ML20236W396
| ML20236W396 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/30/1987 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8712070438 | |
| Download: ML20236W396 (101) | |
Text
,
i 9
,s-
.f O
UNITED STATES' OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS510N t
I
Title:
Briefing by Combustion Engineering i
on New Standardized-Plants Location:' Washington, D. C.
Date:
Monday, November 30, 1987 Pages: 60 8712070438 871130 PDR 10CFR PDR PT9.7 Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters
~
1825 1 Street, N.W., Suite 921
("
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3960 8
l k<
4
H j
4
-o' y
,a d
- j b
A.f 1
D I SCLA lMER 2
'S 4
.i 5
6
-This is.an unofficial transcript;of-a' meeting.of th.e 7
United States. Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 8
11/30/8.7 In the Commission's offica at '1717 H Street, 9
'N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
-The meeting was open to public, 10 attendance and observation.
This transcripts has-not'been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, andfit may contain I
(1(
12 inaccuracies.
I 18 The transcript is intended solely ~for genera *l
' informational. purposes:
As provided by 10 CFR'9.105, it'Is i
,.4
~
15 not part of the formal or informal record of-decision of.the.
16 matters discussed.
' Expressions of' opinion'in this transcript, 17 do not necessar'lly reflect final determination or beliefs.
No.
18 pleading or other paper may be filed with:the Commission in addressed '.t ci any, s t a t emen't' 19 any proceeding as the' result of or the' Commission may 20 or argument contained herein, except as 21 authorize.
22 23 24 25 j
i
1 l
.1 UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA
.s g
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.l 3
4 BRIEFING BY COMBUSTION ENGINEERING ON 5
NEW STANDARDIZED PLANTS:
6 7
PUBLIC MEETING
-l 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Room 1130 11 j
1717 H Street,- Northwest 12 Washington, D.C.
13 14 Monday, November 30, 1987 15
~
]
\\
16 The Commission met in open session,' pursuant to 17 notice, at 2:02 p.m., the Honorable LANDO W.
ZECH, Chairman of i
18 the Commission, presiding.
t 19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
20 LANDO W.
- ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 21 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 22 KENNETH C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission 23 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL,' Member of the Commission 24 KENNETH M. CARR, Member of the Commission
-a t
25
.d v
1 1
)
9..
.1 r
_g.
i a
2
<l 1
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE-COMMISSION. TABLE:
'l
.s :
1
- 3 S.'CHILK
.4
-W.
PARLER j4 1
5 S.T.' BREWER
'i
'6 R.E. NEWMAN 7'
A.E..SCHERER-a
.8 R.A. MATZIE-9 M.D. GREENE 10
' : L,.
11:
12 13 l
14 1
1 15 l
i l
l 16 17
{
i 19 i
r 20 l
21 4
4 t
22 1
i 23 4
<i 24
./ -
c 25 f
l 1
l l
ti
. b.a
g
.O 3
e 1:
' P,R:O.C E E'D..I.N'G SL,
~
[. w
~-]
2
' CHAIRMAN ZECH ! z Good' afternoon,. ladies.'and gentlemen.-
3 Today's meeting /is for!the Combustion Engineering, Company.to 4
brief'the commission onEthe status $fitheir efforts to1have aL
.c i
5 standardized nuclear power plant'designfcertified; q
6 Combustion' Engineering'has aifinalidesign; approval,
.7-for.the. system'80 design.which utilizes the Pal'o Verde unit one-
~8 as a' reference plant.-
9 I understand'that Combustion Engineering plansmtol 1
10 utilize this design:in pursuit-of'a design certification'in 11 accord with the.Commissi'on's nucle'ar; power.plantT 12 standardization policy.
13 This meeting is timely'.and thatithe Commirssion'was:
i 14 briefed by the Arizona'Public Service! Company on November tho.-
15 25th, 1987 on the Palo Verde unit number three plant.
The' 16 experience gained'from the design: construction,;' operation and-17 maintenance of all three Palo Verde. units should be useful in' 18 making improvements in the~ final reference' design.
19 I'm particularly interestedLin hearing how Combustion 20 Engineering intends to handle-the balance of plant:in this' 21 standard design.
The NRC staff is available'to providex insights on the issues and plans'for processing this 22 23 application.
24 Do any of my fellow commissioners lhave any opening.
( ;,
25 remarks to make before we begin?
9 g
a y
o N
l______..__!_m__________m'_1
S
-' ^~
~
h
,jl
~c
.4 A
1 :-
' COMMISSIONER RERNTHAL:
Winil',E I! would just makeEone'
~
.:.q ;
ym
'}
g
2 comment that I had intended.to'make-in the meeting,1whenever it.
t 3l was, Wednesday.I guess, but'. time ran on and that;isi.:I was
~
4-
' pleased to see the representation and the~ delegation,fif'you; 5
will, from combustion Engineering at'aimaating where;we're.
~
6 really'"Just," and I use the term "Just" inEquotationimarks,
- 7 licensing.' one_' of their plants.. I ^.think that ? is': commendable, 8
and'that represents:the kind o'f vendor 1 responsibility for.the 9
product:that I would hope.that: yod continue.toidisplay; Land 10 that:I think has been one of 'our problems lin the past;.
1 11 So, I' wanted to compliment.you on your presence:and 12 hope you continue ho take that kind of' interest and
-13 responsibility in your' plants in the fieldLwhen they are being.
14 licensed and operated..
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:.Any other comments'.from my fallow 16 Commissioners?
'l
,17 (No response.)'
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:.If:not, Dr. Brewer,.welcome and you~
19 may proceed.
20 MR. BREWER:
Thank you,.Mr. Chairman and members of' 21 the Commission.
My nameLis,Shelby Brewer andlI am theSeni'r o
Vice President in charge of theLNuclear Power. Systems Division 22 23 at' Combustion Engineering.
My brincipal reason.for being here'is to 'give you~my:
24 f-
_ Q 25 personal commitment to the standardization programs that
- g.._
y; I _Trn:
w '"mW=
"#'""""~"
' "#^
~
~ ' ~ ~ ' ~
. h..
.i 5-
'-l 1
~1 Combustion initiated many/ years ago.
I would'flike to point outL
(~'
t 4
'2 that I have been vitally supportive'of.' standardization.since.my.
- 3 days as the Department'of Energy's Assistant' Secretary forL 4
Nuclear' Energy.
5 When I joined Combustion Engineering.I was, pleased.to 6
find an ongoing and deep commitment;to'stan'dardization. ;At' 7
~
... li 7
Combustion Engineering. standardization'is.not some future' ideal; y
3 8
or abstraction; it is.a practical reality.
9 Our System;80 design, from:itscinception,fwas, 10 designed as a standardized system.. I/found.when I-joined.
11 Combustion in 1984'that CE:had-expendedswell~over oEelmillion-
~
12 man hours in designing land licensingsthe plant.
This:
significant investment-was made because.at the time'f10-years,
13 1
14 or more ago, 15 years or more ago,'o~ur. design.was to.be 15 employed in 17 units and at six different sites.
Today, our 16 System 80 design is one-of;only two standardized designs'.to 17 have received a final design approval and is the only advanced M
18 standardized design which has been'successfully.. referenced in 19 operating licensed proceedings.
20 In the recent standardization policyLatatementLthe:
q 21 Commission pointed out that reference. system. designs..for 22 standardized plants are expected to'be at'least? initially,.-andi
.{
23 I quote, " Evolutions.of existing ~ proven LWR.; designs]"iunquote.
24 At Combustion Engineering that-is our philosophy.
b 25 our intent is to provide evolutionary designs' based.on proven
'I e
I_____,.
________,...._______._i---------------------------"----~--
- f 1
,(
-.1 6 :-
i 1
technology.
We are therefore using our system 80 design as!.the; a
v
-f%
)
2 basis for our enhanced. system 80+3 design.
7(o q
i t
3 We believe that.our philosophy of(standardization 1andl
]
4:
proven' technology was-aLmajor factor in' selection 1by Korea!
O 5-
' Electric Power Company of Combustion Engineering'to provide:the-.
6 reactors for their next two. units.
Thisfrapresents the first qq 7
sale'for a U.S.1 vendor.since.1978 and?it comesialmost a' decade' d
q andahalf.-aftArthenuclear) recession' set-in,[in 1973,;17Q l'
8
~
l 9.
In;any event, I am committed to' continuing Com15dstion' O
10 Engineering's leadership role to, Land'to obtaining; regulatory 11 preapproval of our standardized design. ' Wo.: are a maj or..;
~
a 12 participant in the EPRI advanced' light water! reactor. program
~
13 and we have been selected by',the Department:of Energy.as a 14 contractor in their design verification program.
c 15 I am therefore pleased to,take the opportunity.today-16 to familiarize you with~our approach to design: certification.
17 our goal is to maintain a viable. domestic; nuclear option.by 18 making available a completed preapproved standardized design.
19 for.the 1990s and beyond.-
We~believe, however, that a viable' design certification program-will require some: changes from the 20 r
21 Commission as well.
And I.an encouraged by.your recent 22 standardization policy statement-and we urge you to continue 23 your' efforts in this-regard.
24 In closing let me'say, I believe that'we'1nlindustry
~
25
'can standardized the product'and will-~ standardize the product.
Y
'1
y, 1
y 4
- 7c j
l 1^
However, Ma need fo'r'.you, theICommission',.to' standardize:and
- 1 M-i
{"~
2 stabilize the process.- And preapproved? standardized plants can-3 offer.a safe and reliable future l energy option lforLAmerica.-
'4 I have. severalf of my staff: here today. 'Mr.[ Chairman, 3
'5
.on my far right is Mike Greene, manager ofJstandard plant 4
6_
' licensing;~on my'immediate'right.is. Bob Newman,iVice President.
.7 for'NSS'S, the'NSSS Department;(on;mysimmediatelleft is Ed' 8
Scherer,fdirector.'of licensing; and on my.'far'leftistDrl'Regis}
9 Matzie,' director of our; advanced'ALWR project; office., Land.-if:
4 thereare.nofurther1 questions, gentleman,.Ilwould.liketh j
10 j
introduce'Ed Scherer,four' director of nuclearLlicensinf to 11.
l'2 proceed-with the agenda.
l'3 CHAIRMAN-ZECH':
Please proceed. "
14 MR. SCHERER:
Could I have the first slide please'.
15 (Showing slide.)
16 MR. SCHERER:
Gust briefly,.Mr.' Chairman [our. agenda-will be -- I will present a' program' overview?and schedule,;and 17 18 then Dr. Matzie our. director of-AIRR project office will-19 provide you with'some of the' details of:the design changes.'we-20 envision for our_ System 80+ design; and.then.we:will--be.fhappy 21-to answer any-questions-and make'a closing comment.
If there 22 are no objections,-then I can proceed.-
23
'May I have slide three, please.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Let me'justisay, you're going to get j
{}
25
'some questions from us, I'm sure.
4
'T,
'_m.'4'
,e N-'
ffN
- h'**M N7 *-
98WMg"QDP'9&eg ?i sta,
--t Mge - M
t 8
l'
'MR. SCHERER:l Tes, sir.
(
'I 2
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
And I-don't ase.that builtiinto youri 3
schedule.
We have other plans after 3:30, so I,would:say try L
'4
.to give us..a-. chance to answer questions'on.your:: time,:if-you~.
q
~
q 5
would, so please move right'along.
j 6
MR. SCHERER:
. ei will be happy.to. answer:. any' W
7-questions.
..If we gaveLour whole presentation;uninterruptedlit
-j 8
would be about an' hour.
l 9
CHAIRMAN ZECH:- Well, you try to do that and'we.will.
