAGE o THE TIERED APPROACH TO DESIGN CERTIFICATION IS A MAJOR INFLUENCE ON-ITAAC, DAC, INTERFACE ITAAC AND GENERIC ITAAC
$ COPE AND CONTENT o IN ADDITION ld ITAAC, PART-50 QA PROCESSES-HAVE.AN IMPORTANT VERIFICATION ROLE IN PART 52 LICENSING O
o GE/NRC CONSENSUS ON BASIC SCOPE OF TIER 1 MANY DETAILS OPEN :
EXTENSIVE INTERACTIONS THROUGH-END OF CY92 o UTILITY /NUMARC PARALLEL-REVIEW SOME CONFLICTS'WILL NEED-TO BETRESOLVED +
MAKING PROGRESS;-
LOTS 0F. WORK' Q REMAINING AJJ-11 8/5/92
.u. a . _ ., _. . ,2 ._.._.-__..__.__m____.._._._m.. . _ ;. _ _ . ._ m . _ _ _ _ . _ . ~
ASWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION O 8's'92 acas suBco*><1rTte arvttw EXAMPLES OF TIER 1 MATERIAL FOR FIVE ABWR SYSTEMS STAND 8Y LIQUID CONTROL SYSTEM (TI.CS) A. J. JAMES
- RESIDJAL HEAT REMOVAL (RHR) J. T. CHAMBERS
- REACTOR BUILDING COOLING WATER (RCW) R. D. ROBERTSHAW
- c. r caatstrasta O - catastacv otest' acata^1oas < coa >
CONTROL BUILDING (CB) A. J. JAMES O
AJJ-12' 8/5/92
l ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION Q 8/5/92 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE REYlEW STANDBY LIQUID CONTROL : SUMARY OF TIER 1 SYSTEM (SLCS) ENTRIES GZSIGN DESCRIPTION ENTRIES:
INJECT NEUTRON ABSORBING POISON INTO REACTOR AUTOMATIC INITIATION ON ATW5 SIGNAL KEY EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE AND ASME CODE REQUIREMENTS O -
GIVEN COMPONENTS REQUIRED FOR INJECT 10N ARE SEISMIC CATEGORY I SIMPLIFIED SYSTEM DIAGRAM ITAAC ENTRIES:
BASIC SYSTEM CONFIGURATION POIS0N REQUIREMENTS PLMP DESIGN LIMITS IN-SERVICE FUNCTIONAL TESTS ELECTRICAL-POWER REQUIREMENTS SEISMIC REQUIREMENTS O
AJJ-13
.8/5/92
ABWR 0: sign 0: cum:nt 2.2.4 Standby Liquid ontrol System
~~~
The Standby Liquid Control (SLC) System is designed to inject neutron absorbing poison using a boron solution into the reactor and thus provide back-up reactc,r shutdown capability independent of the normal reacdvity control system based on inserdon of control rods into the core. The SLC System is capable of operation over a wide range of reactor pressure condidons up to and including the elevated pressures associated with an anticipated plant transic 3t coupled with a failure to scram (ATWS).
The SLC System is designed to bring the reactor, at any time in a cycle, and at all conditions, from full power to a subcritical condition, with the reactor in the most reactive xenon-free state, without control rod movement. The system will inject the minimum required boron solution in 61 minutes.
The SLC System (Figure 2.2.4) consists of a boron solution storage tank, two positive displacement pumps, two motor-operated injection valves which are provided in parallel for redundancy, and associated piping and valves used to transfer borated water from the storage tank to the reactor pressure vessel (RPV). The borated solution is discharged through the 'B' high pressure core flooder (HPCF) subsystem sparger. Key equipment performance requirements e are:
U (1) Pump Dow (minimum) 100 gpm with both pumps running (2) Maximum reactor pressure 1250 psig (for injection)
(3) Pumpable volume in storage 6100 U.S. gal tank (minimum)
The aquired volume of solution contained in the storage tank is dependent upon ti.e solution concentration, and this concentration can vary during reactor operations. A required boron solution volume / concentration relationship is used to define acceptable SLC Sptem storage tank conditions during plant operation.
The SLC System is automatically initiated during an ATWS. an ATWS condition exists when either of the following occurs:
(1) High RPV pressure (1125 psig) and Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) not down scale for 3 minutes, or n
(j (2) Low RPV level (Level 2) and APRM not down scale for 3 minutes.
l 2 2.4 1- E'1 '9 2 l
. ABWR D: sip 0:cumet When the SLC System is automadcally initiated to inject a liquid rieutron j
'O' absorber into the reactor, the following devices are actuated:
(1) The two injection valves are opened.
(2) The two storage tank discharge valves are opened.
(3) The two injection pumps are started. ,
I (4) The reactor water cleanup isolation valves are closed.
The SLC System can also be manually inidated from the main control room.
When it is manually initiated to inject a liquid neutron absorber into the reactor, the following devices are actuated by each switch:
(1) One of the two injection valves is opened. l (2) One of the twc storage tank discharge ulves is opened.
(3) One of the two injection pumps is started. . ;
(4) One of the reactor water cleanup isolation valves is closed.
He SLC System provides borated water to the reactor core to compensate for the various reacthity efects during the required conditions. These effects include xenon decay, elimination of steam voids, changing water density due to the reduction in water temperature, Doppler effect in uranium, changes in neutron leakage, and changes in control rod worth as boron affects neutron migration length. To meet this objective, it is necessary to inject a quantity of borc,n which produces a minimum concentration of 850 ppm of natural boron !
in the reactor core at 70'F. To allow for potential leakage and imperfect mixing i in the reactor system, an additional 25% (220) is added to the above l
requirement. The required concentration is thus achieved, accounting for '
dilution in the RPV with normal water level and including the volume in the RHR shutdown cooling piping. This quantity of boron solution is the amosmt -
which is above the pump suction shutofflevel in the tank, thus allowing for the portion of the tank volume which cannot be injected..
ne pumps are capable of producing discharge pressure to inject the solution into the reacter when the reactor is at high pressure conditions corresponding to the system relief valve actuat.ca (1560 psig), which is above peak ATWS pressure.
The SLC System includes sufficient control room indication to allow for the -
necessary monitoring and control during design basis operadonal condidons.
This includes pump discharge pressure, storage tank liquid level tad
- temperature, as well as valve open/close and pump on/offindication for those .
'2.2.4 2 6/1/92
,. _ _ . _. ,- 2 . - , . . . . _ - _ _ , . .m _ . . _ , . _ . . - _ . - _ _ _ . _ , _
ABWR D: sign 0: cum:nt q
V components shown on Figure 2.2.4 (with the excepdon of the simple check vakes).
The SLC System uses a dissolved solution of sodium pentaborate as the neutron-absorbing poison. This solution is held in a stomge tank which has a heater to maintain solution temperature above the saturation temperature. The heater is capable of automatic operation and automatic shutoff to maintain an acceptable solution temperature. The SLC System solution tank, a test water tank, the two positive displacement pumps, and associated valving are all located in the secondary containment on the Door elevadon below the operating Door. This is i a Seismic Category I structure, and the SLC System equipment is protected from phenomena sah as earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, and Goods, as well as from internal postulated accident phenomena. In this area, the SLC System is not subject to conditions such as missiles, pipe whip, and discharging Guids.
The pumps, heater, s-alves, and controls are powered from the standby power supply or normal offsite power. The pumps and valves are powered and controlled from separate buses and circuits so that single active failure will not prevent system operation. The power supplied to one motoroperated injection valve, storage tank discharge valve, and injection pump is powered from Dhision I,48 VAC. The power supply to the other motor operated injection (y valve, storage tank outlet 5alve, and injection pump is powered from Division II, 480 VAC. The power supply to the tank heaters and heater controls is connectable to a standby power source. The standby power source is Cla.ss IE from an on-site source and is independent of the off-sit power.
Components of the SLC System which are required for injection of the neutron absorber into the reactor are classified Seismic Category L The major mechanical components are designed to meet ASME Code requirements as shown be'ow:
ASME Design Conditions Component Code Clw Pressure Temperature Storage Tank 2 Static Head 150'F Pump 2 1560 psig 150'F Injection Valves 1 1560 psig 150'F Piping Inboard of- 1 1250 psig 575'F q Injection Valves Nj 2.2.4 3- 6/1/92
. ABWR 0: sign Docum:nt Piping and components not required for the injection of the neutron absorber x (e.g., test tank, sampling system line, and storage tank vent) ara classified Non-Nuclear Safety (NNS).
Design provisions to permit system testing include a test tank and associated piping and vahrs. The tank can be supplied with demineralized water which can be pumped in a closed loop through either pump or injected into the reactor.
The SLC System is separated both physically and electdcally from the Control Rod Drive System.
Inspections, Tests, Analyses and Acceptance Criteria Table 2.2.4 provides a definition of the inspections, tests, and/or analyses, together with associated acceptance criteda, which will be undertaken for *he SLC System.
O 2.2.1 -4 . 6/1/92:
xx. _ - - , _ .---a -. _.--,-----,w_--,-----,--a--_-- x- - - -. - - - - _ -_x-.-..a-- -.-----. - - - - - - - . - . . _ _ - - - ~-----.--- .a--_.---- -- - --- .x a
-0 Table 2.2.4: Standby Liquid Control System b,
inspections, Tests, Analyses and Accepts.nce Criteria Certified Design Commitment inspections, Tests, Analyses Acceptance Criterie The minimum everage poison 1. Construction records, revisions and plant 1. It must be shown the SLC System can 1.
concentration in the reactor after operation visual examinations will be undertaken to achieve a poison concentration of 850 ppm of the SLC System shall be equal to or assess as-built parameters listed below for c greater, assuming a 25% dilution due to compatibility with SLC System design non-uniform mixing in the reactor and greater than 850 ppm.
calculttions. if scessary, an as-built SLC sccounting for dilutten in the RHR System analysis v.Sl 'oe conducted to shutdown cooling systems.This demonstrate ti-st the acceptance criteria concentration muct be achieved under are met. system design basis conditions.
Critical Peremeters: This requires that the SLC System meet the following values:
- s. Storage tank pumpable volume )
- a. Storage tank pumpable volume range l b. 3PV water inventory at 70'F 6100-6800 gal. ;
T
- c. RHR shutdown cooling system water b. RPV water inventory s 1.00 x 10 61b inventory at 70*F
- c. RHR shutdown cooling system inventory 5 0.287 x 10'lb l
- 2. Inspections of installation records, together 2. The system configura* ion is in accordance
!' 2. A simplified system configuration is shown with plent walkdowns, will be conducted to with Figure 2.2.4.
in Figure 2.2.4.
conf;rm that the installed equ4pn'ont is in compliance with the design configuration defined in Figure 2.2.4.
\
is
. 4
\
u .
t
, iy Table 2.2.4: Standby Liquid Control Systene (Cw,0.cd
- Inspections, Tests, Analyses and Acceptance Criteris !
Certified Design Commitment inspections , Tests
, - ? A::: Aseeptance Critorie {
! . 3. l The SLC System shall be capable of 3. System preoperation tests will be ' 3. It must be shown that the SLC System con ;
p : delivering 100 gpm of solution with both conducted to demonstrate acceptable automatically inject 100 gpm (both pumps !
- pumps operating against the elevated ' pump and system povformance.Thess . running) against a reactor pressure of 1250 -i pressure conditions which can exist in the tests will involve estatlishing test . psig with simobted ATWS conditions. It
. 7eactor during events involving SLC . conditions that mirnulate conditions which - . must also be shown that the SLC System 4, ! System initiation.: will ' exist during an SLC System design pumps can pump the orttire storage tank i basis event. To demonstrate adequate Not pumpeble volume. -i p Positive Suction Hood !NPSig, delivery of i rated flow will be con 6rmed bytests ;
!' , conducted at conditions of low level and l l; ~
maximum temperature in the .:.orege tank, !
U and the water will be injected from the j l ' storage tank to the RPV..
~
- 4. Using not neity installed controls, power -
-g 4. . The system is designed to permd in-service . 4. 4 Field te as will be conducted after system -
F functional testing of the SLC System. - installation to confirm that in. service supplies and other auxiliaries, the system i; . system testing con be performed. has the capoteility to perform:
1 ,
i a. Pump tests in a closed loop on the test 1 - tank.
i
[
- b. RPV injection tests using deninoralized
. water from the test tank.
h - 5. . The pump, heater, valve- and centrols con : 5. System tests will be conducted after 5. The insteiled equipmem can be powered I : be powered from the standby AC power installation to confirm that the electrical from the standby AC power supply.
l .. . supply as described in Section 2.2.4. power supply con 6gurations are in t compliance with design commitments.
