ML20217J932

Summary of 980211 Meeting W/W in Rockville,Md Re Safety Classification of Coatings Inside Containment & on Exterior of Containment Shell.List of Attendees & Handout Encl

ML20217J932
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	04/03/1998
From:	Joseph Sebrosky NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9804070076
Download: ML20217J932 (15)

Text

F bcrid Ric t

f  %

~

g k UNITED STATES g j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001

,pg 4 # April 3, 1998 APPLICANT: Westinghouse Electric Corporation PROJECT: AP600 1

SUMMARY

OF AP600 MEETING TO DISCUSS AP600 CONTAINMENT COATINGS f

i The subject meeting was held on February 11,1998, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's office in Rockville, Maryland. Attachment 1 is a list of the participants. Attachment 2 contains l the handouts provided by Westinghouse during the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the safety classification of the coatings inside - - ~

containment and on the exterior of the containment shell. In preparation for the meeting the staff sent Westinghouse a list of items that were to be addressed during the meeting (Attachment 3).

Westinghouse provided a written response to these items in a February 10,1998, letter (NSD-NRC-98-5565). The responses contained in this letter were the focal point of the meeting. The discussion that occurred was broken down into four different areas of containment. These areas were: the outside of the containment shell above the 135 foot elevation, the inside of the containment shell above the operating deck, the area adjacent to the containment recirculation screens, and the rest of the inside of containment.

The staff was not persuaded by Westinghouse's argument that the coatings on the outside of the containment shell above the 135 foot elevation need not be censidered safety-related. The staff informed Westinghouse that they believed the coatings served a safety-related function, and therefore, they should be considered safety-related.

The staff expressed concem to Westinghouse regarding their position that the coatings on the  ;

inside of the containment shell above the operating deck need not be considered safety-related. ,i The staff informed Westinghouse that it had insufficient information to come to the same \

conclusion. Specifically, the staff was concemed that it did not know of any passive containment r cooling system test data that existed with either degraded coatings or without coatings. It was -

not clear to the staff what effect the lack of coatings on the inside of the containment shell, or degraded coatings in this area, would have on the design basis properties of the containment

'( /

i shell and the passive containment cooling system performance. The staffindicated to Westinghouse that it would need to provide more information in this area or, as an alternative, consider these coatings safety-related.

The staff agreed with Westinghouse that the coatings in the area adjacent to the recirculation screens should be considered safety related. For the rest of the inside of containment, the staff agreed with Westinghouse that the coatings need not be considered safety-related. However, the staff stated that Westinghouse would have to provide an inspection, test, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) for these coatings to ensure that they are consistent with the assumptions used in Westinghouse's standard safety analysis report.

.- t t, ) Y 9804070076 980403 )

" ^" '" M ' NRC HLF CENTER CDPV l

April 3,1998 A draft of this meeting summary was provided to Westinghouse to allow them the opportunity to comment on the summary prior to issuance. I original signed by:

Joseph M. Sebrosky, Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.52-003

)

Attachments: As stated cc w/atts: See next page DISTRIBUTION w/ attachments:

Docket File PDST R/F TKenyon PUBLIC BHuffman JSebrosky DScaletti JNWilson SMagruder JHWilson MDunsaniwskyj DJackson j l

DISTRIBUTION w/o attachments:

SCollins/FMiraglia,0-5 E7 BSheron,0-5 E7 BBoger,0-5 E7 JRoe DMatthews TQuay '

ACRS (11) JMoore,0-15 B18 Glainas,0-7 D26 JStrosnider,0-7 D26 JDavis,0-7 D4 RRothman,0-7 H15 GGeorgiev,0-7 H15 GHolahan,0-8 E2 JLyons,0-8 D1 EThrom,0-8 H7 RLobel,0-8 H7 BGramm,0-9 A1 JPeralta,0-9 A1 l l

l 1

l DOCUMENT NAME:A:\ COATING. SUM To receive a copy of this document, inycat n the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attacMent/ enclosure "N" = No cow OFFICE IPM:PDST:DRPM l BC;nCd@E l BC:HQMB:DRCH l6 PM:SCSB:DSSA l 6 NAME JMSebrosky:sg.jW GBagchi BGrarpm (l.h EThrom h b z= my num um ===r OFFICE PM:SCSB:DSSA c SOOG.DGGA - . DEPA/' Ab7' NAME RLobel N TRQuay #

DATE 03/2]/98 e /98 ()(rx-p OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

'I,

Westinghouse Electric Corporation Docket No.52-003 cc: Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager .

Mr. Frank A. Ross Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Office of LWR Safety and Technology Westinghouse Electric Corporation ' 19901 Germantown Road P.O. Box 355 .

Germantown, MD 20874 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 .