10 consider it.
Let's try.it.L 11 MR. SCHERER:
We're?here to answer your questions.
.i
.q 12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you'.very much.-
'L
- 1 13 MR. SCHERER: ;Our organization ~ reports to Dr. Brewer, 14 three line organizations --' Nuclear Systems,-which is 15 responsible for the entire NSSS reporting to Bob lNewman; 16 Nuclear Services, which is our after-market effort, reporting-17 to Mr. Holloway; and Nuclear. Fuel, reporting to'Dr. McGill.
18 While I report administratively to Bob Newman,::I;am also 19 responsible for licensing' support of'the other'two groups.
20 Also reporting'to Bob Newman are'our Arizona project,.
q 21 our Korea project, and our advanced systems.under Warren-
.i
-]
22 Chernock.
23 Could I'have the next slide, please?
24 (Slide.]
.. V 2 5 Under Warren Chernock is the ALWR' project office'and' e
t 4
9
,1
m,
} ';
1 yi*
- 9 l
1.
.itsLdirector,qDr. Matz e,fwho is.-with us today..~TheiimportantJ v.
2
' point I'd like'to make'with.this.~slidei.is.to(point out to;you!
3 that providing input to.Dr.xMatziefare.tho' DOE ALWR program;.
'4-the.EPRI ALWR, program, and!our Combustion; Engineering'.
5 functional. groups.:
't 6
Could I have.the next'. slide, please"..
7
.(Slide.].
8
.As you mentioned in;yourfopeningjcomments,LMr.
9
, Chairman, we intend'td build upon_our: System 80.;.Weldo.not 4
10
' intend to restLwith our Systemj80? design.- The designL will kie 11
-significantly improved.to: increase-its safety;and. reliability).
12 and that is the -. design we. wish-to ' certify, and we've referred 13 to that design as the System 80+.
3
_ 14 If you lookzat.our current' application our System 80J 15 design and our FDA-2 was used' to license' -- I..believe' we cain; 15 fill in the third Palo Verde' unit.-based on your; vote on 17 Wednesday, and therefore we have used the current application ~
~!
in our System 80_ design'to license three-' plants-thus:far, and.
18 19 there's one more plant that has; referenced our applic'ation..-
2 20 COMMISSIONER SERNTHAL:- What.does System _80 21 superscript R mean?
i 1il 22 MR.'SCHERER:- The R is a registered trademark.1.And' al
~
23 the TM is a regist'ared.-- is applied forf.a' trademark.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:- Okay.
. h 25 MR. SCHERER:
The lawyers tell me.I have to put that l
j v.
t
- i L'
=-
=-
1 e
- 10 1-in.
~
2
'We have also talked with the Staff'about the 3
possibility'of~ setting up a second docket,;and the purpose of b
4 the.second~ docket would be totallow us to3take the SystemL80l 5
desig forward,without. encumbering the application'of.Palo-6 Verde and anybody else.that. referenced System 80 in the past.
7-That is not limited to one more plant..
8 Could I have the next slide, please?.
d 9
[ Slide.)
h 10 The System 80 design, as~Dr. Brewer pointedLout,<was'
~
11 always intended to be an advanced plant.. It current 1p has thei i
~12 advantage of being a proven design; 100 percent?of the desigk 13 details are availabl.a because three of the units referencing-14 that design have full power licenses, two.in commercial' 15 operation, and we have the advantage, if you look back'at the--
16 process I. outlined of building back into'our' application, 17 feedback from our operating experience.
That is whatsthe'FDA Q
18 amendment that we showed on the previous ~ slides was intended to 19 cover.
.l 20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Can you~ just very, very-
.]
21 briefly indicate the extent of the FDA amendment'-that'you 22 envision?
Are there significant changes there?
23 MR. SCHERER:
When-the FDA was issued,- there were
- {
24 soveral open items which we were asked to close.
Right'now all 25 the issues, to my knowledge, are resolved.with the exception'.of a
l t_-____,_--------.---
=-
c
.a.
it i
- r e
1
'three.1 Those are theLATWS:fix,ethe; steam generator tube.L L
2 vibration which was' experienced 'at Palo ' Verde,; and the;
'3-auxiliary spray' issue,.which was an operating; experience.' (The-4
' issue'has-been closed'on Palo Verde bht the'~ staff has-not'.yet<
5 accepted our generic fix.for.'Systen180..
6 COMMISSIONER'BERNTHAL:- Aside'from the unresolved g.
7
. issues, what would/you say would be the one1orftwo mosti
'?
o 8.
important amendments to that FDA?
9 MR. SCHERER:
The' amendments were essentially)issua's1 10 that we were not.able.to. identify beforeLth'e:plantiwantfiht' o
11 operation,'but operational.. feedback taught us;to improveithe.
12 design and rectify the design, suchLas;thelaxpe$ience withlthe' 13 chemical and volume control system'and: auxiliary spray at.Palo 14 Verde.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Are you saying those are the
~
e 16 two most important, in your judgment?.
17 MR. SCHERER:
Yes,~ sir.
N 18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
19 MR. SCHERER:
Since we"were building:on-improving-20 design, there were very few surprises. Those surprises that we:
did identify have been built back/into..the design..
21 i
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHALt- 'Thank you':
g:
23
[ Slide.)
24 MR. SCHERER:
If we move'on to thel slide ~that you;see
~
in front of you, when we built the System 80 design, we.went.
1 25
}
y
.- e S'
3
</.
r-r
. ;,M v
el2 i
s
.. p
-('
, f
(
back to the d.! wng board ' and made' 'p'ome lrather dramat c changes.
1 n
., s*
s
,4 1
('.
'2' to our design ll and iperhfore we' already consider our System 80 -
bo 7
t design ar, an tam.'NcO S.hesign, and somaycP the features that we'
,?J y
8
.t g I
4 have that.are cuftrencly bairn incorporated in o*@t.r designs
. t
't involve our digital ph,tdctiv&,laystem, wa! have: qMalnuted,;th's
.,g
- s
,f T
i
,t u
l
\\
,(I'_
,'k
.N'
{
pipe whip restraints, v4'!1 ave designwi dnftemthd 100 percent:,__
\\
l i,
6
/
q 8<
C j
load rejectip1 capability and other dSilga. features.,
7
/
A
- r>
!- Iioglg' put this.up. to try to teL1 you th,at"se ah9
,8 7
t
- a
?
starting,fros/a design which-hart,been significantly imprc[ved.,
- m. s
>9 ss o
i over'thhcNk4*.sprecursor.
4 10 e
s y
May I have the next s'13pw, pleme?
ll
\\
i s
12 (Slide.]
+
n g,
i 13 5,. However,as?,,{.@oldygnearlier,wedonot.intenpto p
'f r
. t.
s We indent to make significant charges in
- t 14 cortify that design.
+
1' termsofsafetyandreliabli!.cy,andthd$ktendtofallintdtwo 15 5
W6 'i categories.
The first As design changes which Combustion!
s
,.ph 9 i 17 Engineering intend 4"m initiate.
Those fall into two.
(
- /
\\'
gi s
18 cate1 pries.. First f(3 thoseM%ch improve he saraty and 7
- a t
3 reliabi$nya > ),pds includes f pereting piant feedback and those-9 19 4
J
{e'
.a s
assac(s 'of crir design.whiclO, !'phile ageptable, we stil1 Mound
'20 g
3
. :< a n
a 21 [t f.s marginal, and we wish to open up that margin so that'thiti y a
.sa o
2 2., ' ' ' plant is more reliable, higher availability, less spurious s
23 trips.. wo 4i '
j h)i w
a p'
(
24 9 Th'd second is what our customers are%~1}ng.us-
}j l
7 1
through the EPRI ALWR requirementdPyx$;;;an andIothers in the
,3 25 y
+
. t v
c f"
~
v f
(.,
+
/? h ;
yf+u tru m.
/
F d{
.fg g
' "e
&g;,,
V w/
.h v
J.
"{
li 'N,)
F'
{
r s
v r,
- /
~ 13 1
4-
,et i
u-L y (i 7 l
+
tt-a e<>/
1 industry are telling :us what >should be in tho' nexty generation yr c
3,, > i e
\\
s i
2
-@ e.ign'.
We will factor both of those into-our syde.en sq Plus J
l 3
desb,gn.
r
- >r 4
We, of course, have ~ a yategory of NRC-mindated '
k n
.,j
,.,a
,g 5
changes, and we will-address the require $ents th t exist.in the 5
f 7
s 6
severe accident policy statement, the safety g6al policy and
~
,,og s-7, the standardization poiicy, and l' will cover that-inM little.
,,n 8
more detail in a few menEnts, 4
h 9
COMMISSIONER BET % THAL:. Let's' riae.
The EPRI ALWR 10 requirements.
Could you indicate just briefly what one or two 1
o
',11 of those might be? pre you talking about the broad safety 12 goals, as I would MIt its t?, tat EPRI, has sah for ALWRs, ' which. I g
mightsayaresomewhatmoi;0[pt?ingentthar.[theNRChascetso l
13 y,
3y a
l f$rtorareJyouttikiagabout.scita,specifichardware 14' E
l
\\,
- y 15 attributes?
i
.,i <
f
[
16 MR. SCHE.}ZR: [I'mtalkingaboutEPRIhassomebroad
(
a 63 I
17 gcain, includingr.; goals that y a hd.ve discussed wit 6'others in 18 te.rms of degraded core, in terms of dosos, et ceta*tu..
Those 19 are broad gange goals.
SPRI hat; also some very specific 20 requirements.
We are addreer.ing both, es - s 21 C0hMISSIONER BERNTlIAL:
Like what?
Give me one or 22 two specific requirements. [.
,t
+
s y
23 i
MR. SCHEFEjg Th'e.Jhot leg temperature, the design of y
y
.c
\\'
9'd
- 24 the reactos vessel for 60; years.
i 4
l
.m 1
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL.:' I nee ~
Okay.
'6 1
v
.ni.
t
\\'-
\\
(
t 1
.g
-__-_-____L__...--__
--: - TTT T'
~.% *: * * * ' * *-
T'
'W *
- M
"~
(&
u 1
' ;34 1
T
.1 '
MR.'SCHERERt ' Dr. Mattla;canLgo.into more detail 1in-n.
(4
~
2
' some of'these.
n
.3'
-COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: sNo,uthat)isEquite adequate.
l 4
.Thanks.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: -Before you go away[from that': slide,jI.-
6
. wouldllike to-ask you also as(you'look atitheLchanges to;at a
- J
'7 least consider maintenance and how perhaps our; maintenance.
policy statement that we have recently'issuedlcould be' j
'8 9
accommodated.in your design.
Now,_'I recognize'it can onlyfbe-10 perhaps conceptually,.butLin my view the maintenancascan bel improved and there is room for? improvement'in a kind,of..very 11 12, basic manner.
13 I don't'think in many' cases that.ma'intenance.has been a
i.s 1
14 addressed from tho' design standpoint,'and'I'would likojto ask-15
- you to take a look at that.
It seems to~me itlwould be.-
1 important if you.could show the commission thatlyou h' ave put an.
16 17 effort into putting maintenance in the design of theiplant'as--
jl 18 well as waiting until it starts operating..So I,think'that is.
g l
4 19
(
something that perhaps I would suggest you take a look'at.
20 MR. SCHERER:
I agree,.Mr. Chairman..:Dr. Matzla may.
3-a 21 go into it in a little more detail,.but it is;already. covered,'.
1 22 at least in some aspects, under simplification and 1
23 standardization of subsystems,'andLthe EPRI' requirements.