L ;
L ' 6. SLC System components which are - 6. See Generic Equipment Quelefication 6.' See Generic Eauipment Qualification
[ -
. required for the injection of the neutron. verification activities GTM. Acceptance Criterie (AC).
absorber into the reactor are classifico
.g - Seismic Category I and, qualified for. .
- 2. ' O- appropriate environment for locations .
where installedJ .
y3 . . p p ~ , . - #' - - e h y, i
+y ,-d, t y y , e aw ,# , ehw c y ar , r w---p- e g .-3y-ww ,,-.,e+ , -wwe 4 v ew%w wrww, -e a v ,,, n e , -e,-
... . . . - . . -. - .. ~ . . . . - -. -..-.--.- ..- . .- .-. . . . ~ .. .
O O O- -
M N
VENT m
PRIMARY gg CONTAINMENT STORAGE 2 TANK TE A L
NNSl 2 H
g a SAMPLING p_ y=g_ L SYSTEM HEATER
/
' F r- -i l 1 I
- - - - M -- .------ HPCF *B- 1 mgmg M M -
(WITH POSITION p l g g INDICATION) l l 8 u _ g_ __ .____ p4- ; ,SMe . .
r' ------- iI CODECLASS [r-- -I I
' V ___I INJECTION
___ i n ! i i ! l I I i VALVES 1 I PUMPS I 8- 8 (WITH POSITION .
l N l_,__jl l IN_DICATIO_N) g_ __ _ l g M M I I I p _ __ w_ _7_ _ _g _ __ _i 1 - -- -
i i g 2 I I I I I NHS U t_ _ 8 l----- r-----! _.__'
Am l i l l CODE CLASS 2 2 '
p i L_______________-- _ _ _ _ .
_mS ,_ ,
3 TANK
..s Figure 2.2.4 Standby Liquid Control System (Standby Mode)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . --~
ASWR. DESIGN CERTIFICATION ~
8/5/92 ' ACRS SUBCOMITTEE- REVIEW O ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION 8/5/92 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE REVIG RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL : SLIMMARY OF TIER 1 MTRIES SYSTEM (RHR)
DESIGN' DESCRIPTION ENTRIES:
e -
SAFETY-RELATED SYSTEM'(WITH SOME NONSAFETY FUNCTIONS)
- SEISMIC CATEGORY-I; ASME CODE CLASS I INSIDE PCPB, CODE CLASS 2 OUTSIDE
- 7'in'AE "0MPLETELY INDEPENDENT SUBSYSTEMS ,
MIO t~'LE MODES OF OPERATION:
-- LOW PRESSURE CORE FLOODING.(AUTOMATICALLY INITIATED) h --
SUPPRESSION POOL C0OLING (LONG-TERM CONTAINMENT-COOLING)
SHUTDOWP COOLING -(DECW HEAT REMOVAL)-
-- WETWELL AND DRYWELL AYS-L ,
L SUPPLEMENTAL FUEL'P w . COOLING (AND: EMERGENCY MAKE-UP) 1 -- AC-INDEPENDENT: WATER ADDITION.(FIRE WATER CROSS-TIE);
SIMPLIFIED SYSTEN DIAGRAMS (3)
ITAAC ENTRIES:
L BASIC SYSTEM CONFIGURATION SYSTEM-OPERATION IN Ail. MODES-
- VALIDATION'0F ECCSND CONTAINMENT ANALYSES (s.a., PUMP.AND HEAT EXCHANGER CAPL LITY)
- INITIATION, ISOLATION-AND4 INTERLOCK LOGIC l
O JTC-1 8/5/92
..I
. ABWR oesign occument _
O 2.4 Core Cooling (J 2.4.1 Residual Heat Removal System Design Description The Residual Hen: Removal (RHR) System is comprised of three divisionally separate subsystems that perform a vadety of functions utilizing the following sir, basic modes of opention: (1) shutdown cooling, (2) supprecsion pool cooling, (3) wetwell and drywell spray cooling, (4) low pressure core f.ooder (LPFL),15) fuel pool cooling, and (6) AC independent water addition. The configuration of each loop is shown on its P&ID in Figure 2.4.1 (aligned in the standby mode).
The major functions of the vadous modes ofoperation include: (1) containment heat removal, (2) reactor decay heat removal, (3) emergency reactor vessellevel makeup and (4) augmented fuel pool cooling. In line with its given functions, portions of the system are a part of the ECCS network and the containment cooling system Additionally, ponions of the RHR System are considered a part of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundag (RCPB).
The entire RHR System is designed to safety-related standards, although it performs some non. safety functions (i.e., those that are not taken credit for when evaluati ig design basis accidents). The safety-related modes of operation f) v inc;ude: (1) low pressure flooding, (2) suppression pcml cooling, (3) wetwell spray cooling and (4) shutdown cooling. Non-safety-related modes of operation include: (1)drywell spray cooling (2)AC independent water addition and (3) augmented fuel pool cooling. The RHR System also provides a backup, safety-related fuel pool makeup capability. Ancillary modes of operation include minimum flow bypass and full flow testing.
The ECCS function of the RHR System is performed by the LPFL mode.
Following receipt of a LOCA signal ( low reactor water level or high drywell pressure ), the RHR System automatically initiates and operates in the LPFL mode (in conjunction with the remainder of the ECCS network) to provide emergency makeup to the reactor vessel in order to keep the reactor core cooled such that the criteria of 20 CFR 50.46 are met. The LPFL mode is accomplished by all three loops of the RHR ystem by transferdng water from the suppression pool to.the RPV, via the RHR heat exchangers. Although the LPFL mode is automatically initiated , it may also be initiated manually. The system will also j automatically revert to the LPFL mode of operation from any other test or operating mode upon receipt of a LOCA signal. Each RHR loop's RPV injection valve requires a low reactor pressure permissive signal whether being opened
, n manually or automatically in response to a LOCA signal.
V The containment neat removal function in the A3WR is performed by the Containment Cooling System, which is comprised of the low pressure core flooder (LPFL), suppression pool cooling, and wetwell and drywell spray cooling 2.4 1 6/16/92
- - ABWR ouien oocument;
- modes of the RHR System. Following a LOCA, the energy present within the ' ,
reactor primary system is dumped either directly to the suppresion pool via the i
SRVs,'or indirectly via the drywell and connecting vents. Sukequently, fission product decay heat continues to add energy to the pool. The Containment ,
Cooling System is designed to limit the long-term bulk temperature of the .
suppression pool, and thus limit'the long-term peak temperatures and pressures .
within the wetwell and drywell regions of the containment to within their analyzed design limits, with only two of the three loops in opention_ (i.e., worse '
case single failure). The cooling requirements of the containment cooling -.
function establish the necessary RHR heat exchenger heat removal capacity. ..
I The LPFL mode, in addiuon to its primary function of cooling the core, serves to cool the containment, as the heat exchanger is' designed to always _be in' the ;
loop. The dedicated suppression pool cooling mode is made available in each of the three loops of the RHR System by circulating suppression pool water -
through the respective RHR heat exchanger and then directly back to the: .
suppression pool. This mode of RHR is usually initiated manually but will also -
initiate automatically in response to high suppression pool temperature. The : .
wetwell and drywell r.pmy modes of RHR are each available in only two;of the .
three subsystems (loops B and C). These functions are pedormed by_ drawing _
water from the suppression pool and delivering it to a common wetwell spray _
1 ' header and/or a common drywell spray header, both 'via the associated RHR heat exchanger (s). These containment spray modes of the RHR System arc l typica'4 initiated manually, with the exception ofautomatic inidation ofwetwell spray coincident with automatic suppression pool cooling However, the drywell_
spray inlet valves can only ne opened if there exists high drywell pressure and if - ,
the RPV injection valves are fully closed. Wetwell'and drywell sprays serve as an ~
augmented method of containment cooling.~ Wetwell spray also serves to .
mitigate the consequences of steam hyp isg the suppression pool.
The normal operational mode of the RHR System is in the shutdown ' cooling--
mode of operation; which is used to remove decay heat from the reactor core.
This mode provides the required safety related capability needed to achieve and L maintain a cold shutdown condition, including ~ consideration of the worst case system single failure. Tlie RHR heat exchinger heat removal capacityf requirements in this mode are b'ounded by containment cooling requirements.
Shutdown cooling is initiated manually once the,RPV has been'depressurized-
- below the system low pressure permissive. In thh .aode each loop takes suction from the'RPV via its' dedicated suction line, pumps the water through its -
respective heat exchanger, and returns the cooled water to the RPV.Two loops -
, p (B and C) discharge water back to the RPV via dediented spargers, while the
- d third loop (A) utilizes the vessel spargers of one of the two feedwater lines (FW-
~
A).The heat removed in the RHR heat exchangers is transported to the ultimate '
l- _
[ "
heat sink via the respective division of reactor cooling' water and~ service water.
Each shutdown cooling suctiori valve is interlocked with that loop's suppression -
L 2.4.1 - 2- ensm- ,
h
!. m _. .2. _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . - __._.__ _ _ . _ . _
ABWR Design Document
( ) pool suction and dischnge alves and wetwell spray valve to prevent draining of
'" tte reactor vessel to the suppression pcel. Also, each shutdown cooling suction i vaht is interlocked with, and automatically closes on, low reactor water level. l The augmented fuel pool cooling mode of the RHR System supplements /
replaces the normal fuel pool cooling system during infrequent conditions of high heat load. This mode is accomplished manually in one of two ways. When the reactor vessel head is removed, the cavity Gooded and the fuel pool gates are removed, the RHR System cools the fuel pool in the normal shutdown cooling mode. When the fuel pool is otherwise isolated from the reactor c nity, two loops (B and C) of the RHR System can directly cool the pool by taking suction from and discharging back to the normal fuel pool cooling system. This connection also provides for emergency fuel pool makeup capability by supplying a safety-related makeup path to the fuel pool from a safety-related source (i.e., the suppression pool).
One loop (C) of the RHR System also functions in an AC independent water addition mode. This mode provides a means of cross connecting the reactor building fire protection system header to the RHR Systemjust outside the containment in the absence of the normal ECCS network and independent of
( the normal essential AC power distribution network. The connection is V] accomplished by manually opening two in series valves on the cross connection pipingjust upstream of its tie-in to the normal RHR piping. Fire protection system water can be directed to either the RPV or the drywell spray sparger by manual opening of the loop C RHR injection valve or the two loop C drywell spray valves. These three valves also have manual hand wheels. The fire wate. is supplied via the system's reactor l~ilding distribution header by either the direct diesel 4 riven fire pump or from an external source utilizing a dedicated connectionjust outside the reactor building.
Each loop of the RHR System also has both a minimum flow mode and a full flow test mode. The mmimu:n flow mode assures that there is pump Dow sufficient to keep the pump cool by opening a minimum flow valve that directs flow back to the suppression pool anytime the pumpis running and the main discharge valve is closed. Upon sensing that there is adequate Dow in the pump main discharge line, the minimum flow valve is automatically closed. In the full ficw test mode, the system is essantially operated in the suppression pool cooling mode, drawing suction from h discharging back to the suppression pool.
The RHR Spt' m is comprised of three separate loops or subsystems, each of n which includes a pump and a heat exchanger, takes suction from either the RPV (j or the suppression pool, and directs water back to either the RPV or the separation suppression pool. Two of the three loops can divert a portion of the suppression pool return Gow to a common werwell spray sparger or direct the entire flow to a common drywell spray sparger.The divisional subsystems of the
-3 6/16/97 2.4.1
'ABWR outon 0: cum:nt RHR System are separated both mechanically and electrically, as well as being l
"~
h- physically located in different areas of the plant to address requirements pertaining to fire protection and other separation criteria. Eac:. of the three subsystems is powered from a separate divisional power distdbution bus that can
- be supplied from either an on site or off-site source. Cooling water to each dhision of RHR equipment (heat exchanger as well as pump and motor coolers) is supplied by the respective dhision of the reactor cooling wate (RCW) System.
The RHR System also includes provisions for contair. ment isolation and RCPB pressure isolation.