Mr. Russ Bell Mr. B. A. McIntyre ' . Senior Project Manager, Programs Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Westinghouse Electric Corporation 1776 l Street, NW

- Energy Systems Business Unit Suite 300 Box 355 ' Washington, DC 20006-3706 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Ms. Lynn Connor Ms. Cindy L. Haag Doc-Search Associates Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Post Office Box 34 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Cabin John,'MD 20818 Energy Systems Business Unit Box 355 Dr. Craig D. Sawyer, Manager Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Advanced Reactor Programs GE Nuclear Energy Mr. M. D. Beaumont .

175 Curiner Avenue, MC-754 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division San Jose, CA 95125 Westinghouse Electric Corporation One Montrose Metro Mr, Robert H. Buchholz 11921 Rockville Fike GE Nuclear Energy Suite 350 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-781 Rockville, MD 20852 San Jose, CA 95125 Mr. Sterling Franks Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.

U.S. Department of Energy Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott NE-50 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor 19901 Germantown Road Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Germantown, MD 20874 Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager Mr. Charles Thompson, Nuclear Engineer PWR Design Certification AP600 Certification Electric Power Research Institute y_ NE-50 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA .94303

- 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874

. Mr. Robert Maiers, P.E.

Pennsylvania Department of

'  : Environmental Protection -

Bureau of Radiation Protection Rachel Carson State Office Building P.O. Box 8469 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469

e AP600 MEETING TO DISCUSS AP600 STRUCTURAL MODULES MEETING ATTENDEES FEBRUARY 11,1998 NAME ORGANIZATION TERRY SCHULZ WESTINGHOUSE RON VIJUK WESTINGHOUSE EUGENE PIPLICA . WC3TINGHOUSE DONALD LINDGREN WESTINGHOUSE:

BOB VlJUK WESTINGHOUSE BRIAN MCINTYRE - . WESTINGHOUSE JEFF SCHMUCKER CARBOLINE COMPANY l

GUS LAINAS . NRR/DE '

JACK STROSNIDER NRR/DE JAMES DAVIS NRR/DE/ECGB ROBERT ROTHMAN NRR/DE/ECGB GEORGE GEORGIEV NRR/DE/ECGB H.L.BRAMMER NRR/DE/ECGB l GARY HOLAHAN NRR/DSSA JIM LYONS NRR/DSSNSPSB ED THROM NRR/DSSA/SCSB RICHARD LOBEL NRR/DSSNSCSB BOB GRAMM NRR/DRCH/HQMB JUAN PERALTA NRR/DRCH/HQMB TED QUAY NRR/DRPM/PDST JERRY WILSON NRR/DRPM/PDST JOE SEBROSKY NRR/DRPM/PDST 1

1 Attachment 1 j

)

t t c f d pn i

. 5 3 acg nea

- 1 geo xr

(

n ogn n n kligi i

t al o i con eois t i v d cah e o c gt o c l

et n e nci

.n c hw amn i

t f

t e r 5 m ei n ik z c 3 n pa ce 1

i a ot nndt i h

et n h

eoag cgn a o o r c e e t t e c i

ot p a

ve vin v r o e ov i o s b a sI et py u t n

b asgs a ps o o x

s e e an l

pi t t l n set c e n v ep s ms t a e sf e erb oh e i

s co s n e ec mefacai t g ivf a f an c n tv o st w n e t

n t n i n a nt g eoz i

el ai of e n i

t o ml t

c t

n mit a7 t t i

a C nai n o nnl ut a o o

n a i

ea i

t Cietat cr s c -

g C d i

s t

ner o o to n en opcr oifri c n

d eoi 0 t u Cpi iCs - r f z 0 - n -

6 O I 8

9 P - -

/

0 1

/

2 A

b w

6 7

3 3

,[i to llIfl l

i o

nJ

~ , n u g o r g

![

H i t

a o i n

l u - c sal

, t c cyn r oai n

r x i e ccz co z i

d i pc epic d i

r en aytyn t

ch a l a

r -

a g ,

g eir t st sr f

f a wony geno nlb on di x i

t i i t oeh o a at r c c r

o t

aipt g n owe l

a t ud uyz e i

c dh cf

) t n s r

d esei t idt i

't t et w a en n oca t sia t

,f a

v e opaodf c ce sd

, usl a

u ( s us r t a t r nog r s t n net gse c o oof pcei p

s c p ,ud i

eiefap i

l o u s st -

s g

mer n cc n r

ut scn sgso

, nih si i

l n e n

i a solei r c e z t

nr aa r i t n o o e ,o t a si c t t a of l s n ns ot n s g o C s, enno ag p e en nri C l el ar eb r r o

miut o bl a 0

0 d

i s Wca sci n Ccf a c aio 6 I n - -

8 P

9

/

0

- 1

/

A 2:

b w

6 7

3 3

L

ij l

y e s i

a l

~

e g e r gs H~

!" v u ng cr e

!' i t sin t eu co np at i

a o

df f zxe l

c o i

i eef a y c i

f c i

a e l

sir xn e s ne l

ut o ah oa ph qsr g gt r a et n h n r oed o t

i o oiwein wb / i s

ya r n esf nl i

e eh o ah gcd t i ud ond dt i qa o ousf ed n ht e l

r e nl i

i u hiar o recoit wte s cr ef v s e t l A g yb I

t s aa mB o h s gmi n arDl oulcy t

g nce gr s n i t

aio nt oehnmu rd csi o o zp i

t pn a ccet u tewv o e o t n n i

t a eg s t nh s p r

C e a gi nt n e o de i

r r 0

0 r

uoiCo r

mSt a r us s l

nl CiePcCau 6

P - - - _

A _

l l1 l1L

li il 0

E 0  :

~

6 P

g n

i" A i

i i

n g

g l

u p

s n e e t a

e r

l p

c e s v e

i t t n c r e t e ul v oi a e

r r

pf y g

/

p n e s t

i ct i

a u e r l o o e c s u v I

s t a n wiht s f eo i t

l

/

o w g n n s n n g e n e v e v e e

i i

t s r e a ep r c e v -

o d i

s si e ct C 0 0 b r

g e 6 e af f r -

0 d e P

l 0 - - -

6 A P -

A _

llt

o

" e d s "i g e n l~

i

!j s e l

e a e r

, ocb r n c n t s s o nai n i

on s o n cet t y a

r l

i t

ao i t on a i

n l a

pt a a a u A et r

m mt c r

Q pn a r o

i c

e rd _

B s emogn c u r a sa p e r

s p r a c p g nt a f t

n p of r a o c u o s n tr d t

eA e sd n r saigi l t

y _

m s, p rd i oit r n t

l a s ontaib t ni c e i minf r i a o n e ei d n c o d m v _

u ed mt a n er o ro mr i r n s

i s o maiutcf nf oetp i n

i c g ~r s qet ni ot xi a g n e r ep ne p e a e e t

s nitt s g i ai n sn mimt c a

d e

n s o a o ,r el p eit ni r

i n c pi t nipiupl r a _

t ed ai o u q a qr o e a d c e eiact e g ep r _

o i l i f

i i

f i

f i

cili c r n

r pt y

e C 0 l l a a ep l t

L a f 0 u u ppOsOn a 0 6 QQSaCteCoS _

0 P - - - - - -

6 A 8 P

9

/

0

- 1

/

2 A b 6

7 3

3 w

l n

i t

o -

a --

l u

a -

v E

g G N 0 _

n I

R9 _

i l Z E E 91 L

t U N1 t I e HG 1 CNY S SER A

LS U s .

MR i TE B T E r S F -

b Y .

S e

D .

g n

i .

t _

a o

0 0

6 C i P a s

/

o -

A t

/

z s _

n .

lllllll ll

- i

)

m p

g 0

0 s 7 e i c r -

n b S a

r e X u D P )t s g f n )r s

t a ih m0 p1 ny t a gt et mla i

o (5 0 o u

nu Cw 0 6 dn i

a q eo G

l t f 1 t

n B e r a r n t e

s N ox l u eo) r S e x ed Cd n l i at e i

I i t L a ota o )fR N(

t r

e f Tl ul o s gps a l

d e p t e ocf r 3( n e nic e i

sp e t ie( s1 e e m I i i

s c e v l l nA p r t E

t er o st a c t n u n

i 0 m r b n r s e alo S d e 5 o c uf o a e ewe r g s n v n

se o eg i

t r

sRl at t S

I UF ie at e Fta4 r

f clov sf o D ngstclt en r i R sCf oa re e s (2 n n s i

oittoe e t

g0 t r sra o f

s B u opi l

n1 d o t u alala u E

i t

atot e n

t i

qf nyd u u cpe l

bm gi s

r o c a a ot n D Cep d ec Ul oc r r v eoicic i Rnib ak e yu r x0e0 sdf l

t sc cd c G a pr e e c i t

Hg r

e af H nb g i

e N fe ot c 6 n el wt o ar 0i go l

I ar sPNA oP 0 o eaor 0LDTLP 0SNL T n o

6 P

6 P

A N - - - A - - - - - A - - - 2 O 8 9

/

0 1

C

/

2 S

- - - L T

llll lr

. 6. Engineered Safety Features I

i l

.::N! W W.N' 4tCNCU. A llCN \y sr.at:Ns

'\ Nx 1 li. s i l i Al \j g  ! -

AA

\ .

i 1  ! .

\ l L , .