24 document speaks to that as well. ; But I' agree.with.you,.Mr.
l
- 25 Chairman, and'we willtake that.me'ssage'home.
e A
'1 I
4 -
_ _ _., _ _. _. wh.-
m W
N3 DWT"PWW
- fN*
9' i
t
.y.
7 m
1-
, 35 y.
1
' CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank'you.
[wk
.2
'[ slide.);
',q 3
-MR.:SCHERER:. If.I mightb go L on to t the next. slide just dj'j 4
4'
- as>a pictorial: representation to get the; point:across.:LWe'have.
, d, q
5' already shown our' System 80 design meets'the rul'osTandK 7 Iq 6
regulations-o'f the Commission.-(We are:notl satisfied?with that.?
q 7
' We'are adding to safety.'and reliability improvements, whichl 9
3' 8
leaves open a question'of. regulatory standard (thatfis to?be s
9 applied'to thel System,80'Plus.
We'know'whatlitLtakes:to, meet',
10 the rules and'regulationsiof..the Commission.
We would like'to I
"W g.
11 think we exceed it with ourfSystemt80.; TheTquestion'is1what.is 12 the regulatory standard which is goingLto be applied..:.We will 13
.need to know that_before we get:toofar into the process..
14
[ Slide.-)
i 15 To speak to the issue'that you. brought up'in(yourc 16 opening comment, Mr. Chairman,1we have expanded the: scope from 17 that which existed with'our. System'80.t'o include; emergency
+i 18 feedwater, contr.inment and control ~ room,'which:are;the. thro's-g 19 areas which were the most valuable addition. - I woul'dLlike to'-
20 concentrate,.though, on the: discussion o'f the standard functional description, which is an;important concept /Il.think,c 21 22
- to get across, and I hope to make a; start'on-that today, i
n 23
.[ Slide.]
24 Dr..Matzie'will discuss the engineering upgrades' l
Q 25 involved in it;lhowever, I wouldilike to, speak a little bit?.
e
]
,~
h.
M..
eh.
.G-
?,w
. -4;
.ne.,,.,
m, w
-16.
1 more about-the standard functional ~ description.-
[
2 May I have the next_ slide?.
h
,j 3
[ Slide.]
.j i
4.
When'we licensed. System 80,:we developed a setLofL i
5 interface requirements)between;the nuclear. steam supply' system.
1 6
and the balance;of plant.
This.wasi18 or.so' categories /
j 4
7 requirements that the balancejof plant.had to serveior provide Ni 8
in order to haveLthe nuclear steam supply. system meet al10of'
- i l
r 9
its safety requiromants.~
That.was found to be' acceptable, j
J 10 The staff had not been'used to on'a' standardized' I
11 plant reviewing that'particular. interface'.- Normally that 12 interface had been hidden between the NSSS. vendor and the
13 applicant, architect engineer or applicant, and.it was notL 14 something the staff would.normally.-review.' However, with'the 15 System 80' application,.the: staff had an. opportunity to review 16 and agree with those interface requirements for.,tho'first' time.
j 17 They had the benefit, however, of the Palo. Verde 1
18 appli' cation and some other applications with which to look1at' 19 that.
20 (Slide.)
i 21 We intend to take that and' build on it..TheLSystem' 22 80 Plus application will include. detailed. functional' 23 descriptions for systems and structures outside of the nuclear 24
- Power.modul.e, our expanded scope,.which will' affect; safety.
25 Let me first give you a picture, and then I will go
}
.,i y
^ ' - - - - '
- ^ - - - ~ ' - - - - - ' - - ^ ' ^ ^ - - - - ' - ' - - ^
V p
. 'oi L 37!
l 1;
'into a'little bit.more" description.
. ]
2
[ Slide.).
3
- If.you look;at a whole plant,Lyou take thofnuc3.sar 4'
steam supply system, and we have added:the containment,dhe 5
control room and the emergency feedwater system. ; Superimposed' -
- \\
-6 on that we have a new standard functional'.: description 1which I!
7 will describe in aflittle more detail. That effectively' 8
eliminates theLbalance.of plant.
9
-The way we.do that:--'.1'et me have the next slide.-
10 (Slide.]
11 COMMISSIONER CARR:
What.do.you mean when youisay it-q
'I 12 eliminates it?
13 MR..SCHERER. Exactly the pointI'am.trying to make.'*
14 What it does is it defines tho' requirements'in the' application 15 for.the nuclear power module.- What.we will have in ours, 16 application are not only the. interface requirements'as..we 17 previously had licensed but we'will.have a' description of the 18 system or structure that is necessary'to support our' system,-
19 all the assumptions from the safety _' analysis, PRA,' including.
J' 20 any reliability requirements imposed on that system, all the 21 requirements out of the EPRI document.'and any other-information-necessary for the staff to conclude that tNo-scope 22 23 of supply we have put forward.will:indeed.. meet ~the regulatory-24 requirements of the Commission.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
What does that'mean regarding the-o 5
+
3;.
18 1
balance.of plant?? ~
y
~
2 MR. SCHERER:- It means that alliof the information' -
3J necessary to satisfy, for example, the'. standard review plan..
4 requirements for review ~of any:materialLwe-' submit.iwill'be:
5 included in these standard functional de'scriptions.-- The staff:
,q could.thenusethatasachecklisttomakesure.that'.anyshstem 6-i 7'
which is not' covered by our scope meets all'their regillatory, b
8 requiren nts.
9 So that we have'~now added.to our-document _alliof'the 10 requirements.that!anything that is not part of.our scope must:
11 meet to fill any. safety. requirement.-
I
-)
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:- I guess what?youLare saying 13 is that in'offact, you would<also be" standardizing.. things'that.
9' 14 heretofore have not been included forLNRC review prior to thei 15 point at which a licensee makeo application.-
16*
MR. SCHERER: :That's: correct.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That, involve balance ofl
~
1 18 plant.
That is certainly' commendable.-
19 MR. SCHERER:
The-reason I say.it eliminates.the:
-1 20 definition of. balance of plant is;because;the're is not.a'line t
i 21 now which -- in the past we used-.to say things like CE' 22-applicants are.or are not CESSAR. scope'.
We will not be-saying
.q 23 that in this~ application.
Anything that what used to be'
'24 balance of plant has to do to assure the" safety of the; scope:.
C9' 25 and safety of.the plant will now be part of these-descriptions..
9 9
1 Hh
_ :. 2--__ _1_
-.______--_--1....-
l 1-
,g 1
..e E i'
L
[
-19 W
1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL 1/In'other words,"anything thatJ 2
has to do with"the:turbinefgenerator, for. example,nthat cod 1d-3 contribute to unplanned' trips,Lyou:are(looking at very:-
j
.,. )
4 carefully.
5
'MR. SCHERER-That's right..
'6 COMMISSIONER CARR So you are' laying;out:a setLofa
]
7 specifications:for the secondary plant?- In: essence, safetyg 1
8 specification -.'
> 1 l-9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHALt. ThatEsounds/liksiit.
4 I
10 MR. SCHERER - For example, the turbine lge'nerator has n
11 to be penir. sular to the containment building._ That.would be:
12 part of the standard functional description.
13 COMMISSIONER CARR
'I'm not s'ure I.. unde.rstandLwhat 14 you are telling me.
How about making it plain 1 language {.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:, Essentially you are saying,you arel!
16 going to include a'large part'of what'we have;inL:tho'past, 17 called balance.of plant, but not all'of it.
18
.MR. SCHERER:
The safety functions;are going to bei 19 imposed on balance of plant by our application.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I think what he is s'ying/is a
A 21 everything the NRC would normally review that'is todays j
22 classified as balance o'f plant, you'~are going-to specify:and'
- 23 attempt to have resolved'in advance.
~If.I an'say'ng itlwrong,.
i 24 then --
25
- MR. SCHERER:
You are saying'it correctly.
a s
se e
Y
.aV'
. ^
r c
]
(-
N 20-9 a
s,
How about a for'instaned? What?!
l 1
COMMISSIONER'CARR,
J i
2' MR. SCHERER:. An. example'th'at I just.gave'youlis that:
.q
.3
.the: generator mu'st be peninsular.
4.
COMMISSIONERLCARR: ;I didn.'t= understand that.v, 5
.MR.'SCHERER: 1That a: turbine missile.cannot' strike
'4 6-
'the containment! building..So;it's.orientedLin"a;directioni
- q
^
7 radially;away.from the' containment building, sofwefimpose'.this.
+
8 as a requirement, that.you(can have only'one orientation.offa 2
9 turbine generator ~ building.for our plant, and that,is' radially; 10 oriented to the containment.
11 MR. MATZIE:- Maybe I.can give'another concret 12 example..Ifwetakethemainfmed; system,-.we.willispecihhthe n.
13 number ' of feed pumps,, their prime' movers,nthe ntuaber of.
isolation valves, the feed-flow ratejLthe temperature,(we will
- I 14 2.
d 15 specify that there :has to be. a' de-aerating feed tank to: handle:
16 the chemistry.
That is the kind /of. level of things we will 17 provide,_and included in that would.be a basic. flow; diagram-
.18 that shows all'.the main components in'thatisystem.
j 4
1 1
19 So the architect engineer does not'have~the option of.
20 putting say two foot pumps instead'of three'or.does.not have i
21 the flexibility of changing the-prime 1 mover, maybe' making them.
22 all electrical or.all steam driven.
That.will'bispecifiedi j
23 because those will be the bases for the reliability, the PRA:
j 24
.and the safety evaluation of the. plant.
a 1
4 g 25 COMMISSIONER CARR:
So.forimy: understanding, thatiis-1 m
.j d
t z..
_.g
" ^
=-
w ~-=-
c 7
' 21'
- 1.
a' set of' specifications;but not vendors.
2 MR. MATZIE:
That'is correct.
3 MR. BREWER:
Let me see if I can'takea stab at1it.-
4
.The NSSS. system, which is the heart.of the safety concern of, 5
the plant will'be designed lin. infinite detail and~ submitted to-6 the. Commission.
In addition, those-systems which are partinent'-
7
.to' safety concerns will bespecified, but ILwouldi noti 8
characterize the~latter,asLa complete component-byl component.
9 dimensional design.. The requirements will be1 set down; 10 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Did you'say'earli'r youlare
]
e 11' now doing work that has previously been done by;the' architect 12 engineers?
13 MR. SCHERER:
That's correct.
14 MR. BREWER:
To some degree, yes..The containment,-
~
15 for example; control room,.we are adding.that to our scope.
j 16 The emergency feedwater system will be added to.our-scope..
(
17 MR. SCHERER:
I would also point out that. Luke: Poser 18 Company is working with us on that. 'They,are not'only.an.
19 owner / operator of a plant but they also do their own architect i
engineer work and they are very well advanced:onLa' System 80 j
20 21 compatible' design for what had been a six unit. application.
22 They bring a lot to this process in terms of sophistication and 23 knowledge, not only as: owner / operator, architect engineer, butL 24
-very familiar with our' design.
f,.. ~
I Q 25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let me see,1f"I~can get J
's
'22 L
+
il another benchmark here or ioference ' point. ;I wouldiassume'from j
-2' what you have been saying that.you are talking about all thoseL 1
3
. categories we have often referred to here>asLimportant tc.
4 safety, as opposed'to safety related..The terminology was
- s 5
always reverse from wh'at:I thought it should be.
WeLall know-6 that.
1 l
7 Is it fair to say you are taking.-under your. wing, so,.
1'
~
d 8
to speak, all those areas that we would have. labeled-important U
9
~to safety or do you go beyond thatieven?