. The RHR System will maintain the. capability to perform its intended safety-related functions either following a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) or during the emironmental conditions imposed by a LOCA, and in each case assuming :
F the worst case single failure. The system will also accommodate calculated movement and thermal stresses. The system is designed so that the pumps will have necessary head / flow charactedstics and available NPSH greater than required NPSH for operating modes. The system can be powered from either normal off-site sources or by the emergency diesel generators. The RHR System is Seismic Category I and is housed in the Seismic Category I reactor building to provide protection against tornadoes, floods, and other natural phenomena.
The RHR pumps are motordriven centrifugal pumps each' capable of supplying at least 4200 gpm at 40 paid (drfwell to RPV). The pumps are ASME Code Class 2 components with a design pressure of 500 psig and a design temperature of-360*F. The pumps are interlocked from starting without an open suction path. .
The RHR pumps are protected from possible pump run-out conditions during operation. The RHR heat awchangers are horizontal U-tube /shell type each -
sized to provide a minimum effective heat iemoval' capacity' (Kcoefficient) 'ofl ~
195 Bru/sec'F. The primary and secondary sides of the heat exchangers are ASME Code Class 2 and 3, respectively. The primary side design temperature.-
and pressure are 500 poig and $60*F, respectively. The secondaxy side design '
temperature and pressure are consistent with that of the RCW System. Each loop -
- of the RHR System has its ownjockey pump to act as a keep 4ill system for that-loop's pep Arhnrge piping. Thejockey pumps are ASME Code Class 2.-
The RHR System piping and valves are ASME Code Class 1 or 2 as shown on~ the l P&ID (Figures 2.4.la, b, c). The design pressure and tempenture of piping and -
g valves varies across the system. For that piping attached to the RPV, from the RPV
, out to and including the outboard containment i3olation valves, the design pressure and temperature ase 1254psig and 575'F, respectivelyy For other ; ~
piping open to the containment atmosphere, out to and including the outboard containment isolation valves, the design pressure and temperature are 45 psig J
- and 219'F, respectively. For pipinb ad valves outside the containment isolation -
valves, the design pressure and temperature depends on whether it is located on
- the sucdon or discharge side of the main pump. Those portions on the suction: J
- 2.4.1 -4.' 6/16/92 -
m, n.2 .u . . _ . , _ . . - . ~ , . _ ,.~_-..._..._m._.-._..._ , . . _ , . . a ,, ,.m , . , . _
- ABWR 0: sign 0: cum:nt side are rated at 300 psig and 360*F, while those portions on the discharge side Q r rated at 500 psig and 360*F, respectively. The low pressure portions of the shutdown cooling piping are protected from full reactor pressure by automatic pressure isolation vakes that are interlocked with reactor pressure. High -
reliability of this interlock is assured by utilizing four separate and disisionally independent pressure sensors in a 2-out-of-4 logic. Additionally, in-series inboard and outboard containment / pressure isolation valves in each loop are powered from separate electrical dhisions. Relief valves are also provided for ,
protecdon from overpretsure.
The RHR System includes control room indication to allow for monitoring and -
control during desiga basis operational conditions, i.e., system flows,-
temperatures and pressures, as well as volve open/clex and pump on/off.
indication for those instruments and components shown on Figures 2.4.la, b and c, with the exception of simple check valves and overpressure relief valves (of the check valves shown only the testable check valves downstream of each loop's RPV injection valve has control room status indication).
Inspections, Tests, Analyses and Accep snce Criteria l
l This section provides a definition of the inspections, tests and/or analyses l p together with associated acceptance criteria which will be undertaken for the RHR System.
-t 4
( 4 6/16/92
- 2.4.1
s g
. s
. . . l y r.
L$ Table 2.4.1: Residual lleet Removal Systmn
)- + '
i inspections, Tests, Analyses and Acceptance Criteria I Certined Design CommMment . ' Inspections. Tests, fr N r Acceptance Critorie
'1. The configuration of the RHR System is . 1. Inspections of the as-built RHR 1. Actual RHR System configuration, for. ;
'shown in Figures 2.4.1s, b and c, which are configuration shall be performed. those components shown, conforms with
- each mechanically and electrically ' Figures 2.4.1a, b and c and seperation
- separated from each other? requirements. - ,
~
- 2. The RHR System operates in the LPFL- 2. The ECCS LOCA performance analysis for 2. RHR System actuation and operation is -j i mode as' post of the overall ECCS network. - assuring core cooling shall be validated by consistent with the ECCS performance
' ~'
' RHR System functional testing, including analysis as follows:.
1- demonstration that the LPFL mode (of occh
- j
. RHR loop) is capable of automaticahy.l ' . a. RHR Flow (each loop) - 4
[ ilnitiating and operating in response to a 24200 gpm (at 40 pold) ., a l- LOCA' signal, _ b. : Time to Rated Flow (each loop) 4
{
,l s 36 sec ?.
O .
~
p-
~
- 3. Tha RHR System operates in the - .
- 3. The primary containment performance L 3. - RHR System automaticelly actuates in the J >
suppr6ssion pool cooling mode to limit the : analysis for long-term peak pressure endi suppression pool cooling mode es.'
- l. ' designed and RHR nest exchanger 1
- long-term tem'perature and pressure of the .. temperature shall be validated by RHR '
performance is consistent with the
~
1 ' containment under post-LOCA conditions. ; ' System functional testing demonstrating ~
j'
~ '
- the required flowrote through the heat' ., contahwnent crioling system analysis as .
L exchanger and by. inspection of vendor test ' follows: . ~
1 data demonstrating the heat exchanger's l'
i effective heet removal cepobility. s. . Effective heat removal capability of occh -L
!' RHR Heat Emchanger (K coeMicient):
i
- Automatic initiation in the suppressiorp I F pool cooling mode will also be' includes effects of RCW,RSW and UHS:
demonstrated. : 2 195 Btu /sec T.-
j
' b. Tube side flow of each RHR Heat Exchengx' 1
! 4 4200gpm p
- 4. : RHR loops B and C each asperately are l
! 4.' A portion of the.RHR System return flow (in - 4.- RHR System _ functional tests shall be loops B & C) can be diverted to the wetwell. - performed to demonstrate wetwell spray - capable of providing wetwsil spray flow n consistent with the suppression pool E sprey header. - flow capability.-
bypass analysis as follows: 3 I~ '$
' " - a. - Wetvieil spray flow.(each loop individually)'-
- 2 000 00M-
, . _ . - - ,- . - . . - a. - -. ____
V n n a
- k sg k e rP o e e:
1 e
c in c .d- it g d n r teR hi f a h u gbiun a R og f b t lo o bmo a w t s ogt ano ic le gt em whteHnie Riretb g n
lymis LA al ea en eytt bnss ai yi goebisf laFC f n nt h rd oel s
, k g G lb igHlin ar( i e p rgshgt a n i t t eCl e
. it a
r c e cPO it a L L ci o s pa .bm c agni i
a r
ahl e a ccs spn sci yo h nio l
l cmawAbe eei ir t v ol ah er pu o os mh e a
- t r
epu d ys r, p a p ot o i i t e isis a a ) isoti t c i a w f t u tot nn t
de ct ]
Cdolcbn3 ] r s et gun it ore i i i
r ) vleon3 ae# o cd a e s d n o f
C e on pd evc# &d l a oa u o C BaonopmC r
f nr oeen ts ipt oahsahsr a et lbo s omn t eo at p c s nbyA pmlpciA nA scsie t
sl ap stsp ni e x teyw eea l
s pr nys n hms a coeted r
A oegt Ta i
ae os er o c eI T e o ar t o r u innI ), vu ch it e ar p a r r f ptad - of f o- yrp pC ht la n st it c e n e
c e
nr ens l( nl locs it spmv a i ie nhi lon o oem
(
my t so fu e n l
mimcoaoyn iel t
c A miooh out ip e c crt t n ecrd t be b rl ieof h yr eb r o c iu t
s u egs m aebe t s uo edm pew ( e T. bd af l 8
t sd ye ic uit gga t an ys r nie Sgeaei Sgeu ysnr d r i e e ah ct r ymb me Sl p i lofnpe i r mio det la r
Rinhhdu Rinh q ni u wmdsas i tene R p Ro o otc
)
d Hk t coq Hk t e uq oe oonyvy p Hu Hc t
un e a Rt t ao eme x r Rt at oR [ br Ff raSaso Rs l
Rr o ef Af u u i r 0 n e .
6 7
8 9
1 it t i 5
r n C o e e e nr eo m C e h ht h or fo
( c t en o t f hr ot o n n n if bi e wew t ye t en o i .
m a en na dt i d d ben o nd c e t p boi b oe l
lai oo o p ). eli o ei f t
s e s id ht l it isari ter(s dmbm dmtao s ar mn l it l e la ra ra r a n roms t t r y c laao r n o sLF S c s y hs e e hs pem ge o hs pf eso af ot no A p p n pi t a fe'm r P c eui so gn sof r a ic l
l a d a
n ss o o t f t it oi t t s oe gpeL igpac t s ed et sla n t
v n As eo s et elo i
et d o,bes e o ef n .
o a ,
et t as t a r o t ar a t a r mge l
sl St o yh l,bou sf e m t lat rd l at s c l
at r lat srl t l sl n k v t l J
e s e
s e n so n nlo n s nt e n o n oe ph uaRt uao co la phit v LRa s T, tcmg o nm o o o o o o
- r. aw ions n sgHtRe r n sal r r n cmp cmr ie dn e vee dnpt o i i t it t t y s c i i ge e l
a n ne i n nel net udn r
neh ed eihrd ni yo a seioia ude u udt y t e n o udl o e ic t s s t t t t H A i
t f
oo f
of f
od f
mt ye oe n ieel amlut atr nai os e edl l
a ,
ce mt edn c mt edete n d . mt n .
ed e edbg mlat aricr ut t l mlatne s epn o s p t e t t ts e r e u t s ym wo s ymno s ymde is nst ins d s e b Sr Sr eit yme i Srdt S e im e
giton omtaho sgiono i ur i
s od oma on ar olpe ncmt yo t ot s T Rf ge r s ncmlas e Rf rt u Rf r i Rf r pe HeCp e n eoe i
in u eun r
s R s Heh Rps Heup Rpao RpAo HeuhUf daa Rpst Uf dip u s r
- n .
1 o .
6 7 8 9
. 0 1
i t 5 4 c e
2 e r e p n s e d y h . o
_ l s w e d C ec t,he a l
o t c
b n o d t ao t n A r e n n t
d T
a I d ture c l
o r emelo n an wg e et dot oi g dme e r t
n h oo sct ogmo p
n ep s io et or p e mtsA s d o ivfrhg e e r r
) i c Clol age dc n m r rC o r gih mh oo in vu ee e eO pi ny t t t t c c d opa ncerr o of hd h veL pl wna t eie
_ i miee na a al s
. r pn ory a r a pvi sr r ortsn o s ee yl o sRs m e e e Boo l o ) it Ci t nl t a a eHs e o t a vh s pl ei t pdd t
as i c e vRc C ot . pl a ui r - nis r t o a t x n emgs p nn oe et ou nf nd no o r ef po f ia gmpo n lae vr e g f o n uo i
s e
o reio r i bt l(
me lepl dmec l(
mta e l a in os t t e osd e st D mo e t d d i
sa ew me rmes. aur ie t
e nppem r a t
t en n t t t soc e n larpc t d sda o s a y uhr st yn ynr pmi o swj e e yot c t o S ho u o ede S Sg s on Se elob i i R ma n f yt d so yt b d ue it r ew Rul Rn Rt os y r t s r
/
C e H gh o Hapgapnr He Rp H b e R t aSm e
uc segs u Riat ln yd Reeth sod uie e e e mi s- r R F L st ns G eocu l
h dn h on l
aHP eoie r r er h oeh Tcds h no Tit cu on Ti Tf ro I RL f P pb p
. . . . 0
- 5. 6 7 8 9 1 4* 3 $"
e 3 d ly h n o e la t n o -
t a
n l
i t c o t c ef oo r n l i
it ht i
n i n
l
- t ee np f
p aae r o t w r mpai ao f u i cies g ycn no eo g e lol n gi n e Q<U tows uotce ar t
i sa icg l o a r eit ps sce to a k s
a nn o esbej nfo oo it l
af ep i
r f o l
i l vl a ruin s n s e smfed n
ie t
ct kl a c
i o
l t
ou se ulala o ng i swhseesV my t eP s l ai n
m r
gca e
it mud so l
. t o
C gis n r r n rRd e ri cion g es edipgl Rs f
r e nniee .
inys i t
n tu isd i
e c uir pt nnaHo l
p a
ic mtetxd tri n i
p s
f plee egm o lolaeocv l l e n ayeiwRc v n l
af p e eygy s o t vi r t m
p e gmdno u ci t e n alr laf vo pr pdiu r nl l pe u cc w spo p mpor i
l c .