' .<OA

\

e i

I

,. )

l .a l

i

\x .

a. _

( s.r*:re M, I K 4

\

PL 2T5C'=b P A"E f1' ~' L PROTCCTivE PL A ~ ~. (1) sc~ . v ' c v. s P Air s 7: as, ri rvaTrcs i 'rs apr rJrisn IN sLns::T ias 6.3.7.7.7.i .

Figure 6.3 8 Containment Recirculation Screen Plan Location Revision: 17 November 30,1997 6.3-88 W Westingh0Use

'.* 6. Engineered Safety Features T -

<: a.:- a.: 3 .::::..  :: i.:-

.e

n: :

a.:: <,

. LOOP COMPARTMENT n2

~.*.

PL ATE (1 )

PL ATE ( 1 )

l

\*:-  %  ::**

• 4 6

'f ,

?!

-l. . .. I; d.' *'.*

/

f .. .

.. / -

~? **', ,

• . [* I * , * ";.

,.. . ...' , . : *; * */ 0 CONTAINMENT i RECIRCULATION i SCREENS SECTION A-A NOTE 1 - MINIMUM PL ATE SIZE AND ELEVATION LIMITS ARE DEFINED IN SUBSECTION 6.3.2.2.7.1.

j i

1 Figure 6.3 9 Containment Recirculation Screen Plan Location l Revision: 18 W -

Westingh0US8 6.3-89 November 30,1997 fa

Figura 1 - AP600 Crting Debris Settling e

This figure shows that the AP600 has significant margin to accomadate uncertainty in coating settling rates. This figure shows the sensitivity of coating settling to debris settling rates. The heavy solid line shows the AP600 design case, which includes a margin factor of 2.00 times the reference (Comanche Peak settling data). The light dashed lines represent sensitivity studies with greater margins. The margins applied were chosen to force the debris to settle out at the bottom of die screen (factor of 2.3), covering half of the screen (factor of 3.2) and covering 90% of the screen (factor of 4.7). The screen would still allow PXS operation with a factor of 4.7 margin applied to the Comanche Peak data. 'Ilie light solid line shows the Comanche Peak settling data. All of these cases assume the maximum RNS flow possible assuming one RNS ,

takes suction from one screen and is unthrottled (1600 gpm).

i 25 _

)

~

l Plate ,

g. , , i i

20 --

-y. -

i i

i -

i., , ,

, is _ _ _ _ _ _ _a s, u -__2 ~

- s - >

2 N ,

i e _

s -

.m N- -

y _

y -

if _

's '

l

.]io a.

_ t . ._ . _ _ - ._ a ,

l I

e 2 -

3

~

Cont.

N

~

Recire.

Screens 5 - - - - - - ---- = - - - - --

~

AP600

/ '

o L m Floor 5

11 -10 9 -R 7 -6 5 -4 3 2 1 0 1 2 Distance From Screen (ft)

AP600 Containment Coatings issues to be Addressed e Westinghouse has not provided a quantitative or experimental bases which demonstrate why failure of the containment coatings will not prevent functioning of the engineering safety features. Calculations are required to determine if failure of the coatings ws:1 result in blockage of strainers. The analysis must be reviewed by the NRC staff since there is uncertainty in the calculations. Even if Westinghouse were to perform a transport analysis, the staff is not likaly to accept it without additional experimental validation.

e Westinghouse provides some qualitative discussions on what it believes will occur upon failure of containment coatings (e.g., assumes only localized failure of coatings, assumes coating material will settle on the bottom of various compartments and will not get transported in sefNeient quantities - which are undefined - to the intake screens) but has not provided er/ Nidence of this mechanism besides engineering judgment.

e in addition to the staff's concems on debris transport to the containment sumps, the performance characteristics of the passive containment cooling system (PCS) are based on an experimental test progran) with the coating. No testing is known to exist with either degraded coatings or without con t;ngs. The justification for the mass and heat transfer correlations, the PCS fi!m .7.M;; and the water coverage model are all based on testing with the coating. In the Lage-Scale Test (LST), the coating exists on both the exterior and the interior surface of the vessel. Failure of the coating willimpact heat transfer, film formation and water coverage. Westinghouse has not provided any data or experimental evidence as to why deterioration of the containment coatings will not affect the design basis properties of the containment shell and the PCS performance e The evolutionary designs have effectively agreed to a safety-related coating program by committing to implement Reg Guide 1.54 to satisfy the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. Westinghouse needs to demonstrate that protective coatings used in the AP600 are non-safety-related, and clearly substantiate the basis for its current exception

' (in SSAR Appendix 1A) to RG 1.54 and the endorsed ANSI standards (i.e., explain why the provisions of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 21 do not apply to protective coatings in the AP600).

Attachment 3 i