10 MR. SCHERER:
We go beyond:that.
11 COMMISSIONER CARRIL What are you not telling them'to 12 do?
13 COMMISSIONER, ROBERTS:
Not' telling them:which pump to
(.
14 buy.
15 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Are you telling them whether:it
-1 16 is going to be centrifugal or reciprocat'ing?;
17 MR. SCHERER:
Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER CARR:
You are basically' designing'the i
19 plant for them.
All they have to do is go out and put out.the:
d
]
20 bids.
1 21 MR. SCHERER:
To the extent that-it' impacts th's 22 safety of the plant, we are telling them specifically what-23 needs:to be done to assure that safety and to someLextent vel l
i q
24 are telling *them exactly'one way to do it, and.only'one 25
. acceptable,way to do it.
We are not telling them name-plate;
- h
[
o
_ _ _ _ _ = _ _ -
- x- = - -- -
a s
4 2 3.-
t1 information..
+
COMMISSIONER.BERNTHAL:
Youarenot[dding'a'shandard 2
r3 blueprint, but you are doing. detailed component specification:ts?..
4 MR.'SCHERER: 'We are.n'ot'doing; blueprints.
5 COMMISSIONER-CARR: :You.are!doingl flows andipressures 6;
and horse powers, power. supplies._.
7 MR.-SCHERER:
Yes.
Can you give us an example!;o'f a
'8 CHAIRMAN. ECH:L V
9 system that.you will.'not be' involved with in this: standardized, 10 program?
11-MR. SCHERER:.That'impactsLsafety?
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
No,-that;doesn't.. impact safety.- You" said that everything that impacts safety, you'are going to be:'
13 14 involved with.
15 MR. SCHERER:' Everything that l'sLin the1 standard 4
16 review ~ plan that the staff looks at,'wo.are going;to'be~
17 addressing.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Can you give me an example.of a 19 system'that-is not in that category, that you.will not be' 20 addiessing?-
21 MR. SCHERER:
I don't know'that we are going to' -
22 specify where the commodes are going.to be located butlit-'can.
+
23-overflow and impact the plant.
24 COMMISSIONER CARR:' About interior communic'ation:
h) 25 systems, are you going to specify'those, whether the guy uses.
i
- g{;
- j n
_ _.n.
7.
c y
L 124i 1~
'the phones;or an IC system, talk.back?
u,'('
2 MR. SCHERER:- If it is'in the standard; review plan, 9
3 if the staff would: typically ask an application'to.' speak to
'4 that issue, it wi11'probably be.in our: standard functional!
5 description somewhere.-
6 COMMISSIONER.CARR:
It is up to'us5instead of'.you.-
4,
7 If'it is in.that. plan,,you will do it..
8 MR. SCHERER: ;I 'am saying.I.. can pretty much: assurelif 9
you' address the. issue somewhere in tho' standard review plan',oI:
10 can pretty much' assure'it will 'be in our' standard functional; 11 description.
I can~tell you that,in.the' standard ~ functional.
12 description', they are going.to discuss,more than your'staEdard 13 review plan.
I can_ pretty much assure you it4 won't discuss-
~
14 less.
y 15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
'I bet:I can give.~you'an1 16 example of one that you won't beldoingiin much detail,-and.I' 17 may be wrong, that is plant security.
You might.make someLvery 18 broad statements about that,!but that's the kindLof thing.IL q
19 would guess you wouldn't be doing:in any detail..
r t
20
~MR. SCHERER:
External security.. Internal; location y
21 of the control room---
J I
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:'.That's.afdifferent' matter, a
a1 23 the perimeter security: requirements.
j 24 MR. SCHERER:
Thatiprobably.will;beLoutside.'
(Q 25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That'is.something we would.'
j 4
1l 4
I
__1.___..
.l 25'
<q
.~
~
i
.1'
'look at?rathericarefully but2 I'would suspect you;are;;not going' M
'.(
2 to'look at it very closely.--
~3 MR. SCHERER:: Emergency -planning 1would. probably.;;be) q H
4' something we-would:show is compatible.;
n.s.
5
' COMMISSIONER;BERNTHAL:- 'Thatjis beyond.
I.an talkinga a{
6 Labout perimeter' security.
7-CHAIRMAN ZECH:
What you'are saying'isiyou are goingL
~
8 to mest all: our requirement's.plus additional l initiatives that:
9 you believe would perhaps'have some! kind.ofia safetyjimpactt-10 correct?
11 MR.'SCHERER:
That's right.
We':are going to allow.
'12 fewer combinations and' permutations of'how we are~ going toimeet-13 those.
i 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
What percentage of.theiplant.as;.you.
15 envision it would you consider standardized under your concept?
16 MR. SCHERER:
I guess by,the: time.we'are. finished, I.
17 would imagine close toL90 parcent.would he standardized in'.
18 terms of-functional requirements.
It will not':have.the'same-19 name plate.
It may not have theisame' vendor.
It will serve 20 the same purpose,.put out the same amountfof water, same heat 1
=
21 capacity, same' pressure.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
How would you' accommodate, for.
23 example, to the different geographical locations inlourLcountry-
- 24 where the plant.may be built?
For example, use of. water.
,25 supply.
9 1
6 1
.26 1
MR. SCHERER ' We have done'that in the past when we-
.(,
2 had 17 units.
First, we had to do it with'aEsaismicfresponse s
3 spectra.
What we did was we took a combination of all the 4
sites'that we' analyzed, came out with peak response spectra, 5
assured that our, design was able to withstand thatispectra.
6 Then when we customized the plant for a. specific site:
7 or sites, we did a time history of that specific'siteqand-we' 8
assured ourselves --
'l 9
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Would those considerations be'part of I
10 the 10 percent?
11 MR. SCHERER:
No.
What we do is we over design!the 12 plant.
-(,
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
The example ILgave, the. water supply-14 and the different geographical ~ areas of_our country, but you.
15 would design that as part of your standard' design requirements 16 for that particular plant at that particular location, is that-17 right?
18 MR. SCHERER:
It tends to be'over' designed.
In other
]
19 words, you take the Palo Verde plant and' it may Int seismically
(
20 much stronger than it needs to be'for.its specific' location, it is not specifically tuned because it was not'specifically 21 22 designed to fit in only one location.
It could also fit at the 23 San onofre site.
It could fit in New England.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I am talking aboutLthe water supply.-
a 1
(_j 25 MR. SCHERER:
That would tend to be custom designed.
d
^v i
y y-n 9 -
' %,7 i
i
'f 1
MRi BREWER:.There wasfaLatudy-donaiseveral(years:
(
2 ago' Mr. Chairman.
4
.3-CHAIRMAN.ZECH
'That.would be part oflyourc
-4
- requirements for that'particular: design at that particular-4 5-location.
6-
'MR.1SCHERER ?lYes.-
7 MR. BREWER:
So many gallons ~of water and so'forth.
.8-
.There was a study done a,few years ago,lMr. Chairman,.the 9
conclusion of which, and.I think it was by the'. Department of.
L 10-Energy, 90 percent or.more of a. plant could.beLabsolutely 11 totally standardized. -The other;5 to 10' percent hadjto be^
s 12 cus' tom designed to the' site,gsite' specific. '
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:. Asifor example,qthe: water: supply.:
~'
14
'MR. BREWER:
- Yes, e,,
4 15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I'think what we are all trying to get i
16 a feel for really.is~just an-overall generalEfeeling for the difference in what we.are do'ing_now andIwhatfyou'are proposing.
17 18
'I think your'90 percent standardization gives us alreasonably.
19 good feel for that.
That is what we are trying to.say.
-I
-think'most of us are'not'looking for,name plate l data as!regards 20
~
21 who made the pump.
We are looking for name'. plate data as it' 22 regards capacity, amperage, voltage, perhaps thoseTkind of 23 specific criteri~a. 'Is that-what youLhavefin mind?:
24 MR.'SCHERER:- Yes,' sir.
h'25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: :Let's proceed.
r y
4
,h-r,P,_.
a'.,
,_ _ _, _ _I_y_&Jm1+e+eh c; War *.
. -.wWesefevoowooaeo porWgef* y<mpe=5 e
(
y j
28 l
4 q
E
-l'
[ SLIDE.),
.;ij
-,9
\\
2 MR. SCHERER: 'When we said wa had to meet" additional-q 1
3 Commission requirements, it is sur' interpretation thatLwe.must/
4 do four things to meet the Commission ~ guidance (that we:foundLin 5
the documents that we outlined,"and..that:is clearly,we'have to' 6
meet the current regulations.. Wo.have the-advantage.of having;.
'7 System 80'which has been found to meet'the current-regulations";
o-8 and that is..the basis'for.the'Palo Verdellicenses.
9 Next is that we'must' resolve unresolved safety-1 e
10 issues, medium and high priority-generic issues., We intend ~to 11 do that. ~ We had hoped to. utilize criteria ~ developed in;the 12 EPRI and the ARSAP, advanced reactor severe accident policy.,
13 program, which-is also working in parallel with:ours.
We will--
7 i
. 14 submit that to the NRC staff'andl hopefully.they will'have'.
15 reviewed and accepted tho' regulatory criteria;for the 16 resolution of these issues.
If not, it willlbe necessary that 17 we will have-to propose l resolutions on our' docket.
18 The next step is there is a requirement toecomplate'a 19 PRA.
We intend to perform what is the, equivalent of:a. Level 3 20 PRA for our design.
Dr. Matzie will cover that a little1more 21 and discuss-how that is built into our design process.- ThisLis.
22 not just;the PRA done at the end.
23 Finally, the staff obviously has'to complete.its 24 review and include degraded core issues.
To' accomplish this, we will need by the.end of fiscal year 1988,-the.following --
'25 h '.
,o j.
+
I t
i
.i 1..
j 3
7, -
29 4
1 could I~have the next slide,fplease?l
]j
- i. m' '
2 (SLIDE. J.
3 MR. SCHERER:
We'will'need thatlthe NRC.will have-1 4
developed a. criteria for determiningiwhatlis: unresolved safety-Jj 5
and generic issues.
Otherwise, welwill be; forced to;d'o it-~caset G.
by: case and if the criteria'is then establishadiafter 1988,'ws:
.,a 7
will be forced, as you.will see'from myjschedule'later,ito' 4
8 backfit the design'with fixes for the. unresolved safetysissuesc
[l
~
9 and generic safety issues.
I think it would be afshameoto have!
10 to backfit designs at that; point.,
11 Also we-will have to develop; criteria for. resolution, 12 of degraded core issues, which is part of the.NRC's? review, the-13 development of the cutoff frequency.for!PRA'. fat!any' point in 14 the PRA' process, there is always/ going to be.. outliers,LatLwhatl 15 point do we stop the process.
16 Finally, we need to resolve andi hopefully with EPRI,.;
X-17 ALWR optimization issues,-which'are issues 111ke11eak'before 18 break and how that-would be applied to advanced! designs.
l 19 (SLIDE.)
20 MR. SCHERER:
As you - see our schedtile, Jwel havel the 21 advantage in the System 80 application of rather:than submitting individual packages and the staff notibeingfable to' 22 23 see the whole until all the'. parts'are inj.we are reversing hat 24 process so we have the whole applicationiin front of the' staff.
Q' 25 It is the System 80 design.-
y.
}_
1 j i. 4:
i t ___. = _. _
l
+
30 f
1 We will-be making: changes-andl submit:those changes (q
3-and a' series.of' packages to the: staff.
The: staff'can then doJ 2
3 an integrated review at the and with the design' certification-
. 4 hearing, whatever that process may turn out to be,.conductediat-5 the and of that. process.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I assume'a. cutoff. frequency.