A a n df ulo oot wmea mtp l lete m gict ha t f o
mnh uet a y
e e ei e psbp dndmdtuw ws oh dn i
ts er t k t sc fnf r ais n) cn yu a e u ua r v
ye r os Ran uo Sssr Sr n st sei mh set so di rl ( He o j i t e e ae Rht i hc t
)
d Raisn elvca Ro Hp Rcvh Hnl nvgl n t c cn H xbi u ait ia n u a u e
u i a
r Rto eomTvrha e Ru Rf vesv Aic Ef i
n t e 1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 1
6 1
t i r
n C o e P. e p C e ht H th t og
( c n eo n o Ro oy nn mR u
m a f
o vt w t gr t t a l i
e pH dn s l oy R e eiheh s l
t e t p en bopw ado ved dp e s ib w h t e eh t t t kt t t dk vt s e s ia oo dccoa y c e ll t dn cu u. .
n uodp dcl n ue l
opa st ecit n c s ar of l ads t
n adlr adw t dmp mje oci c ne nw S y hs eph l
o e pl e A l m c n ei a c n ioy eun r o
a go c a u io iot nsl o l t i a n gct hn c r
t po fhsh v
d n A, it neemt l o,bcf ef u l gcief o ef vla
,bol l
gcd o,bef o c
uRc i
t r t e ef r posl w
a s s a r i n .
at i
dHu m etfr oi) sl nn sl nvn sl n nRs e yi t lu e msn s t tl o
ce n t l
) e e s
e l t s n uaoo t l phiitt uao;e phi r t uao phi b i pf l
l lie e t
a oddo oo et he t t s T, n i n geo sae n saip'. n sar p iben
~Ude
/
o l
y a s n om it e mdid oet n n i
d n pis rl igec r t dnpugo d n picge l i
. b t o lahn l
a wakl tshteoe i
n u cdwt e eio eiosnoi p teiog g .
ooxco n t e t t t a st ) r e la seel o t t H f a s s h el a lut a o la eeVd A t c eed s tetu eepad e utl t ut t P in v o t t t a oh o r h e. ar ocm l
a ,
f d
f a
rRoir s mlat ut ae sao l u t s p s demgnn n mlat ns r
m mlat ins nps nss r
v i
t st nt shdy l s s one i i i n amui io s ong s e st l d s ons t conwb i
o n c b e coi mdt gi o e sepe r
gi oi n i i r
i u a gi oi la c oapd t
s e T i gf rnce l r ncml t
o ncmt t
wvp incmrm s n ee t
i gmtl e nmemn r uenu a
- o. ed a in s in t v l
s R s L pmio( Uf dc uUfeo oeinp dbvs Uf u dp eeau u s a Fdips t
- n l (
1 i
o 1 1
2 1
3 1
4.
1 5
1 6
1 4 t c
2 e p a p a e e'
_ l b
s n i n
m s h
t b e r
a 1 e
( g
. y sr pa a i lyup e l mlo ln s T la t
a e t noo e' mh t mhc lotoss or a ef rp o' v t
n c e v nlea l l p us ih s s e i
e t eh n a v f n pd' at i e v r t o do yp cs w_n t
m mt oe c lyvr l o peips y r o ei k t kecu m i
mt ap uor t laat cvc s kcgr ee s edi v t c ou c op a h ce s m
it a ne or loap lagj l r
en j
se r np o tvin s o C e t mit e e aius e sV hi t e np eh iztp~
toch t t n ae ut iden r lntsP i
e o l
it e g rd e usf h i r n _
i p o . a go ea yxR i a a u e s
e omgn ming lvf a oo t
a e_h e st mk _
et o r pu D pr e pwi t eloin vt t
t _
d o o a t soi n ne l
s ed mo t sy )p -
i e ol e l f h yca mes ems l h nd let ae uth pi Soo de .
f i
t Rme r Snd Rwt r
t shv e
wf e s i
R w Rl l r
e Huv Hon ysi r yd r o Hg n Hhil _
C Rm o Rd te Sl bt o d r
e sulc Ri Rcf v n sy as _
- V t
himcn eu er Rac a ee el l er eee .
( aio hh Ht h pr u h a h n -
Rers e Tilni t
E mfr Tsp T o pf Ts 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 ga 3g
.Y _
, j .I .
O O O. .
g Table 2.4.1: Residual Heat Removal System (Continued)
Inspections, Tests, Analyses and Acceptance Criteria
-i
' ' Certified Design Commitment inspections, Tests, Analyses Acceptance Criteria 1
' 17. The RHR System full flow test mode allows 17. Functional tests will be performed to 17. Each RHR subsystem demonstrates full periodic demonstration of RHR capability demonstrate operation in the full flow test ' flow functional capability while during normal power operation. mode. approximatisig actual vessel injection conditions during operation in the full flow test mode.
< 18. The RHR pumps have sufficient NPSH 18. Pump vendor records will'be inspected and 18. Minimum pump NPSH available, as during postulated operating conditions. as-procured purnp NPSH compared with determined based on as-built conditions design basis enalysis assumptions. Actual and the results of vendor tests and/or system installation will be inspected, and analys6s, exceeds as. procured pump
' - appropriate measurements taken, to requirements and is consistent with design
- determine available pump NPSH. basis enttyses requirements that inc!udes saturated water conditions.
- 19. The RHR pumps have adequate head / flow 19. Pump vendor test records and calculations 19. RHR pumps,in as-installed system 3 will be inspected, and as-installed systsm configuration, d*monstrate head / flow characteristics.
4 flow testing, conducted, to establish pump characteristics consistent with design basis i head / flow characteristics. analyses assumptions.
- 20. Cuntrol room indications are provided for - 20. Inspections will be performed to verify 20. The instrumentation is present in the - ,
RHR System parameters defined in Section presence of control room indication for the control room as defined ir: Section 2.4.1.
2.4.1. ' RHfi System (Section 2.4.1).
4 5
N
)
4 W
O O O- -
1 i
ASME ASME CODE CLASS 1 l CODE CLASS 2 FEEDWATER *N 4 > +-- 3 i
A i ; BZ E :
i
>@: ' >@<q ,,
y _ _ m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _4 4
l # l l
l l
V l- -- i. ;
__, g : gd O------- t m
c- ----P--- ------P-- +
f ,
F M _ _,
i
i iI l .,
_l l! I V
I JOCKEY PUMP M -
l Hx l i I'~~
I TO FROM MAIN PUMP RCW 'N U RCW 'A' t
i i e
. rn it i
i Figure 2.4.1a Residual it Removal (RHR-Al System
.o o o..
N i
l i
.TO FROM FM FPC 2 3 J L 3 1 PT ;
JL c_4 p__ __
I ,
g g________-.______ _________ g___ q mmm
)
3 T
I qg 2l1 2 J ..
g- -___,__n _ _ _ __
14 ._ _ __ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ M _ ._ q 'h l
.. g-_-_--- _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _p _ _~_~_~
r_-----
t h L .---.____
i t a:_-
.l b
I 1
I
.I iI I t_h JOCKEY PM .
I I I'
---I .l. _.
Hx N- 9 if- V -Q JL p MAIN PUMP -
FROM. y TO f $
- RCW 'B'- RCW 'B' 3
4 i
Figure 2.4.1b Residual Heat Removal (RHR-B) System
i y.
^ '
REACTOR BUILOING EXTERNAL _, ___ _ g 3
CONNECTION {_p_
l FROM FIRE FROM TO PROTECTION FPC FM SYSTEM ---- -N" 3 h 3 2 l 2X A___d__
___}___________________
^
=
< r nug mma l 1 1 2 3
JL 72 l I f ______ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ ,
Y .1l 2 1 1 J
M T---
g 8
i {
i r- h -- -- -_- .e - -_-_-k, O v g _5 _ . __y ______ ______v - . _h n _ _ _I k
I _
__sN@ I . g i Q@
g
' I I I D- W- -
9 8 8-- y--1
' JOCKEY PUMP O
w_ _ _
.1 r---
P JL
- U ,
MAIN PUMP TO FROM
$ RCW 'C' RCW 'C' is Figure 2.4.1c Residual' it Removal (RHR-C) System
! RWR DESIGN CERTIriCATION 8/5/92 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW
'O
REACTOR BUILDING COOLING :
SUMMARY
0F TIER 1 WATER SYSTEM (RCW) ENTRIES DESIGN DESCRIPTION-ENTRIES:
- SAFETY AND NONSAFETY THREE INDEPENDENT COOLING LOOPS TRANSFERS HEAT FROM SAFETY /NONSAFETY EQUIPMENT TO UHS Q -
SAFETY PORTIONS ARE SEISMIC I - QUALITY GROUP C RCW FLOW INCREASES FOR POST-LOCA H:i.AT REMOVAL FROM RHR AND U/G SAFETY AND NON-SAFETY EQUIPMENT M SE ISOLATED FOR POST-L3CA-SIMi' LIFTED SYSTEM DIAGRAMS (3)
ITAAC ENTRIES:
I BASIC SYSTEM CONFIGURATION l RCW LOOP INDEPENDENCY-
. HYDRAULIC CAPABILITY:
SAFETY AND NONSAFETY ISOLATION AUTOMATIC START OF 2ND PUMP AND 3RD HX AFTER LOCA-
'O RDR-1 8/5/92
l ABWR oesign occum:nt m
2.11.3 Reactor Building Cooling Water System
/ T V Design Description The Reactor Bmiding Cooling Water (ROV) System distributes cooling water during various plant operating modes, as well as during shutdown, and during post LOCA operation of the various safety systems. The system removes heat from plant auxiliaries and transfers it to the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) via the Reactor Service Water (RSW) System. The RCW System removes heat from the ECCS equipment including the emergency diesel generators during a safe reactor shutdown cooling function.
The RCW system is designed to perform its required safe reactor shutdown cooling function following a postulated lossef coolant accident / loss-of-offsite power (LOCA/ LOOP), assuming a single active failure in any mechanical or electrical RCW subsystem or RCW support system. In case of a failure which disables any one of the three RG, dhisions, the other two divisions meet phnt safe shutdown requirements, including a LOCA or a LOOP, or both.
Redundant isol2 tion valves are able to separate the essential portions of the RCW cooled components from the nonsafety-related RCW cooled components during a LOCA, to assure the integrity and safety functions of the sdety-related parts of the system. The bolation valves to the non-essentiai RCW System are f]
v automatically or remote manua'ly operated, and their positions are indica:ed in the main control room.
Each RCW division includes two pumps which circulate RCW through the various equipment cooled by the RCW System and through three heat exchangers which transfer the RCW heat to the LTIS via the RSW System.
Each RCW division Main Control Room (MCR) instnunent indication includes main loop surge tank level main loop radiation and RHR HX flow and temperature. MCR control includes all MOVs and AOVs shown on Figure 2.11.3.
Normal surge tank MUWP makeup is automatic or MCR controlled.
The threc RCW tram configurations are shown on Figure 2.11.3. The ECW -
System provides three similar compleu trains _( A, B and C) which are mechanically and electrically separated. The RCW pumps and valves for each RCW division are supplied electrical power from a different dhision of the ESF power system.
The RCW ASME Code classifications for different portions of the system are indicated on Figures 2.11.3a-c. The safety related portions of the RCW divisions are designed to Seismic Category I and Quality Group C, and are located Seismic l
' ()_'
Category I structures.
I 1
63/92 2.11.3
1f ABWR obsip omwm:nt'.
j e During various plant operating modes. one RCW water pump and two he;w
'I ext hangers are normally operating in each dhision. Flow balancing preaisions are included within eacl. RCW disision:
Pump design parameters are:-
- RCW A/S RCW Cl j
. Design pressure (psig) 200- %0 . ]
Design temperature (*F) 158- W ]
- Discharge flow rate (gpm/ pump) 2 5,700- 2. 4,800 _-
Pump total head .(psig) k 80 2 75 i Heat exchanger capacities are each: 2 45E . Btu /h?6 2 42E6Btu /h:
Connectiora to a radiation monitor are provided in each divi: ion to(detect
-radioactive contamination resulting from a tube leak in one of the RHR - g
- exchangers, fuel pool exchangers, or other exchangers.