7
- for PRA'means that. level _.below.which it'is not'necessary$.to:
N 8
worry about.
9 MR. SCHERER:
Yes, sir.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Do you have'any guesses 1you' 11 would like to suggest at this point on what.that number'is 12 likely to be for severe core damage frequency?
13 MR. SCHERER:
My personal' belief is that an-
\\
14 appropriate number'for core' damage is 10 to the minus'5th.. You.
15 are probably not making significant' improvements to safety;and; 16 are eliminating the outliers.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
And 10 to the minus'5 being.
18 the expected value, what level of confidence would you specify-19 that it not be 10 to the minus 47 20 MR. SCHERER:
Dr. Matzie?
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
The 10 to the.minus 5 doesn't 22 mean anything unless you answer the next question.
23 MR. SCHERER:
I understand.
Are you prepared toi 24 answer that?
Q 25 MR. MATZIE:
No,:not yet.
4 9
J t
+
4 Q
_l____.L--__--_--_--------
,i
u',
,i.-
g aO 4
7
{,.
1 l
31' 1
-MR..SCHERER: :We1willLhave to get youinn newer.
I l.
2 understand'your question.3 3'
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: ~ C%ay. -
4 MR.'lSCHERER:~ If there!are no questions,eI'.willt
.j LU 5
introduce Dr.~Matzie.
i
)
6 CHAIRMAN'ZECH:- Please proc'aed.
7 MR. MATZIE:. Next: slide,.please.:
8 (Slide.]
9-MR.;MATZIE:' Combustion Engineering.is participating 10 in a broad range of industry l programs"that provide input ~to our 11 design.
The~ cornerstone for that; program,.as-was:already 12 mentioned several times,:is thel.EPRI ALWR~ requirements document 13 program.- In addition to that, however,.'weLare. participating in.
y 14 a number of' DOE-sponsored' programs in'.the'INC, area, the
'n 15 constructability area and the : severe laccident ' area. : CE is also 16 conducting its own internal' program for development.
17 All of~these programs provide: input into our DOE b
f 18 design verification program, which integrates'allLof these
- 19 inputs, and prior to, the submission to tho' NRC,; Combustion' I
Engineering is providing this integration and'providing the 20 21 staff with a well-integrated.submittalfin'. terms.offchanges'or-22' revisions ~to the existing CESSAR document.'
23 Next slide.
1 q
24
.(Slide.)-
a 25 This next slide shows the. design change process with.'
l J
.d
.t o
~
s s
7 4
132;
~
E
'l ~
which-CE is-going about;the development of the Systenf80 Pl'us.7 i.
.1
)
2 A key ingredient to thisl process is the fact thatLthe System 80 3
Plus' design is'not finalized as yet.- ThatJis*important because; n
~4 we: can take input from the various; areas,fincluding;the EPRI4 5'
program, the NRC's new'requirementsJfor future' plans,Tandrthe i
+
i experience we:are obtaihing'in our' operating'unitsLto suggest 6
7 design changes'that we should<make toithe: current' System 180 to.-
n-
.u 8
make.itfa'better-and a: safer design..
9 Another major.elementiin our process}isltheirolelof-10
'PRA.
Probability risk assessment is-used to determine the:
1 11 safety impact of the.various proposed. design changes.3 That,'
L 12 together with the cost estimate:of. making.those~ changes, is 13
.used in a cost-benefit analysis by us;to determine'what design 14 changes are, beneficial.'
15 These, then, after a determination are inserted and-16 revised in our design'and submitted ini our designJchangs-17 packages.
6 18 Next slide.
19 (Slide.)
20 Some of the high level objectives 1for.the System 80 21 Plus design are shown'on this next' slide.
They are, in order 22 of priority: improved'eafety, improved. operability and 23 maintainability, reduced cost, radiation' expo' aura to : plant -
24 workers. Many.of these items actually.have an overlap lin:lthose 25 various categories.
[
g
c ui; i
p li l 331 '
c a
~
1 As an example llwe'believelthat higherfplanti j
~
1 m
]*
2 availability will'resultfin? improved. safety;because the*e will' d
3 be less challenges.to the safety' systems.oflthe~ plant.-
4 Next' slide.-
,E 5
(Slide.]-
-l r
3 6
In the'areaiof reactor:and the reactor l coolant'-
T.
7 system, tho'keyfemphasis'is onLincreased' margin..
T h e s'e w i l l
s 8
result in longer lifetimes,' more ; operator: response time',; and" p;
9 improved operability.
Somelof;therhighi evel changes welare.
l
+
10 making are:shown on this siideLforithose systems.
~
?
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL ' Let'me askLone question ^about 12 the design for.a.60-yearLlifetime. "Onefof'the~ key-elements,- ofJ l
-l 13 course, is the vessel material'and design' protection from
(
J
' neutron damage ~, but it would seem to me that control; systems >
. u 14.
15' also become a serious question.
We are alreadyjseeing; a
1 1
16 obsolescence, I would say,iin the. control systems in plant's 17 that were designed in the sixties, and the question'is."are youL t
18 taking very much cognizance of/that and the'likel'ihood'of' 4
19 wanting to replace control systems, refurbish,Eand thats sorti of 20 thing after 25 or 30 years?
?
21 MR. MATZIE:. Yes.
The considerations in' additidn to
~
22 thevesselarethat,allothercomponentslaredesignedto{be!.
23 replaceable if needs be.
The other major a'pect.is to track s
)
l 24 the cycles and the performance'of.thoseLsystems... So'with the x
v 25 tracking that would be going on plus the design to'be able o.
n 1
t
~.
r
^
- 34-1 replace them, you have the9 capability at any time,.'once.therez r
2
.is a' degradation, to go ahead.and refurbish orl replace'the:
-3
. system.
4
. COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:'
And I assume;you achieve 1that 5
somehow by. attempting a k'ind of~ design isolation.so'.that 6
significant elements'can be removed and replaced $ intact without.
~
7 affecting other' elements.
8 MR. MATZIE:
A' accessibility, I think, is ;Ithe' key.' woad 9
there..,
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:' Right..lAnd ths' vessel-
{
I 11 itself, I see you have a ring forged somewhere hera-on'the-inext-
-;l 12 page.
What other. measures.do you takeito attempt to ensure 60-13 year lifetime:of tho' vessel itself,;oriis-that well.witNin'
(
14 current metallurgy technology?
15 MR. MATZIE:
Spec'ifying'.an initialiRT-NDT low enough':
16 and having much more confidence now than in years ~'gone:by.in'.-
17 the ability to predict affluence can allow you to get 18 sat'isfactory and of life RT-NDT.
- ~
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So that!is no bigcproblem,TI-20 take it.
21 MR. MATZIE:
No, it.isn't.-
22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
.Is this ring forged reactor; 23 vessel manufacturing capability available today?
2'4
.MR.'MATZIE:
Yes, the' capability is available-.today.1
.' G 2 5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:- In the Soviet Union.
O a
S 4
6 1
y--
. - - _ - - -, -. - ~ -.
- -. ~ - -
c
' * ~
! 3 5.-
d l'
MR. MATZIE:' Ituis-regularly.practicedrin the Orient.,
~
' {q 2
With respect to the'U.St. capability,.Ilmnot.-very sure of;that1
-k
.3
- right now.-
We 'willl be, by.;;the ; way,1 designing thefKoreanLunits' 4
with'a ring-forged reactor vessel.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Where'will that beibuilt?"
6 MR..~MATZIE:, That will'be built in the Republic of1 h
7 Korea at the Chang Won; site.L: It is being' designed!iniour 8
Chattanooga. facility, however.
9 Next slide, please.
J j
10 (Slide.)
11 The safety system. changes ~are aimed at significantly-12 increasing the level of safsty.through redundancy, improved:
13 reliability and. increased margin.
This will.be.' accomplished by-i increasing the number'of' trains, the safetyainjection; system, 14 increasing number of trains'of-the' emergency feedwater, system,.
15 16 adding' alternate means of. removing decay heat,.and a means'of.
17 depressurizing the primary system!and increa ing;the margin of i
18 such systems as the shutdown' cooling r.ystem.-
19 Next slide.
-j
.d 20 (Slide.]
1 21 In the chemical-and volume control. system,-tho' major 1
22 auxiliary system of the NSSS, the emphas'is has been placed'on 23 simplification of the design ~and of operations.- By. making 24 changes such as shown on here which allow;us to eliminate.-the
-Q 25 need for. safety, grade CVCS, this'allowstus.to increase:the.
l i
l k
e 4
3
3-
- n.
+
36 1:
pressure of.the-letdown' heat exchar)ger, the useJof fcentrifugalf 2
charging pumps, some of the1 areas that -will--(providelmar inTin 3
tho' future from currently' operating' systems..
4
.Next.
J 5-
-(Slide.]
a 6
In the instrumentation and.contro11 area",-Combustion 7
Engineering is maintaining itis; already-proven; advancedifeatures1-o.
u.
8 such as the digital' plant protective. system andithelveryJ 9
successful reactor power cutback system.used on;theLcurrent 10' system 80 plant, and we are improving.on-these1 types ofLsystems a
11 by expanding their application and'using features-such asi 12 automatic testing.
.Inaddition,thetechnology[forthecontro1 Land:
13 14 processing in the plant is being updated. to iriclude features 15 such as programmable logic controllers,.. digital! process' control i
~
l 1e based on microprocessors, and-. finally,.ws"are going to increase;
]
r 1
17 or enhance the load follow capability of thelplantito be-gearing toward a future when;the higher capacity (of;this-18 19 country's nuclear electrical capacity will be nuclear, When-1 20 load following will.be required.
21 Next slide.
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Before you. leave-that,-'are you j
23 also -- really following a little bit the, question'on maintenance of the chairman -- are y6u thinking labout how q
24 h. 25
. surveillance will be done~of operating! systems.to try to
]
q
.1 W
.l,
(
4
- i 37-1 1
minimize the surveillance problems that have occurred so-(~\\
()
2 frequently in the indostry where reallyfit is a human' factors'-
i 1
3 design problem'in'some ways, that surveillanceLtests were not 4
designed into the system,and the plant goes down because of 5
some veryfainer error in doing routine surveillance?'
6 MR.-MATZIE:
In the IECLarea, the. feature of 7
automatic testing, where you are not: relying:on the operator to 8
place the instrumentation, as an example, specifically in thel f
9 test mode and out'of.the test mode'where, if he fails to do;
, 10 that, putting in a test' signal night trip the' plant, the-11 automatic testing feature wi11'directly. address that.'
In.many 12 of the piping systems area.where there are surveillance.
requirements, as.an example, on flow rate, we are building in.
13 14 the capability on the piping systems to dolthe flow testing 15 needed for that surveillance.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
'I agree with.that. comment of-
- 1 17-Commissioner Rogers.
Surveillance'as'well."as maintenance,LI
{
think, is something that.should be looked'at'at'the design 18 19 stage.
I hope you do that.
20 MR. MATZIE:
.Yes, Mr. Chairman'.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
22
[ Slide.]
s 23 MR. MATZIE:
Recognizing the'importance of the t
24 man / machine interface in the. current environment'of nuclear-(_j 25 power, CE is concentrating in thel cont'rol: room design onigiving.
'I r
)
7.. - _ _ _ - -
.a :
s.
er-
~
r 38:
1 k
the operators'normally fewer but unambiguous indicat. ions'and 2
alarms throughtsignal" validation and.prioritizationLof both' 3-alarms and~ indication.
Colored CRT displays are going to be.