The nCW pumps and heat exchangers are located in the lower floors of the
- control building;The equipment cooled by the RCW divisions are located in the q reactor building, turbine building, and radwaste building, (Figures 2.11.3a<). - !
Tables 2.11.3b, c, d show which equipment receives RCW flow'during various j plant operating and' emergency modes. The tables also indicate how many heat - j O, exchangers are in service in each mode. !
l During normal plant open ai, KCW flom thhough~ equipment which is- _
normally operating and reqw M coolin'g and allKCCS equipment, except RHR -1 heat exchangers and ESF. diesel generators, as shown by open or closed valves in Figure 2.113. .
If a LOCA occurs, a s-cond RCW pump end third heat exchdnger in each loop - 1
- are placed in service. Antomatic or remote operated isolation valves will separate 4 d the RCW for the LOCA required safety equipment from the nonsafety-relate'd- j l
equipment, if a RCW surge tank low' water level signal occurs. The primary ~
containment RCW isolation valves automatically lclose if a LOCA occurs.
f~y 2.11.3 ~ .2 6/1/92 4; -
4
'%. p 9 4 , y gy -p r,+ .- , >p-y . , . + . - u v A e eq-,-,-mem wy e'r
. ABWR oesign Docum:nt --
After a LOCA, the following sequence will be followed:
(]
V
<li lithe nonsafety portion of the RCW System is available to the instrument air /senice air (IVSA) compressors, the CRD pumps and CLV pumps, RCW flow to these nonsafety components is maintained (Figure 2.1LS). Flow is automaticaUy shutoff to other non-essential equipment after the LOCA.
(2) If the operator determines after the LOCA, from essential ROV instrumentation, that the integrity of the non safety RCW System to the above-mentioned compressors and pumps has been lost, he can shut the remote operated non essential isolation valves shown in Figure 2.11.3.
If the surge tank water level reaches a low level, with or without LOCA, indicating loss of water out of the RCW System, isolation valves in the supply and return piping to the non<ssential equipment will automatically close, including the compressors and pumps mentioned above. Without a LOCA and with low surge tank standpipe water level, all running RCW pumps trip. For post-LOCA, both RCW pumps continue running with low surge tad sandpipe water level.
"N The RCW/RSW heat enchanger design basis condition occurs during post-(d LOCA cooling of the containment via the RHR heat exchangers.
The RCW pumps have the flow capacity to deliver required flow to the ECCS equipment in each dhision and the above-mentioned compressors and pumps if the isolation valves cannot be closed.
After a LOOP, the RCW pumps isolation valves and their controllogic are automatically powered by the emergency diesel generators.
A separate surge tank is provided for each RCW division. Normal makeup water source to the surge tank is the Makeup Demineralized Water (MUWP) System.
For LOCA conditions, the Suppression Pool Cleanup (SPCU) System provides a backup surge tank water supply.
Inspections, Tests, Analyscs and Acceptance Criterin Table 2.11.3a provides a definition of the inspections, tests, and/or analyses together with associated acceptance criteria which willbe and undertaken for the RCW System.
7-L.)
3- 63 S2 2.11.3
_ _ _ . _ . , - . . . _ . .. . . _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ - _ . - ~ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _-
M
=
"~
- Table 2.11.3a: Reactor Building Cooling Water (RCW) System y .u lospections, Tests, Analyses and Acceptance Criteria ~
2 .
E
- Certified Design Commitment inspections, Tests, Anetyses , Acceptance Criteria ,
. 1. System configuration, including key. 1. Inspection'of construction records will .be 1. - The system cc.. figuration conforms with ,
[ components and flow paths, is shown in' performed. Visual inspection (VI) will be . Figure 2.11.3.
- Fi0ure 2,11.3. performed based on Figure 2.11.3.
4 -
^
- 2. 'Three RCW trains are mechanically and ;
21 Tests and VI of the three independent _ trains . 2. Plant tests and O confirm proper
- electrically independent.
will be conducted which willinclude independence of t.% RCW divisions.
i independent and coincident operation of - !
the three trains to demonstrate complete
[ divisional separation.
- 3. During various modes of operation, the .- 3. Limited system hydraulic tests will be 3. The results confirm that the RCW has the >
~ RCW System has adequate hydraulic - conducted according to available water flow capability specified by the
' capability for plar't auxiliaries and the - nonnuclear heat plant conditions.The tests ' coetified design commitment, including primary containment required for safe - will demonstrate a safe plant shutdown
~
safe shutdown operation with 1 RCW l
- p. shutdown following a design accident or ' / with one RCW division out of service.' division out of service. ,
4 transient. These safe shutdown iT requirements are satisfied with only any 2
.- L of 3 RCW divisions operating. .t i
a Nation valves as shown in Figure 2.11.3 l 4.u VI of the. installed RCW System and RCW 4.' Isolation valvss are properly located as ' ,
3 can' automatically or remote manually , L prosperational tests as follows will be shown in Figure 2.11.3 and are F- separate the RCW for the essentiali ccmpleted: demonstrated to operate ' automatically or ' -
- equipment from the RCW f6r the non- , .. _
remota manually to isolate RCW for non- -
+ ' essential equipment. -
- a. . Remoto-manual operation of the ' essentisi from RCW for essential '
l : Isolation valves from the main control equipment cooled by the RCW System.
,- room. -
b.- . During simuisted LOCA conditions, s
- . . simulated LOCA condition will be , '
h . combined with a simulated RCW surge .
,. tank watee level signal to automatically _
l- close the isolation valves. '
t .
s 'O .
- c. A LOCA signal will shut RCWisolation j i valves which will shut off RCW flow to .
. all non-essential equipment except the ;
F IA/SA compressors, CRD pumps and i CUW pumps.
1 i
[i !
.__ , , _=- , ,- . , , - . .
c _. .
O O . .
F Table 2.11.3a: Reactor' Building Cooling Water (RCW) System (Continued)
" -inspections, Tests, Analyses and Acceptance Criteria inspections, Tests, Analyses ' Acceptance Criteria Certified Design Commitment
' 5. The RCW pumps will trip or operate as
- 5. Without LOCA a. with low surge tank - 5. RCW System preoperational testsw ill be
. performed as follows: follows:
- standpipe water ievel, both RCW pumps in '
- that division trip. For post LOCA, both RCW ' a. The running purnp(s) will trip on surge pumps will operate with low surge tank - s. , Simulate a surge tank standpipe low water levelin the standpipe and l tank standpipe low water level.
standpipe water level.
' confirm the running pump (s) trip.
- b. With a LOCA condition signal, both -
- b. ' During 'a simulated LOCA condition RCW pumps will continue to operate
, and a simulated surge tank standpepe with a simulated surge tank standpipe - '
L Iow water level signal, confirm that . low water level signal.
i
' both RCW pumps will operate.
- c. Both RCW pumps start on simulated
- c. . During low surge tank standpipe water . LOCA signal.
' . level condition, a simulated LOCA Y'
signal staets both divisional RCW .
. pumps.
Tests simulating LOCA/ LOOP conditions . 6. LOCA/ LOOP signal successfully starts
- 6. A LOCA'will rescit in the automatic start of. 6. will be conducted forthe RCW System second RCW pump and initiates RCW/RSW '
the second RCW pornp in each division and . ' Hx flow in each division including the start flow througn de third RCW/RSW Hx : which confirm the RCW and its support following confirmations: - d in each division. ' systems'will parform its function under f .
, - those conditions. Tests will be conducted for the RCW, which confirm that after the - ^ a. Regardless of which RCW pump was l During LOCA/ LOOP (loss-of-coolant . ... operating during normal operation accident / loss of off-site power) conditions,1 ' LOOP, each dvision of RCW pumps and
- valves operates with the same division of before the LOCA, after the LOAC/ LOOP -- U RCW pumps and valves are powered by !: .
. simulation occurs, the first and second c ihe emergency diesel generators (D/G). " emergency D/G power and mamar4ated DC .
. control power sources. RCW pump will start automatically, powered by the emergency dessel genes ator. -
b.~ Regardless of which two RCW/RSW Hx's were operating befora the LOCA, after the LOCA/ LOOP occurs, the RCW ,
e motor-operated valve on the third 6 '
G' discharge will open automatically.
1 m.:-m.m.u-m --
- ABWR Design occumsnt Table 2.11.3bt Reactor Building Cooling Water Consumers b Division A Hot Emergency
. Operating Normal Shutdown - Stoney
. Shutdown ~ - (LOCA) =
- Mode / - Operstmg
- Y (Suppropion -
' et 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> : at 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> (i.e leu of Components Conditions "
AC) Pool et 97C)
RCW/RSW Het 2 3 3 2 3- 3 >
Exchangere in Service ESSENTIAL m Emergency D4- - .. - - X X
, nel Generator A-X RHR Host - X X. - X
. Exchanger A
- FPC Heat .X X- X' 'X .X X
' Exchanger A ..
Othere (essen- :X -X 'X X -- X -- X tial)*
- NON- ESSENTIAL RWCU Heat - ~X X X -X- X -
Exchanger inside DrywellA 'X X 'X X -X --
Othere (non- X X- .X- X ;X -X essential)W
.(1) (X) . Equipment receives RCW in this mode =
- H = Equipment does not receive RCW in this i,iode -
(2) HECW refrigerator, room coolers (FPC pump, RHR, RCIC, SGTS, FCS, CAMS), RHR motor and eeel-1 coolers.
(3) : Drywell(A & C) and RIP coolere,' _ . . .
(4) - Instrumente end service'eir coolers; RWCU pump cooler, CRO pump oil, and RIP Mg sets.
l .:
.2.11.3 1 ' .~ 6.19:
1
' - , . .~ . . , _ . . . - . . , _ . , . . - _ . . . _ _ . - __ . . _ , _ . . _ . . _
ABWR oesign oocumnt. -
Table 2.11.3c: Reactor Building Cooling Water Consumers Division B -
8 " *" Y' Ope e g = Sts e y Components Conditione s' wm M han (no hee o( (lose of AC I W"' "
- Ati Pool at 97'Cl e
, RCW/RSW 2 3 3 2- 3 3 HeatExchangers
- in Service ESSENTIAL l'8 Emergency Die- - - - - X X eel Generator B RHR Heat - ~X )f - X X C ExchangerB FPC HeatEx. X X X -X- X X
! changerB.
Othere (ees n- X X X X- X- X tial)"8 NON-ESSENTIAL Q RWCU Heat X X. X' X X -
V -Exchanger inside Drywell 8l X 'X X X' -X. . -
Othere (non- X X. .X X X X essential)M3
-i (1) (X) = Equipment receivee RCW in this rmade.
(-) = Equipment does not receive RCW in this mode . t .
(2)~ HECW refrigerstor, room coolers, (FPC pump, RHR, RCIC, SGTS, FCS, CAMS), RHR motor and seal l coolere.
-(3) Drywell(B) and RIP coolers. .
-(4) - Reactor Bu;Iding sampling coolers; LCW eump coolers (in drywell and reactor building), RIP MG sete and PWCU pump coolere,
'E 1
_l f'
t
!^ .)
1
~
2.11.3 - . 7 :6/'"e2 1
. . - . . .- ..:..,+. .., ~.;:..- . .. . .n,,.-.. .a,- .. ,
r ABWR ossign Docum:nt O
L./
Table 2.11.3d: Reactor Building Cooling Water Consumers D.ivis . ion C Hot Emergency Operst,ng i Normel shutdown Stoney (LOCA) -
Shutdown '" Y Mode / . Operating at 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> (no loss of - (Suppression Components Conditions at 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> AC)
^ Pool at STC) 3 3 -2 3 3 RCW/RSW 2 HeatExchangers In Service ESSENTIAL lil
.. - X X Emergency Die- - --
sel Generator B X X - X X RHR Heat -
ExchangerB
~
X X X X X' 'X Others (essen -
tial)C3 NCN-ESSENTIAL Others (non. X X X 'X X X eenential)D3
( (1) (X) - Equipment receives RCW in this mode.
(-) = dquipment does not receive RCW in this mode.
(2) HECW refrigerator, room coolers, motor coolers, and mechanical seal coolers for RHR and HPCF.
(3) instrument and service air coolers, CRD pump oil cooler, redweste componente, HSCR condenser, and turbine building sampling coolers.