4 integrated on the same control boards'with-traditional 5
indicators to provide a' continuous: familiarity with the two 6
diverse means of presentation.
7 Also, a coritinuous plant overview display will[be 8
.provided that allows the operator to know at:a quick glance
-f 9
from anywhere in the control room the'overall-status of.the 10 plant. Finally, the contr71. room'will be designed for' signal.-
11 operator operation from hot shutdown.to full-power' operation..
12 It'will, however, be sized to accommodate three' continuous-13 operators, consistent.with. current practice, and significantly 14 more personnel in the control' room in'the' case.cf'an: emergency.
15 Next slide.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
~I want to{ compliment you~on 17 making the leap of faith'here.
There has'for'a..long time'in-i this country been, let's say, a dichotomy in philosophies that j
18 19 has led, on the one hand, to.one school that believes a human, 20 being ought to alwars have his' thumbs.on the controls, and on theothierhand,'that--andIthisthisisthewayNASA--I 21 J
22 don't think, I know it is the'way' NASA:has clearly 1 chosen to;go:
1 in all of its. programs -
technology being what it is.today,.
23 24 that human beings should be reserved for certain rather i
.V 25 specialized judgment calls..
N
. g
.y
- 2_.__---___-_.__.---..
L-------------
L---
' ^ - ^ - - ^ ^
^ ^ - ^ ^ ' - - ^ - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ " ^
+
't
. 39,
- i I
1 L It appears that that is'_what.-you 'are; doing here.;
-(A think you have made~the right choice.
2 3
MR. MATZIE:
Thank.you,' sir.
4 (Slide.]
5 As mentioned earlier, CE is' incorporating a 6
containment design in;its nuclear power module as;part of:its; j
7 base scope.
This design will include the traditional: des'ign,
1-a 8
considerations such,as the conservative design basis;of 9
guillotina pipe break, but also many severe accident'designi
. r
- I 10 considerations'which are consistent with the~ severe'accidentc 11 policy,'such considerations as' hydrogen control,icore dAbris-j 12 coolability.
l 13 Yes, sir?
(
14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Hasn't this:always beenlan 15 area, though, that.was the province of'the AEs?
.I'nn'ot' t1 implying you don't have that-capability;jI?just'wantlto 16 17.
understand.
4 i 18 MR. MATZIE:
That is; correct,. sir. : _ We are. utilizing _
19 the Duke Power Company;to help us design the_ containment..
20 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: 'Okay.
~
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:. It..is.a.very' interesting.
22 corporate institutional thing that is going on here.;
In 4
g 23 effect, you're seeing the beginnings of'what'Izsuspect is the 24 only way you're ever going to-see another plant' built, and that-1 Q 25 is a consortium or some sort of agreement ahead of time between..
~
n-
'j ti
.L___n_.____
- ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'
.g
p
~
~
3 t y g, W
- 40'.
h u.
IE an 'AE,YYn this case, and' CombustikFng$ tearing on how a plant ~
l' -
l.
a y ',
{.,, < {.,-
4g
" f-wa 2
ought to be built.
3 4
COMtfISSIONER ROBEhN:
Of cou.hty,*we don'Dnow what.
,1 Y[ '
Y 4
the AEe think of this.
>
- i, 4
it
, '/
5 (Laughter.F A,
h
]
I j$t
\\A
}"\\ '
f.
'O 6
COMMISSIChER BERNTH L:
Wellg.if they get3e' design-7 certification, then I? suspect the binl$n of procif wills be on T*
s A
8
/
s the licensee and ~another AE it$ say #Ay it airJ!t y..
7 it
- y H
j 9
MRMBREWER:
With the reacf.or vendor taking oFuore '
m s \\
g
. y t'
?/
3
')
. C,j lo, scops.
.,a V
q t
i 4 c\\
9y
>r
.)
N
,i
'\\
'(
g'\\
N~
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHALff.~ That#s right.
6 s
12
' MR.
nV. t I the' otalplab..
\\
4
~
a
) !8 m,t,
s
.\\'
yn_
/> p 13 COMMISSIONER IM<NTHALs More respon.ilbility for itti:
14 9y
((
4%w '
M,.
p or e
3 3
product, and I"ahink 't: hat's good,
'H l
n
.\\
(t
. (
o.
(
-['
' O.
. v.
15 MR. SCHERER:
I. pMah; to call M a..hD.rtnership as i
t 3 f!
V 7 ;,
I thirit that we'de very; pleased tha't 16 opposed to a consortium.
we've be04 working witi,h Duke, Ind we will b's Aubmitting 'our 17 e
n.
.m %
o,.
's 10 material to the other mainr archit W. eng;s gin.ets for their:
N
- reviewandcomment$aswe(.'p.as,submi4tih3f.tto'theStaff.3I;,-
\\(
V 19 We t
a, o
39 g,.
areestabl.bJAS$g btshW.',r 20 pa ap 4
i A m
f t x.
s r
- g. N)
.c
- j. j,)
{
'1 21
[ Slide.]
g
?
4 3,w
, ( <., M 22 MR. MATZIE:
h'h lastthheeslideswhic lika to
, *
- i, (
u.
e p.
i f edov'come in a set, and th'ey show in qualitative termn'phe j
23
,1mpactof,s.odhafthemajorsafy*.y-Qdystem changes'on the
- k,e 24 1
4 N
4 Q 25
- l contgibutiprs to c re damagn.
-' %'^,
.J 4 t/
i s
"44
,.. p\\
t'
l',
3
\\
. yt.
n I
1
.e
. m.
>g /
n. a
f.
M
-+-.
wQ
44
, l :. f ~
.rs
~)
' # ' ffjy\\.
6 WQ%
\\
g 4
~
.y N
y' 4
~
s g. g-s 41 4
t t
. )?
hhe initidati./tg evento-on the left sid'e, the left 1
4 s
s
(,
2 column, are the rhjor contribuh. ors to core dansge and comprisa U
~,
.e v
f 3
approximate 2 y 99 ;jercent of:th e overr,11 core damage l
l
,1 A
i -
4 probitbb.',ity?.
Fo themajosde'sigdd.a$ghofchanging'froNtwo trainsofeme$gencycorecooll{1gtofour,wewillbedirectly 5
impacting the four. initiating,A 6
' avu:,t3 as shown on this slide.
6
?
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: '99 percent compared to what?
8 MR. MATZIE:
For a standard System 80 when you do a 9
PRA on that system.
10 COMMISSIONERBERbTHAL:
So 99 percent of 10 to the -4 11 basically.
12 MR. MATZIE:
Yes, sir.
13
[Slided)
C' 14 The next slide shown raimilar information for the t '
15 safety depressurization system which we're adding to the System 16 80+ design, and the final slide --
17
[ Slide.)
18
-- shows the impact of going to a four train 19 emergency feedwater system.
As you can see from these three 20 slides, many of the initiating events are addret;ed by multiple 21 design changes that we're incorporating.
And this is just an l
i l
22 example.
We've gd a large matrix that shows the 1.npact of the l
l 23 major safety systems on each of these events.
l 24 And that concludes my formal presentation.
y 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Are you telling us that that arrow 0
- a-*s espr a wsee
.www -
- g--
p
-M g w =7. y*
w ease envd-<*.
m,t sr
< o w w..a i s
1,.
.o 42/
1 going down-means that that's' good?'
~
(m.
f 2
MR. MATZIE:
ThatLmeans'that the~probabilitycofL s.
, e 3'
. leading to; core damage.is' reduced by making thisidesign' change.-
.4~
CHAIRMAN ZECH: ' Thank you.
j 5
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
.I's like to~ask an{ easy.'
6 question here.
Obviously you either have already.or will.be-7 considering-what advantages the filtered vent that is'.so.'auchn.
_ t L
.a 8
in discussion.throughout:the world today might hold forJyour, 9
design.
10 Do you have any preliminary thoughts on that? :And 11 just to help the discussion.along,.as you.know,-the Swedes in 12 their latest analysis.believe thst;the s'ource. term can Me:
13 reduced to less than one-tenth of one percent of core inventory l
14 by the use of a rather simple, inexpensive filtered vent 15 system, not like the Barseback one, I might~ mention, as you 16 probably know.
17 Do you have any comments on that? 'WillLyou be 18 considering that carefully?
19 MR. MATZIE:
We will be considering that as? required 20 by the severe accident policy,.and that is.one of.the! items-21 which we have directly.on.the list.
So I' think 'that~~ reallyL is 22 our position at this time.. We are just now. starting-on1 the '
23 containment design activities.
3 24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:- Okay.
- 25
%-./
COMMISSIONER CARR:
Would'you tie in that'four! train' s
~~em
-- _mJc4
- eesbh e*.
,%w
. - --= y_w%_.
, ys,.-,e== y e-ep *e+ +y,=., $
7_a.e y.-, gr=*+t m_...
-q
.i,-<.
< i 43.
1
- EFW sfaten to.' station' blackouts,so'Ilcould understand'it m'
)
2 little better?.'
3 MR.lMATZIE:. 'Yes,qsir.' TNe-four!trainJemergency[
._ d v
4 feedwater system.has four:100l percent.' capacity pumps.
Two are; 5
electrical' driven,' and;two are steam driven.
So;'we can have.a
~
loss'of?all ACipower, acstation blackout,-and.the. single lue 6-
)
7 failure'ofLone' emergency lfeedwater' pump and still have,fwith k
8 theisteam' driven la'st emergency'feedwat'er pump, the-!capacityito' 9'
remove the decay. heat..
l f
10 COMMISSIONER CARR:'. On res'idual heat, then..
1 11' MR.'MATZIE:
Yes, sir.:
.p 12 COMMISSIONER CARR: 'Okay. And.how about, caniyoui 13 explain to me the difference between your simplification t
14 proposal and your one-person operation? 'Are.you trying1to simplify as-a major priority, or are you tryinglto reduce it?
Jl 15 s
16 When I get to one' operator,-normally-that means more j
17 automated and less simplification.-
18 MR. MATZIE:
The' simplification'has"many-4 j
1 19 characteristics.. One is.'in terms of eliminating components.
!I
.20 Another one is in terms of. simplifying-operations.1LAnother is 21 simplifying maintenance.
22
. We're trying to do a balanced approach lto'all.of:
1 those, and we're being guided quite heavily'by.our'own.
Li 23 24' experiences, that of the Duke Power l Company and the~EPRI:
/
(j 25 advanced light water reactor program..
9 j
1
.L
+-~
.~
~
, ~,
}
- .l j q
1
}-
'j i'
'44-i
~
1.
Obviously,.initerms:of,a single operator, you do mean.
2 a significant; amount of: automation, but..you"have thaticurrently' n
3 in present generation plants'.
4 --
< COMMISSIONER'CARR - 'Is'it your opinion that;somebody..,"
5
.will go.to a single' operator.;if'you designed:that;way?
~
'6 MR.1MATZIE:^ My; opinio'n is) tkat -they" probably will 7.-
.not, based on current' operating. practices.
8 COMMISSIONER'CARR:
So are you~designingJinimore 9
problemslthan somebody is: going'to use?.
10
. MR. MATZIE:
I do not"believe so; no,' sir.
11 COMMISSIONER CARR Okay.-
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All. rihht.-
Let's proceed 13 MR. SCHERER:
I' guess lit's, only a' few'ainutes after i
.14 three, so I'll briefly cover my summary.
15 Can I have the last' slide, please.
16 (Slide.)
17 We are obviously dedicated'to trying to. achieve
]
.18 design certification by theLend of fiscal year'1991.
As'Dr.
19 Brewer said,.we are prepared to revise and~ standardize our*
20 product.
We'look to the Commission to reviseJand stabilize:t'a h
21 process, so we can obtain a meaningful and stable reform 22 process and also to establish on.-a timely basis a regulatoryj 23 standard for;our approval.
- )
t l
24 That completes our presentation.
d 1
,Q 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:: 'All'right.
Thank you very much.' We
{
i
]
g i
I i
e
,6-,,.--,
m _..
1
}
45 I
1 appreciate it.
'(
2' Questions from my fellow Commissioners?
Commissioner 3
Roberts?
4 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
No.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Bernthal?'
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, I.think I've pretty 7
much asked the questionsLI was'most interested.in.
8 We did touch briefly'on the question of1what core 9
melt safety goal, if I can use'thatLterm - 'what do<you call"it 10
-- PRA frequency cutoff or something like that -- would be 11 appropriate, and while you have demurred on answering tdus 12 question for the time being on.the confidence. level, let me 13 just suggest to you, what it seems.to me is entirely 14 reasonable -- I agree with your and I think EPRI agrees with 15 you,on the broad 10 to the -5 core melt criterion, which.
16 certainly if achieved with high' confidence certain1Y :stisfies 17 the Commission's safety go'al criteria for the foreseeable i
18 future.
19 I.would expect that the confidence limit, though,'
i 20 that should attach to that should be what I always~ characterize 21 as good engineering judgment,'and to me, any engineer who'can't.
t 22 give you a specification without feeling 90 or 95 percent-23 confidence probably'is not fulfilling his obligations as a good L
j 24 engineer.
(,).
2 5 So that, to me, would mean that 10.to'the -4,;then,-
q k
7 q
_~
e i
..J j
'46c W
H 1-should be achieved with somethlng.better than'.90 percenti
.2 confidence.
1 3
I think it's an important point that we.begin'to'
- s 4
define what we mean by this: average core melt frequency).
1 a
5
.because it doesn'.t.mean a thing if you have~two ordersTof 6
magnitude uncertainty before youireach 90 percent' confidence, 7
and I think 10 to the -5 is achievable, and' thati.it :should bel 8
less than 10.to the'-4 with 90 percent confidence l..is also'an
~
9' achievable goal.
10 I would urge you to look carefully and follow 11 carefully, as I know you will, the. international discussions 12 that's currently going on in the area ofiaccident mitigation, 13 whatever those steps might be.
It appears that^significant-1 14 mitigation systems and steps and procedures can be built"into-15 these plant, that if all else-fails,-can make~.the damage -- I 16 don't.ever want to say " acceptable," but at least non-17 catastrophic.
In other words, the kind of4 thing we've 18 experienced -- the world has experienced.-- in!thel Soviet Union.
19 need not occur with any reasonable, rational explanation'in'any-20 plant anywhere again, or at least any new p1' ant anywhere again.;
21 I also would just comment, picking.up on the' point-22 that commissioner. Rogers mentioned on the value and necessity' for diagnostics, wiring, I fully agree' with the. point-that: I-23 think Commissioner Rogers.has made,.that these plants ought.to-l 24 l
Q 25 be wired from start to finish', so that. maintenance no longer I
J 1
4
.j 47 j
1-becomes something of listening for a rattle.or even worse
(\\
2 waiting until the lights go out-or someth'ng breaks.
Unus i
I 1
{.ij 3
technology is at a level now that you certainly can do better i
I 4
than that.
We should have early indicators.when maintenance'is l
i 5
going to be required.
l 6
And finally -- these are all.in the nature off 1
t 7
comments, and they will conclude my comments'for today -- I 1 l1 8
would just point out,.as you are acutely' aware, that the next a
9 sales in this area may very'possibly be. overseas,.in addii4 in,
10 perhaps, to the one that you currently have underwayL n' Korea..
a i
y 11 The role of the NRC in this area has always been ons' ij 12
.that's somewhat murky, I must say,' ranging'in past time from
{
13 the sense in some quarters that we oughtLto_.go so far even, or s
14 at least the U.S. Government had a responsibility.to go so'far.
15 as to perform an environmental impact statement or the' 16 equivalent in a foreign country.
I think' generally we, agree
(
17 now that that probably is not our responsibility.
18 9
, But I certainly think that the role.of.this' agency in
{
19 these areas is one of responsibility for world-safety, because 20 i
of the impact that' unsafe practices and procedures,-th'e' impact I
21 that an accident anywhere in'the world can have'on our own i
22 program, so although first and foremost our responsibility is 23 for the preservation of public health and-safety in our own-i 24 country, as we've learned safety in this businecs.now extends 25
,j well beyond national borders, and so I certainly will be' i
9 enemy **= +-s*e :9=est p
"'"O
'N a-LE*
)
')
48 1
looking very carefully at. performance abroad and what that
(
-2 might portend for performance later on.at home.
J 3
I guess it gets back to an old. principle in this 4
country that very often when you do good -- and I'm using'the 5
term advisedly -- when you do good, you're likely to'end up 6
doing pretty well'in the'long run'in. addition.
l 7
So I'm very encouraged with.what I'see here and have.
8 heard today.
I think you're showing the way, anduI would 9
encourage you to proceed along that rather expensive path'that 10 we all understand will be toward-a design certification for.a.
1 1
11 standardized plant.
12 I appreciate the presentation.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr?'
i 14 COMMI'SSIONER CARR:
How much of this new design is l
15 going to be in your Korean effort?
j i
16 MR. SCHERER:
Korea is essentially. equivalent to.--
I
\\
17 KNU-11 and 12 is essentially' equivalent to the Palo Verde.
18 plant.
3 l
19 COMMISSIONER CARR:
So you're not going to work your 20 way'into this.
4 21 MR. SCHERER:
To some extent, some of the steam l
22 generator improvements'that we've talked about will'be in the l
23 Korean units.
But as Dr. Brewer pointed out, the Korean sale 24 was based on having a proven, standardized plant,.which we.had l
?
)
(_j 25 available here in the United States, and that was.the Palo L
L
.~ - -
n,
~
u:
l
- c..
, 49'
]1 4
1-Verde plant'..But to the extent of largeripressurizers, steam
.()
2 generator improvements,'those will.be factored into our' Korean 3
. offering.
4 COMMISSIONER-CARR: -So we'.canlgetia' view to.'.how'some 5
.of the things.are working from that plantT 6.
.MR. SCHERER:- Yes,sirP 7
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Rogers?
8 COMMISSIONER RodERS:.Well',' justi one more ' word cnt 9
that 60-year lifetime.
What;are.the' uncertainties in yourf 10 confidence of that as-a~ number for all"componentsfof the.
11 system?
12
. hat are the' unanswered ~ questions?. Materials.
W 13 questions, perhaps, are~the most acute,cI.would think,1that 14 would raise some doubts.as to whether 60 yearscis a reasonable 15 number or not or longer is a. reasonable number.
Where does.
16 that stand in your view?
17' I suppose, really, the reactor vessel.is the key 18 element there.
There may be others; I1 don't know.
But I know 19 Commissioner Bernthal raisedIthis point,;and I'd like to get 20 just a little bit more on'that.
21 MR. MATZIE:
Well, we've= looked at:some of the: major.
22 component, and ititurns out from our looking at~those thattsome 23 of the nozzles that get' thermal cycling appear to be'the.most.
24 limiting other components.
In the'I&c areas, you. initially.
.e
.(_) 25 menti.oned this afternoon, our.I&C people are very: acutely: aware Y
18 w
, l
. -. _ _ - - _ - _ ~ _ _ _
i 1
- 50 J
.of that,'and-we do' replace.'IEC components.as;tho'need arises.
1-
'2' So'in our. mind,:we'll.lookratithe critical areas such 3
as the nozzlos, ensure that they're designedJspecifically..to,
4-handle the duty cycles.:
TheLother aspectsiare[corrosionn y
5-obviously,'and erosion, and.we,have:to factorithose in,with;
~
6 improved chemistryk and iffneedsgbak an increased. margin 31nJthe-7 design of: the ' componentiitself.
1 -
8 So.we have to do'that on an item-by-item basis, Land 9
with that -- that 60-year life as an overall design'objec.tivah 10 we're methodically considering thatLas we. address eacit system'.-
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: fare there anyisignificanti 12 unanswered questions that you're aware of atithisitime?!
13 MR.-MATZIE:: Not'at this time. 'We're just now, going 1.
14 through the systems and: making those' determinations.
We'have!
~
15 not submitted system submittals yet.to the.NRC..The first is.
16 planned for Deceaber, the first' system'.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner.Bernthal had anotherL
+
18 question, I believe.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes. 'One issue'thatLyou".did' 20 not mention in your briefing,-- it slipped'my mind to bring it 21 up earlier -- is quality assurance.- As;you know,.you've gone
'22
.through your share of teething problems'with Palo. Verde'1. !It
'23 appears that the lessons.have'been advantageously appliediin; 24 Palo Verde 2 and now Palo-Verde 3, we-hope.
But!you-certainly7
- 25 have experience in how things can go awry unless there l's O
j y
.o 3
x
.+
~
j5';
1 2.
1~
careful. attention paid to; quality assurance.in selection *of:
H 2
components.
3
'Are you'as a vendor going.to: attempt to,do anything.
4 in that area by way.'of specification?:
5 We have.-gone through.the.same~ difficulty;here, as_youi 6
may know,;in discussing whether we should h' ave' vendor' r
7 certification at one level.or another'and have never:lreally3 8
been able to agree very well.on how we ought.to do that.;
9 What are your' thoughts on that subject?:iHow do youl 10 make sure that if somebody!buysLa1 plant,.that combustion 11 Engineering doesn't end'up'with a black eye.because'of:
- m 12
~ something that somebodyfelse did,or didn't'do?
g 13 MR. SCHERER:
We have submitted and-will" continue to-14 submit.a quality assurance plan as part.'of'our application..As 15 you may be aware, Dr. Brewer has only'recently reorganized to 16 establish a direct report to him-Mr. Stern is'.now Vice' 17 President of Nuclear Quality Systems and that4 reflects:our.
18 continuing concern with the issue'that you' raised.. Tha't.is why 19 we now have a separate group reporting directlyito1Dr.JBrewer.'
20 It is an issue of some import tojus'and it is 'n-a 21 ongoing one.
one specific-program'will'not solve:the phoblem; i
22 per se.
It is attention to detail and attention built'into the 23 system to build it correctly-tho'first time and.to assure
. 24 efficient programmatic back-up.is available to catch a l
<( j 2 5 breakdown in the system by either individuals or:the. process.-
e 0
1 g
,__._Lm.
. - _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - - - - - - ^ - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " ' ' " - - " - - - - ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ^ ^ ^ ' - - ^ ' ' - ~ '
'- ~~ ~
a w
2
-52' 1
-itself.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
'I guess my/ question is where 3
'would combustion Engineering-seeilts, responsibility'as~-
4 beginning.or.perhaps'ending'more' appropriately?
Are there 5
certain QA requirements, certain test specifications that you'-
'6 would make or recommend when components'are procured forLaC 7
plant? :What do you do?
4
.i.
w 8-MR. BREWER: - We have'that'.now, Commissioner.. We'have 9
9 an' extensive. vendor /sub-vendor.,l qualification progre O We,have 10-a' vendor's list for sub-components..
Unfortunately because of.
11 the --
12-COMMISSIONER. ROBERTS:
I' bet 1that-list'is:
13 diminishing.
14 MR. BREWER: ' Diminishing, y'es.' - Frequently, weLwill:
~
15 have to do more of.our manufacturing.wh'en.we1findtpeople 4
16 falling off the list or going ~into. Chapter;11 or whatever.