1r l
I l
1
-[T i
l
[
2.11.3 6/1/92.
l l
1
.4
. ABWR D: sign 0: cum:nt O
MUWF F TE M' SURGE TANK
. RHR Hz (Reactor Building) 1F
^ " -
(Reactor Building)
M L -
EMERGENCY D/G (Reactor Building)
FPC HX - 0 (Reactor Building) SPCU MUWP OTHERS (ESSENTIAL)
'(Reactor and Contros Building)
CRD & CUW PUMPS , q q NC 1 (Reactor Butiding) NC
- . ,_ _[ 3
% q , _ _ _ __ _ q OTHERS (NON.E9sENTIAQ H___
I (Reactor Radwaste and Turbine Buildng)
I l
^ ____________ wsA COMPRESSORS (Turbine Building)
___. _ _ __ _ p l'
- M M p/
L L---GD- LN-- _ oRywEu EoueMENT -
--G!:F -8 NCl2 %NC NCl2 (NC CONTAINMENT CONTAINMENT A
g RCWHx rc** *" " ~'
C RSv, el L--+ Rsw RCW PUMP RCW Hz
(* I (Ooetref 9didinal RS RSW C RCW Hz - C
<cen,s aswmi Rs M O RSW RCW PUMP
- (Control Buinng)
%/
Figure 2.11.3a RBCW Division - A
.9 6/1/92 2.11.3 l_
_ ABWR ossign Documsnt O MUWP p SURGE TANK TE M RHR Hz (Reactor Building) U s "" -
C' (Reactor Building)
- M g. _
EMERGENCY D!G (Reactor Building)
FPC HX _ _ O (Reactor Building) SPCU MUWP OTHERS (ESSENTIAQ g' .
(Reactor and Control Building)
F CUW PUMP
- (Reactor Building)
Q
_,{NC NCj3 O !
p___
M
___ oTaa. - EN=u :
____ __ _ _ _ _ j ;
e (Reactor. Radnasts and Turbine Building) ,
l-
! .j A
M .
II'
'---- !D- M- DRYWEl.L EQUIPMENT
-QD-* J Q
- Q;2 : . q NC CONTAINMENT NC{ 2 =
CONTAINMENT
( NC ~
RCW un - ,
ii tw .. - i- C 7' N RSW Rcw PUMP l
] R5u (Coneel Guidng) !
8 - (c En n)
Rsw O' - O RSW eE1, C - -
Ravi 4 RsW RCW PUMP (conimi sene) -
g.
V E Figure 2.11.3b RBCW Division - B
- - 2.11.3 10 l. 6/1/92 --
l .-
!~~ -
. . . - , , - - . _ , ,r.., . , # _. . ' - ,
ABWR Design Document MUWP F SURGETANK ..
hT M (Rasetor Building) V RHR Hz 1 (Reactor Building) m L -
EMERGENCY D/G
- (Reactor Building) -
m SP U OTHERS (ESSEKnAL)
(Reactor and Control Buiiding)
- CRD PUMP (Reactor Bunding)
_ _ _.,,_ _4_NC I NC[3
(.q ,
n_-_-_-.
I
___ ._ J OTHERS C'ON ESSENTIAL)- ,_____,_,
(Reacter. Redwests and Turbine Bunding) i i
L_________ in ,Co.,RESSoRC- _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _.j (Turbine Building) 9
-G EWh ,
(Centrol m %)
Rge t' L._ ,. Rsw h RCW Hz (Control Busklan) '
RCW PUMP N W "9)
RSW > .RSW-C
"~~
m R JlL RSW ? I O R$W - RCW PUMP (Control Bdksing)
O Figure 2.11.3c RBCW Division - C -
.i t . s,.m 2.11.3
l L
ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION 8/5/92 ACRS SUBC0l#4ITTEE rey 1EW O -
EMERGENCY DIESEL :
SUMMARY
OF TIER 1 ENTRIES GENERATOR SYSTEM (EGS)
DESIGN DESCRIPTION P'IRIES:
JAFETY SYSTEM PROVIDES ON-SITE EMERGENCY POWER-THREE INDEPENDENT DIVISIONS
-- THREE INDEPENDENT FUEL TANKS-
- -SEISMIC CATEGORY I
- START-UP SEQUENCE / TIMING / LOGIC O
7TAAC ENTRIES:
BASIC SYSTEM CONFIGURATION LOADING CAPABILITY-
- AUTOMATIC, MANUAL START START-UP SEQUENCE / TIMING / LOGIC PROTECTIVE.. TRIPS AND ANNUNCIATIONS 7
CFC-1 8/5/92 O
l
ABWR ossion occument:
1 2.12.13 Emergency Diesel Generator System (Standby AC Power Supply).
O Design Description The Class 1E diesel generators comprising the Division I, II, and III standby AC 2
power supplies are designed to restore power to thc respective Class IE- _
distribution system divisions as required to achieve safe' shutdown of the plant
~
- and/or to mitigate the consequences of a loss-of coolant accident (LOCA) in the-event of a coincident loss of normal electrical power. Each of the three divisions
- of the AC power system has its own diesel generator.'
The major loads consist of the following systems for all three divisions: Ssidual-Heat Removal (RHR) Sptem, Reactor Building Cooling Water (RCW) System',--
l HVAC Emergency Cooling Water (HECW) System, and Reactor Service Water -
(RSW) System. In addition, Divisions Il and III include the High Pressure Core Flooder (HPCF) System loads. (The Division I RCIC Sptem is also part of tlye
- ECCS network, but is steam driven and theresbre does not present a significant' load to the diesel generator.)
Each Class 1E diesel generator, with its auxiliasy sptems. (i.e, Fuel Oil Storage
. and Transfer System, Jacket Cooling Water System, Starting Air System, Lubrication System, and Combustion Air Intake and Exhaust System), supplies -
The 480V system, in turn, supplies power to the UPS and battery charger for the division's 120 VAC and 125 VDC safetyloads. (The low voltage portion does not - ,
signifie=ntly contribute to, diesel genentor loading, but is included with "other -
480V loads" per Mgure 2.12.13.) Each is physically and electrically. isolated from
' the other divisions. No automatic interconnection is provided between'the Class
IE divisions. Each diesel generator set is operated indepa=A-atly 6f the other1 sets, and is connected to the utility power system by manual control only during -
testing or for bus transfer. A failure of any component of one diesel generator _
set will notjeopardize the capability of either of the two r maining dieselL .
generator sets to perform their functions. The die _ sel gene' rators and their --
essential support equipment are classified Seismic Category 1, and are qualified - _
for the environments where located. All components except for_ the fuel storage _.-
tanks and fuel transfer equipment are located within the. Reactor Building. .
~
Each diesel generator unit is rated at 6.9 kV, 60 Hz, and is ' capable of:
automatically starting, accelerating, attaining rated frequency aird voltage within 20 seconds; and supplying its loads in the sequence and dming spec ified in the :
plant design documents. In addition, each diesel generator is capable of starting, accelerating and running its largest motor at any time after the automatic ~ ,
f loading sequence is completed; assuming that the motor had failed to start .
nA initially Each diesel generator unit is also reliability tested by the manufacturer.
f
= 2.12.13
- i . sive2 [
s f-. , + . , - ,, ,n.-w.-, +, , . , , , - . , , , .
, , +,w .....w.,_ .mr&,,_.+.._.w--w,. , _ , . . . ,;.u.,_- ,,_nn--
ASWR oesign oocument .
The diesel generators start automatically on loss cf bus voltage. Under voltage
(] sensors are used to stan each diesel engine in the event of a stutained drop in V
bus voltage below 70% of the nominal 6.9 kV rating of the bus. Low-water level sensors and dr)well high pressure sensors in each division are also used to initiate the respective diesel stan under accident conditions. However, the diesels will remain on standby (i.e., running at rated voltage and frequency, but unloaded) unless the bus under voltage sensors trigger the need for bus transfer to the diesel supply. Manual start capability (without need of DC powe; ) is also provided.
~
Each diesel is supplied by its own independent fuel storage tank, which is located in an area protected from natural phenomena. This tank has a fuel capacity sufIlcient to operate its diesel for a period of seven days while the diesel generator is supplying manmum post LOCA load demand. A day tank is also provided for each diesel, and is h>cated in the Reactor Building. The day tank has a fuel capacity sufficient for approximately 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of full-load operatbas.
Iow-level sensors on the day tank actuate dual motor driven transfer pumps to replenhh the day tank supply from the stonge tank.
- The standby AC power supplies are designed such that testing and inspection of equipment is possible du .ing both normal and shutdown plant conditions.
3 (O Each standby AC pwer supply is composed of a three-phase synchronous gersentor and % . iter, the diesel engine, the engine aurilinies (including the fuel tanks), and the control panels. Figure 2.12.13 shows the emergenc; diesel generator system interconnections between the offsite power supplies ant :he diesebgenerator standby AC power supplies for Divisions I, II, w d III.
The transfer of each Cass 1 E bus to its standbypower supply is automatic, should this become necessary, on loss ofits offsite power. After the circuit breaker connecting the bus to the preferred power supply is open, large moton are kept on the bus for parallel coastdown and optimal residual voltage de cay. When the voltage decays to an acceptable level, major loads are tripped from the Class IE bus, except for the Class 1E 480V unit substation feeders. Then the diesel-generator breaker is closed when the required generator voltage and frequency are established. The large motor loads are later re-applied sequentially and automatically to the tus after clonng of the dieselgenerator breaker.
Each diesel generator is capable of being startet or stopped manually from the main control room. Start /stop control and bus trrnsfer control may be transferred to a local control station in the diesel generator room. Control room indications are provided for system parameters.
Each diesel generator, when operating other than in test mode, is independent of the preferred power supply. Additional interlocks to the LOCA and lossof-2- 6/1/92 2.12.13
ABWR 0: sten oocum:nt power sensing circuiu terminate panilel operadon tests and cause the diesel
( generator to revert and reset to its automatic control system if either signal appears during a test. A lockout or maintenance mode removes the diesel generator from senice. The inoperable status is indicated in the control room.
Devices monitor the conditions of the diesel generators and effect action in accordance with one of the following categories: (1) conditions to trip the diesel engine ei en under LOCA; (2) conditions to trip the diesel engine except under '
LOCA: (3) conditions to trip the genentor breaker but not the diesel, and (4) conditions which are only annunciated.
Inspections, Tests, Analyses and Acceptance Criterin Table 2,12.13 provides a definition of the inspections, tests, and/or analyses together with associated acceptance criteria which will be undertaken for the emergency diesel generators and their auxihary systems.
b e
L t
3- 6f1/92 .
2.12.13
J 1
2~- Table 2.12.13: Emergency Diesel Generator Sycom Inspections, Tests, Analyses and Acceptance Criteria in ;x15ene, Tests. Analyses Accepsonce Criteria Certified Design Comndtment
- 1. The three diesel generator trains are . 1. Tests and verificatien inspection win be 1. Ploe.t tests and verification inspection for i
. mechanically and il-Re"/ ndependent. conducted which will include independent p.v.cellocation confirm proper end coincident operation of the three trains *ndepe.vience of three diesel generator to demonstrate complete divisional divisions.
I separation.
b . 2. AN components essential to the operation
~
- 2. See Generic Equipment Ouelification 2. See Generic Equipment Ouelification verifit ation activities (ITA). Acceptance Criteria (AC). t of the diesel generators are Solemic Category I and quahfied for the appropriate -
,' ' environment for locations where inetsNed.
3a. The memimum Iceds espected to occur for
- 3. The three diesel generators are capeble of,. 3a. Confirmatory *g+ ^'-:s win be performed to assure the monimum design loods sech dnrision (according to nameplate 4
( supplying sufficient AC power to achieve safe shutdown of the plant andfor to expected to occur for each division are ratingel shen not exceed 90% of the roted
! power output of the dienet generator.
mitigste the consequences of a L.OCA in within the retings of the corremwnding
! F desel generator. j
! the event of a coincident lose of normel power (Figure 2.12.13.). 3b. Testing wgl be conducted by synchronizing 3th Each of the three units shell produce rated each deoel generator to the plant oflaito power output et 20.8 PF for a period of 224 l
power eyesom and increasing hs output hours %zcr itroneients exceptedt.
power level to its fully rated Pod condelon. . Each unit wHl then experience full lood
- j. repaion by arippine the seed and verifyins i the unit does nottrip. [t i:
4.~ Each diesel generator is rated at 8.9 kV, ! 4. Perform a test on och deoel generator M 4. Each deoel gens.ator attains a valtage of three phaos,80 Hz: and is' capable of ' confirm its ability to attain rated frequency 6.9 kVil0E and a f. ;;n .cy of 60 Htt2%
t and voltage. - within 20 seconds efter application of a jf attaining rated . ;;u -;y and voltage i within 20 seconds after receipt of e start ' start signol. [
r i signal.
i L
, 9' [
! ?
{- l i
S.'
, n._..___.__ _ . - - . . _ ~ _ _ ._ .__ . .~,.u_~.__..__.______ - . _ _ . _ - _m.______________ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
Q Q [~ (Q) - -
~ Table 2.12.13: Emergency Diese' Generator System (Caritinued)
~
U inspections, Tests, Analyses and Acceptance Critchs Certified Design Commitment inspections, Tests, Analyses Acceptance Criteria
- 5. In the event of a loss of normal power, each 5. The automatic and manual start sequences 5. Each of the three units starts from each will be tested for each diesel generator automatic and remote manual signal, then diesel generator tenit is capable of starting (both manually and automatically), unit. accelerates and properly sequences its loads. Each local manuel signal also starts accelerating, and supplying its loads in the the corresponding unit, but does not proper sequence and timing specified in initiate load sequencing. The automatic the plant design documents.it is also capable of recovery following trip and load sequence begins at 52f, secoMs and ends $65 seconds. Fo!Iowing appl ation of restart of its largest loat*.
each load, the bus voltage wi!I no; drop more than 25% measured at the bus.
Frequency shall be restored to within 2% of nominal, and voltage shall be restored to within 10% of nominal within 60% of each load-sequence time interval. in addition, h the unit's largest motor load shall be tripped and restarted after the unit has completed its sequence, and the bus voltage shall recover to 6.9 kVi10% at 6012% Hz within 10 seconds.
- 6. Each diesel gene ator unit is capable of 6. Each unit will be tested and the air receiver 8. tilock-start capabilityis demonstrated manually starting without the need for tank capacities shall be analyzed to assure foHowing one successful mancal start, extemal electrical power.The air receiver its black-start capability is functional acceleration, and bus energization for each tanks have sufficient capacity for five starts of the three units wrthout assist from any
' without rechargir.g. -
extemal electric power. Following black start, each unit's receiver tanks shall have sufficient air remaining for ~our more starts.
- 7. Interlocks to the LOCA and loss-of-power 7. Interlocks for the standby AC power 7. While in a parallel test mode, each unit will sensing circuits terminate paratiel system will be tested. revert and reset to its automatic control system following individual application of operation tests and cause the diesel a simuisted LOCA signal and a simulated e generator to revert and reset to its rutomatic control system if either signal loss-of-power signal.
appears during a test.
! [ .
d d dd e s d ns op e e eet b l m a . -
dm dmsn dl i l a ir alyo ims ic m r se n vu n i
f -
ir f
nirA af C nias af pe nw a g ndl odu l
ip d h d a
s nyr i
t n
o e s n oO obp sl s s n c n frl e ht ny n na o c c rh ot n cL o s on o sa ossr coa a
. ,L et o ied ie t bl ei ig t it n ef ie u ogtndo abs e gr e d e bart t abe a t ab l a ais a i t a r n oh
_ l eg i l cl i i l l cl i n i cp i
c a r eeh o ist nn l
i n
n a no l i utoiv8 r f t nwu l
i nw wig ni r ci t e wei u u ut u et ns spA s i
t g gd r ns m nr n csff cd o tu sn i
r nl o na s l i nai l
ne n l
aeuen it cl i C ie t s c Ana AntrC Aka A: ch spa s , aa eye vo ew c
e se eia c ;s i h g ;
siuL gtO s b s e r r s r
dtnfobr e es y r
pbl l f
n ds r sit i o
. a ha a
t itl r o pw w r ,d p ob s de s sl l
acd od kner t
p uc ao s iAt e sit nu n nih e me ap oics ea7r i
n r n
emt o rdnus e e tei o e t Cl a ec e m t S e r tsfir yr i
c Si r S ef o y.
c i lcv ie s S nt nOu iLm i
f t
ca epe sof ap gn a 3c rd n yndg l
A i 1 i 2 g 4 e s o u d e :g vr ni v n ais yoe y c o pah sc nr otovt rc env fsiin nv i
)
d s ti o ebml r
o etu a oam rt r oe nr T. ti a c e f et hi .
e tecw e a l o e on l gr r gb i e s rare ep nag te nn efi k pk u
n che cu orol t o t e s a ini e
e o c
e sh t e t
a eih aeo e
t ll ai nonpe ar a en s e
sbmw nl aliof r r a r ol Cdww i
Cgc Cw T. p t cgr o i
t n
i r
Sf pf Cdis s T.
b wf -
o e . 9 9 C i t 8
( r C d d m e e e c ten m d t
s n s i, e s o r e y a t nl f t
s S t p ebic eoa f r ce t a
r e s v t i cr n p e o c e il t l oe b t c s y cino ewug it b l a
r A l a t os f e r t al l l a
e d n r nia po ec l
ua ch h
s n n A. ,ihr l a s e a s s at u t ck n m a cmfo e l
G s t s
i da t l
e e nnr gu oe ed nt sy e s ah s T. snr ft h b i
s y nca d a ne r
i e l a
s n ph c r i
o e e D o e d yit s i f n t a n ewe t
c r s n
y A i
t c l uahet c ds eo pf a r
c , e s s n ts p ms enn t s ik nie l e s n sc r aot it e u
gl o sudi a c i
g e i ri l
f r
e T, nr scnod ua sp e iea h m s st Uit noco ac ia V. c T E n s b o . 9 9
- i t 8 3 c 1
_ e o ,rh 2 p l ec ek gnk .
et Aki 1 s s a a 2 n e s inCah r t n e
I e n gd o O r ew oyt t a a .
l hi t neir iLbs t
r n sdg e b
a t
n e
f odopondt nihde owt oo i l
eya t r T scl nai t
uio f e m
u rd ic ym t t nelot) r en no aa se i
mic otf o2tpe it eet
( d=
mdf o nef n hsAce xe4 f t g )c 7r
- e h nuyt C o wob n
c d o oiOC e ht (d neiL t e pnde odh i
g h e and , on ri nia egtl,t r a
s8i e s t it n ;s e r s odn o eic D t t i) oot rhc net s en swin d inarw (1 nse ndn ul siu ha sp oel e l t
i f oee:
mncs eeioe vitha n eie sd r i
t eneiedi d t y e ini s r
e sgar t l da ,h C el doe e n on ice r gn no no h kic v se oct eg p i t
)c ture c a nh
,V e icsnir3 Dda< :
et ( bc Etaw
. 9 8
b g6"
_ " ~U
? '
r- t N .
i
\
s.
!: ." Tatde 2.12.13: Emergency Diesel Generator System (Continued) !
f t+
[-
3 Inspections, Tests, Analyses and "E -;^ s Criteria -
1-Certilled Design Commitment Inspostlene Teste,Nietyees Aeospeones Ceteorie ll ,
- 10. The manufacturer has conducted 10. The manufacturee's test documents sheet 10. Visuel inspection of manufacturer's test reliability testing on the units. be visually inspected. documents confirms the required L"?_Of E .-
testing has been iwh.z f. and that the j
- diesel generator hoe poseed the test i requiremerr;s.
I .
[
- 11. contros indications are provided for tVG -
system parameters.
- 11. Inspections will be perbrmed to veri 4.
presence of control room indication for the
- 11. The designated instrumentation is present in the control room. j
.. DiNi system. j
+
, t
, t
, i
-4
, -i I'
3 .
k -^
( L. i
- i
- 4- : i i
1 f.
}l.-
i -;
1>
$ . I
~
R
'I Du. }.
i '
j--
i' iI .
j ..+
4-a , ,
-,.,,1 -t-w. u , , . 4 -e, ,,.;g,-
e &er- Ww -n. -- - + ,, e .- e < ,.mm-,-.-o.v .- -3,,74= - -,. , - -. u e-w - - en 3..,,.--..,y
.._.-=-
ABWR 0: sign 0: cum:nt 1
O CTO CTO CTO YY Y 49 Y 'Y
. . . , n a- us .
=
uev l av l l i l- 1 I I i
I I I I I I
HIGH w He PREGSURE l l l l SYSTEMS g.
l l l I i l i i l l- LOW l l
- ** ** l PRESSURE l l l SYSTEMS l l l ** l **"
Y .l *
- AUXILIAM COOLING l l l l SYSTEMS l .
l
- 1 = l =
I 1 1 1 ,
W W W 1%;;~~ % ~
uw com OTHER uw mov uw aw v mov w w w w ta a i== -
SYSTEMS DIVISION i DMSION 11 DMSION lli O '
Figure 2.12.13 Emergency Diesel Generator System Interconnections -
-8. - 6/1/92 2.12.13.
9 l A8WR DESIGN CERTIFICATION 8/5/92 ACRS SUBCOMITTEE REVIEW O
CONTROL BUILDING (CB) : SUMARY-0F TIER 1 ENTRIES DESIGN DESCRIPTION ENTRIES:
-- SEISNIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURE
- REINFORCED CONCRETE WITN STEEL TRUSS ROOF 2 STORIES'A80VE. GRADE 4 STORIES BELOW GRADE
- RECTANGLE 24x56x30.5 N
- WALL TNICKNESS'0.6 - 1.6-N NISSILE AND TORNADO PROTECTION-PROVIDED PROTECT AGAINST INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FLOODS ,
' Q -
RADIATION.SNIELDING-BASIC ARRANGENENT DRAWINGS (7)
-1 ITAAC ENTRIES: .
BASIC LAYOUT CONFIGURATION ,
FLOOD PROTECTION' DESIGN FEATURES TORNADO AND NISSILE PROTECTION DESIGN FEATURES ,
SHIELDING FEATURES l
AJJ-1 8/5/92 O
y-- - = - ,.5,m --
-yy-, p, w ,,-m-- ,,.Sf,, ,.w,y y , 9g-_w, .-,,hb.,w_%,,y,, ,,,,.,,,gn,,
, , - - - ,,,,yw.- 3_w,, .g-, ,,y-,wwe, -pw-.-
c ABWR 0: sign 0:cument ;
{' _
1 i 2.15.12 Control Building !
- l. Design Descr> tion The Control Building (CB) is the building that houses the main control room, l
j control equipment, and operadons personnel for the Reactor and Turbine i Islands. The Control Building is located 1:etween the Reactor and Turbine
! Buildings. ;
In addidon to the control room and operations personnel, this building houses h the essential electrical, control and instrumentation equipment, essendal switch j
- gear, enendal battery rooms, the CB headng and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, Reactor Building component cooling water pumps and heat -
[
l exchangers, and the steam tunnel.
I The general building arrangement, including.waterdght doors and sills for ,
j- doonrays where needed for flood control, is shown in Figures 2.15.12a through 2.15.12g. g i
The CB is a Seismic Category I structure designed to resist seismic _ loadings and l to provide protecdon for Gooding, tornado wind, and tornado missiles.'
The CB is constructed of reinfctced concretc with steel truss roof. The CB has wo stories above the grade level .'.nd four stories below. The building shape is l;
j '
rectangle. Major nominal dimensions are as follows:
Overall height above kop of basemat ' 30.5 m t
^
Over311 planar dimensions (outside) .'
0 -180* direedon . 24.0 m 90*-270* direction - 56.0 m j Thickness of OuterWall from 4.2m TMSL to 17.15m TMSL' 1.0 m from 17.15:n TMSL to 22.2 m TMSL 0.6 m
- - Th'rkness of Steam 'nannel' Walls, Floors, and Ceiling . . 1.6 m
- Ih'rkness ofWalls supporting Steam Tunnel ; 1.6 m ;
The CB is a shear wall structure designed to accommodate *.J1 speciGed seismic-loads with its perimeter walls and steam' tunnel walls together with their'-
- supporting elements.;Therefore, frame members such as beams crr columns are '
- design ~ed to accommodate deformadons of the walls in case of earthquake
condidon. The columns provide vertical _ weight bv.aring capability. Column sized i
~
and Door slab thicknesses are also provided in the general building arrangement +
p ,
- 1) figures. With major dimensions defined as listed above for speciSed reinforced 4
condrete materials an'd design procedures, the dynamic characteristic of the CB.-
+1 x
- 6/1/92 -
2.15.12
, . ~ , ,
. .# -m- ,.% _ _ . , . . , . _ _ . ~ _ . - - , - . . _ _ - - - . - . . . - . . a. - . . . - . a. . _.. d W
r 1
~
ABWR Design Document p
stmeture is defined, Seismic adequacy of the detailed site specific control building design will be evaluated using the dimensional charteteristics noted above and apnroved ,ealytical pocedures and methodology for dynamic analysis of stmetures. This work will be in compliance with the ACI and AISC codes governing design of reinforced concrete stmetures and steel structures for nuclear power plants. Detailed analyses of the site specific control building design will utilize appropdate site data for seismic events, Goods, tornados, win and other loading conditions.
To protect against extemal flood damage, the following design features are provided:
(1) Wall thickness below Good level greater than 0.6m.
(2) Water steps provided in al l constmctionjoints below grade.
(3) Watertight doon and piping penetrations installed below flood level.
(4) Waterproof coating on exterior walls.
Foundations and walls of structures below grade are designed with (5) water stops at expansion and constructionjoints.
(
(6) Roofs are designed to prevent pooling oflarge amounts of water.
To protect against intemal flood damage, the followbig design features are provided:
(1) Elevation differences and divisional separations from remainder of the CB.
(2) Drainage system to divert water to assigned floor and location.
(3) Sills for doorways as needed to provide flood control.
(4) Watertight doors installed below intemal flood level.
(5) Wall thickness below internal flood level greater than 0.6m.
Inside the steam tunnelis the mainsteam piping, the mainsteam drain line, and the feedwater piping. There is no penetration from the steam tunnelinto the control building. Any high energy line breaks inside the steam tunnel will vent out to the Turbine Building. All standing water will collect in the large volumes in the lower portions of the steam tunnel at the Reactor Building or Turbine C,,
Building ends.
6/1/92 2
2.15.12 I
ABWR 0: sign occument On Floor BlF, there are fire hose stands and reactor cooling water (RCW) s piping. It is designed that any rupture of the fire hose stand willleak onto the Door and drain to the -8200 level by floor drains. Sills will be provided at doorways to prevent the entry of standing water into the control room complex.
The RCW piping runs vertically in a concrete pipe chase. No flooding outside this pipe chase is possible. .
On the Door where computer room located, there are fire hose stands, RCW piping, and other piping systems. Varying amounts of standing water are expected upon a rupture of any of these systems. Maximurn water height corresponds to the height of the door sills. Sills will be provided at doorways to .
prevent water from crossing dhisional boundaries. Similar arrangements and .
designs are also provided for other floors for floods protection.
j During normal operation, the concrete surrounding the steamiwe tunnel provides shielding so that operator doses are below the vlue anociated with uncontrolled, unlimited access. The outer walls of the control building are designed to attenuate radiation from radioactive materials certained within the reactor building and from possible airbome radiation surrounding the control building following a LOCA. The walls provide shicMing to limh the direct. shine exposure of control room personnel following a LOCA. Shielding for the outdoor air cleanup filters also is prov:ded to allow temporary acceu to the mechanical equipment area of the control building following a LOCA, should it be required.
The control building is not a vented structure. The exposed exterior roofs and walls of the stmeture are designed for the required pressure drop.' Tornado dampers are provided on all airintake and exhaust openings.These dampers are designed to withstand the specified negative preuvre.
Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria Ta'cle 2.15.12 provides a definition of the inspections, tests, and/or analyses, together with associated acceptance criteria which will be undertaken for the control building.
'f d
2.15.12 3 6/1#2 j i-
(d' I
T Table 2.15.12: control Building
?-
Inspections, Tests, Analyses and Acceptance Criteria Certified Design Commitment :: ; ::-' :- :, Tests. Anotyees Acceptance Criterie
- 1. Controf building general arrangement is 1. Plant walk through* to check and verify : 1. Per Figures 2.15.12e through 2.15.12g.
shown in Figures 2.15.12e through requirements are met. '
2.15.12g.
-2.~ Design features are provided to protect 2. Review construction records and perform 2. For extemet flooding:
against design basis intemet and extsmal . visual inspections of the flood control e. Exterior well thickness below flood floods. L -
features. level grooter then 0.3m.
- b. Water stop.
- c. . Watertight dc,or end piping LL penetre%ns below flood level.
- d. Waterproof coating on exterior walls.
- e. Foundations and wells of structures -
below grade are designed with water stops at expension and construction P- joints. '
- f. Roofs are designed to prevent poohng of large er wmnts of water.
4 Forinternal floodeng:
- e. Elevation differences and divisional
. : :; :--l-:- . of the medianice 8 functions
, . from the remainder of the CB.
- b. Dreiaogo system to diveet water to a--td floor and location.
- c. Sills for -f-:--- . ;,; as needed S
- provide Dood protection. l'
. d. Wetenight <5ars instelled below internal flood level.
- e. Well thickness below intemet flood
! . level greater then 0.6m.
- f. : Steem tunnel has no penetretions from j! the steem tunnel into the control 1 building. Any high energy line or .
3l
- Plant walk through is intended to include foodwater piping breaks inside the 8 visual inspection of the as-buit facility and steem tunnel will vent out to the (es-needed) dimensional meneurements. Turbine Building.
-t 1 .
o S
_ w- , 4 .- ~
t m ,r--.-%,v .m. , < . .- ~ - . _ . _ - . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ . _
c -
y
.a - } ..
=
r.
Tatdo 2.16.12: Control Building (Continuedl A Inspections, Tests, Analyses and .":: f w Criteria
". 4 1.aTeste, Analysee Aeoeptonee Criterte CertNied Design Commitment
- 3. Performed dimensionalinspections of the 3. Tne concrete thickness for the steam 3.) The Control Building is designed to have tunnel well, floor and ceiNog shall be adequate radiation shieldng tu protect Control Building walls, ceiling, floors, and -
"sther structural features. greater then 1.8m.The steem tunnel
- operating personnel during operation and .
Interface structure and control building following a LOCA. well below the steam tunnel should have a combined thickness of 1.6m, i.e. in sny
, line-of-sight from the control room, the total thickness of concrete between the observer and the steam lines must be 1.6m or greater.
- 4. . Review construction records and per*orm 4. For tornado
- 4. ' The CB is 2::'yd to protect against -
,. visual Fnopections and dimensional checks design basis tornado and tomado missiles. a. . Roof and wells above grade J::' d -
L foo-neededi of the tomado protection i
, fe h .
grooterthen 0.5m.
i~
(n ., b. HVACdempersdesignedfor
- s. ~
defferential pressure > 1.46 psi.
- c. HVAC dempers have tornado missile barriers.
- 5. Plant walk through to checit and wenfy CO 5. Structures have oimensions compatible i
- 5. The C8 is "_ :'yd as a Seismic CategoryI with data in the certif6ed design (Fm~ uros structure and has major dimensions bulkhng mejor dimensknsincluding column sizes and floor sieb thicimiess, 2.15.12e through 2.15.12g).
' defined in tho' certified design.
Review final design record for meterial
, ge--r:: site input date and se,ml procedures and methodology for seismic
. anssysis.visues inspections of structees
- and review of as built documentation will be conducted to seeses acc,"" =-:e with
- the certilled design commitments. ,
- 6. TheconDolbuildingdesigndocumentation - 6. Confkmation that the as-built design is in
-. will be c.k.;:1-on ACI and AISC codes and will use site ~ requirements and is beoed on oppropriate N 'dets for seismic events, floods, tornedoes site design date.
d: .. winds and otheiIoeding conditions.
- _-_ L-- . - - - - - - -
) .j O c .
lM '
- :;r 2
4, t
, 2221tsE ':
I L
.ars are w -i.
-- mer w are 2F p .
l l 4
,9,.Mitf0L '
I ie I
- .I _,. _7 3p
-sur/- L 7: --
r w.umm -
c1 a ,-
a
_ HE" B1F
-j , - -l ,
0 ,_ __
m . __ _
. -sm-
-src h -w-
[-' B2F o
/-_ag ,,,, B3F ]
1
-g ,
- .u. _
3 0, s
+
B4F
---f m i,s.
t L ._
Note: Roof thicknessis 300 mm Steam Tunnel roof thickness is 1600 mm
+
+ i
.m
- ~
Figure 2.15.12a CONTROL B'N ELEVATION (90'- 270')
_ __ _._= ___.__,_ __.-
.~, ' ' '
. . , , -,,,;-,.,.- ,r,,,-. . . , . , , _ . _ . .
r
O O O- -
-" ELEVATION 17150mm TMSL SErmen 10200 nun 10400mm 14300mm 10600mm 6Q0mm I 7 ir 7 <
1-
,18h 8000wn p- .
r i [] "*"' .., [;]
s*
1e00 n '
axxmm _.__
- g. _,
.Q e -irhk l [] =
w sa urs imir arra mis as
> =
a_m
._s ,
g, .
_, ll i _,_ _,_
w_:_w_ ;_
_._ t
,i t -i _. i I I e Notes: Doors marked with a
- have raised sNs s Floorslabis400mmthick Columns are 1000x1000mm typical Figure 2.15.12b Control Building - Roor 2F t- - - .
LO O O-s I a
~
ELEVATION 12300mm TMSL
- m 1430(knm 10600mm M3200mm '0600mm
'I' '-
-4_
j ,
a0o0am '. .J -
., _ y
-l MR .I M 0 0 -
O ,. 3 4 _
t=:ra .
g 1 I 240m= = 7soone - _
.n ., . g, g, l g
O O
e _ _
]
-- =
== _2'
~
0 -
- Us E
l =l
=~~
l
~I '-
[- l l l M f l~l -
U L1 1 1 y-o m-Notes: Doors marked with a
- have raised siis e Columns are 1000x1000mm typical
~~ n Floor slabis 400mmthick
. Figure 2.15.12c Control r ' ding Floor 1F- Ground Grade
O O o..
x
~
ELEVATION 7900mmTMSL
- seccomm m ,
togog,,, .
em .
0000mm I f l
i I
l i-3-
i-3- '
- ~
socomm ,,y, g ,_
! T ig , 'i U =
lJ T U -
Y ,
" tecomm 8888 " . -7d i 3
. = s =
3g
__ g- -
W 0
= ='
f&"llll" -
"llll" 3
i j'
! 5== ; _
=
= _
l _
I 1 i ~i i 17_ ,,_
, I_ _i F__~l -
'l if. .
..t e
- j Notes Floorslabis400mmINck Columns are 1000x1000mmtypical i
Figure 2.15.12d Control Building Floor 81F m-_.m.._._ .
e
x O . O O.~
~ i
- f, 1
ELEVATION 3500mm TMSL
- sanoa, __
y i- ,
h .
106M,em i490,ssa ic h
- i f ;
4 gg 1 '
- , .- 4F --
4 d. i.
) [
.oon
.~ ,.
i O = 0 =O ,
( v il stoon=
y F W E F
- {
E somnen -
g .
O ==
'
- O 1000mm O -
es
=c
. s_
I R }I I _!*
i ,I
, rim ,
- . 4p ._
l 1
Ii
. .g( , _
ar-f:
- Notes: Doors marked 2 a
- have raised si!Is i :S Floor slabis 400mmthid
- B* Columns ao1000x1000mmtypical i
i i' Figure 2.15.12e C rol Buikling Floor 82F j 4-
, . ,, , ,,- . ~, , .
..~ . . , , . - - . , , - . , , . . _ , . , ,
O .
O o..
rr
~
ELEVATION-2150mm TMSL 5600emn 10600wm '4500mr; 10000mm 10200mm 1000mm
{
-- S . . _ . . _
l 1 _ _
l _ _
0
-0
[]
S.
lesome -
s000en' austr
'" 80'tv 2MRWR O-- ~ ,. O f
_.J
- /'
"' ll l ll l l l 1 l '
/ "" ll ll I_ l
. . j;
' Notes: Columns are 1000x1000mm typical 1
-S Floorslabis400mmthick
' Figure 2.15.12f Control Building Floor B3F L. -
. u
.N o o O .
a h
, ELEVATION -8200mm TMSL-
- 000,- -
.c 10200mm 10600mm ?4300mm -
--10600nwn i
tooonen 1 _ __
======= Eena,,oom
, t S '" '
O i 00mm O O eram acw.v nc=.w neu x 2400(mm 0 0 --
'iscomm O e Notes': Columns are 1000x1000mm typical n
m Basematis 2600mm thick mm Fis,m 2.15.12g C trol Building Floor B4F ;
c- _
_ ._ . . - - . .- . .-- -- -- _ _ _-