17 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:- Which is not'necessarilyiall- -
~
18 bad.
19 MR. BREWER:
It meansiif we'have to. add manufacturing..
20 capacity and the. overhead that entails, probably-not..
- j. '.
11 MR.~SCHERER:.The result.of-that processi is.
22 documentation that not only says we ca'n buy.from approve
d 23 vendors and then trust the vendor. 'As;part of this.spara parts 24 operating plants process, we have:had to define the safat'..
y i -Q 25 attributes of the component, more precisely, and then by. test 1
~
4 g
e
4'
. ;i v.
- 53 l'
or inspection, laissure ourselMes lthath those safety attributes i
~
2 are met.- We do not necessarily, accept.the?sameEcutoff that the-3 NRC ' does in terms _ of what.you spoke earlier of,. safety relatied,3
'4 important to safety, et cetera.. Regardless of'the safety
~
5 classification, if there is a.safetyEattributeiwhich we count 6
'on, we' assure,by.either inspectionior test thatlattribute;.is:
'?
met.
It.may.beyas ' simple;a$ a'.handiwheel being able..to putt 8-load to a spoke. lItimay'beLsomething a! lot-more sophisticate'.
d 9
That is'.'an ongoing process to define b'y the! designer, 10 and that tends to be/ he' designer's responsibility, to:
t 11 determine all of'the. safety; attributes 1that' component or part-12 must supply.
13 MR. NEWMAN: -Let me. add one thing.
.I thinkiitLis;an important fact that weiappointed Mr. Stern as:the'-headjof-14 15 Quality systems.
He and-I share:a common background;in the 1
16 project management of building tho' plants'thab exist'in this'-
I
.o 17 country.
He and I have a joint commitment that'.in,looking-t 18 backward, we had great' stacks of: paper that were completely 19 accurate, we did not necessarily have.' quality that went.with q
20 that paper.
-21 He and I have a commitment.to the engineers whoi
?
22 design it and who will'ba' responsible, to meet'all?the
~
23 requirements of all the' paper, but the' engineer who designs 'it-will be responsible for the quality of'that' product andLwill:.
-24 h 25 follow it all the way through plant. start up and' testing.' ! Wei
m V I
_.5_._AI.E ' U. - -..- - - - - - - -
^
54 1
intend to.have our engineers committed to the quality of the i
ns-
' g(
2 product they design, not. leaving'it to some other subset.-
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Good.
4 MR. SCHERER:' To take that the next step, the plant 5
is safe not because it meets _the regulations.
Our attitude 6
must be that it is safe'because we designed it that way.
The do 7
not count on the regulations assuring safety.-
We do not count 8
on any other organization assuring, safety.. Our engineers-are 9
responsible to. ensure that the system functions in'accordance
'10 with the customer's requirements.and in a safe manner.-
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Could you perhaps elaborate.a'little 13 bit on some of the. changes you are going to make from the 14 previous standard design?
Are you going to use any; 15 experimental testing?
Could you elaborate on.how you.are going
- 16 to analyze the changes you are going to'make so you will be 17 confident the changes will be constructive?.
In other words, 18 are you going to go to any laboratory. analysis / testing type 19 thing or are you going to do that~with strictly an analytical' 20 approach?
Are you going.to do specific testing.of the changes 21-you are going to make?
22 MR. SCHERER:
In. general, I would' point out to you it is our intention to base our System 80+ design on' evolutionary 23 24 improvements.
We do not intend to'go to prototype testing to j 25
.any major extent.
We are trying to use advanced. technology.but l
+,
=
I
,}
g
~55-w;
~
n.
1~
proven technology.
Thatlis.a' fine line,/At what pointiis..it..
\\.
'too advanced to use, not proven;.orLatiwhat point lis itLno;
~
2 3
-longer.an advanced te'chnology.
i-4 Dr. Matzie can speak to specificsb -In.. essence, the-5
. general.; answer.to-your question is we/do notLsee a~need.for J
6:
. prototype; testing'on any of the1 changes! that we have'~seen,thus 7
.far, but;we willldo where. appropriate,some; mock-up testing and(
8 flow testing,.et cetera..
9 MRL MATZIE; ;One' area that we will:probably do some limited testing'is in the I&C'areafwhere we'areLus'ingssortLof' 10 11 state-of-the-art technology and-microprocessors'and smart
'12 indicators and fault. tolerant; control! systems.'. : We willi build ~
13 selected prototypic systems and check thoseiout.
With the?
(
14 modern technology and ability to design a system and program, 15 you can apply that same basic system.to many' applications:
16 within the plant.
That is an~ area where we'will do'some 17 prototypic testing.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
There'are some' specific areas such as-19 the emergency feedwater system, pressurizer, some very-20 important parts of the' nuclear-power plant that.willIba 21 involved in-changes.
I'm sure'our staff will.want to have some 22-solid basis for certifying these' changes.. Your' analysis and:
23 testing, whatever you can provide in that' regard, is going lto 24 be very important, in order for you to make that; judgment <as:
25,
- well as the staff.
.?
a
..- =
__=
.3:
q n
.56+
, m.
.1 1
c; 1~.
MR. MATZIE:.Most ofcthose. types ~~ofs changes you -
J 1
-2' referred to are well characterized.
When!we.dottestingokthe4
- 3_
start-upLof'aniunit,.such;thingsLas tripping.off:the turbine.'or-
'4 doing a1 scram, et: cetera,jas part:of the1 testing,.'you cani;,
5'
' benchmark your analytical' tools;quite well and that'gives.us' 6
confidence thatiwhen-we-makeievolutionary design lchangesifrom' 7
that particular configuration,.that we'can analyze ith
[
9 8
appropriately.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:. 'Just; remember, we want'to' enhance:
10 safety and nottdetract-from'it...
11 Let me justlmake a-' couple'of comments and:we will'.
12 conclude. 'The Commission as well'as the Congress,.-has a very'
~
13 strong interest in: Standardization and has had)for auniunbersof' 14 years.
It is a subject we'have talked about-for aslong,. longi 15 time.
16 Dr. Brewer mentioned that Combustion 1 Engineering' intends to standardize the product and hetis reque' sting lNRCf 17 18 standardize the process.
-I think that :is / a f fair.lstatenient - to -
f 19 make.
I think we have attempted to standardize our' process and, 20 there is more to bs done.
21 I would like to emphasize that we'are going to-hear 22 from other suppliers,Las I"am sure you know, on1 23 standardization.
I am very grateful' for.the' interest in' 24 standardization, as my: fellow Commissioners 1are, and as ?I. know 25 a great deal of Congress-is.
We want to support.that. fully k
4 vrb _
n ~r-~~1.
w~~
~~~~ -
m~'~~~<
pt@
.-t j#
- a 4
's 1
r
.p ;,
- g y
m
-57 l'
with our! process and with'all our re'ources.
.j s
.f.
q 9
'" g 2
There are some' limitations"onLwhat;we'can!do. LWe.
j 3'
certainly.want to'supporttit. fully.' ILam'sure th Commission'.
4:
and.the staff is going'to make'every effort to:doLthAt.
..Of~
5 course', as you.know, we:are, going to continue 5to-focus.on?our.
v 6
first. priority, and.that'is the.saf'e operation and[continuedi y
7 safe. operation of the current operating plants.
ei
[
j D
i a
1 1
8 WhereasJwe.allwelcome!this initiative 1and:lookLat-9' your schedule,.which offhand looks?reasone.bleltoine,LI thihtk_it i
lo is going to requireL a.very close' professional) relationship.so?
11 thatyour.effortstoourstaff'can:beasjtimelyaspossibleand' 12 to give us as much. time to review'them.! We recognize-ttsat your' 13 Palo Verde plants have a record of performance,.which does[give i
.m 14 confidence to that design and you are making modifica.tions to-15 that design.
That certainly is an encouraging starting point.
16 On the other hand, when we are goingLto'put a 17 certification on a design, it is a very.important' step.
We 18 want to be confident at-the CommissionLthat the changes!thatL 19 are made are appropriate, so when we certify th'at' design, we 20 can indeed have the confidence-it is going to.enhancelsafety.
21 I hope you.will be mindful of the continuing 22 responsibilities of this' regulatory body'and give u', actions;as s
j 23 timely as you can.
24 I would likelto thank you-'and commendJyou for.this
..m Q 25 very ' informative briefing and for:the' efforts you are taking.at.
s i
- n
- 1 a ---..,m----~.
. Sm- :-
&-e==l= S
o V
58-1:
Combustion Engineering'.-7 1
2 I personally believe_thatistandardization, which11si 4
3 long overdue _in:my' view,.will provide. increased safetyLas?well 4
as increasedLreliability. ;Certainly your-experience-atLthei 5
Palo Verde - uriits Lis ' unique : and L does Iindeed providei usefuli 6
' insights into the'developmentLof(your' light waterfreactorf 7
. designs.
u.
~
8 I would like to. command-you also for your' strong!
9 relationship over-the years with the'Palo.Verdefsiteand.
10 organization.
I'believe-that is-notLonly"a' responsible position to'take but aLsensible>one onLthe-part of-youra 11 12 organization'.
I do believe that~ kind of.. relationship'p-7.'
13 contributes to safety and to reliability alsop
~
14 As we noted in the discussion earliere the' Commission:
is particularly interested in having the: design.as co'mplete as 15 16 possible.
We do indeed want to focus onLwhat we.for.so'many.
17 years have called the balance of; plant.
We recognize 1that;many 18 of our problems are initiated from the: balance of pl' ant systems
~
19 and focusing on that, standardization is extremely.important.-
20 We have also mentioned today-a focus.on maintenance,.
21 a focus on surveillance as yot design your system.
ILamtsure 22 there are other things that you will' determine should'be 23 emphasized, too.
24 I would like to also encouragelyou'to continue yourL f j 25 work as you mentioned to us today with the Duke Power Company; V
f
@: ' P (
?-
1
.. v 59'
+
and others.who can contrib'ute to a:.standardizedLdesign'that.
- 1 a
.(f 2-will give us improved performarice and improved' safety.
1 3
I think what you have;toldius today,fyou'are
]
..i
-4 certainly_taking'a very.importantLstep; I\\ hope.thatlyouYould encourage it.and.I would encourage you'to continuebyour close;r~ ]
-5 6
. working relationship'with our staff!solthey'are:kept!upitofdatel
'[
a a
7
' completely with what you'arefdoing,Jgetting;early. decisions as.
possible and to: keep the ~ Commission.ihtfo tedlon, your; progress" j
8 9
as you move ahead.
10 Thank you for alvery informative: briefing..
We'-
1 q
11 appreciate it very much.-
J 1
12
' MR. BREWER:
Thank you,~Mr. Chairman.
It was'a-
<3 13 deligh,t and a pleasure to brief you on our-plans'.L.We would.
14 like, as. time permits, to come back and reviek with you oi.tr 15 progress.
We are intensively' mindful ~of the issues-raised here q
16 today, particularly the scope of supply and-the' scope ofI 17 design, the definition of standardization.and.how close to a-1 q
s 18 complete plant are we talking about hereito beLcertified by-I
~
J 19 this Commission.
Also the other comments and-suggestions'that 20 we design in surveillance and' maintainability'and. maintenance, 21 all of which contribute to' safety and economics.'
'I E
22 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
-l 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I wish this kind of'.discussionTwo had:
'i 24 here today would have taken place in our country.many years-ago:
25 on the subject of standardization.
I think we would beifurther i
__id _ 2:
~
m *m"9 ~""" -
- " A-~
~
i
'601 I
.along and I think we would have plants.that would be perhaps-
'2 performing'better and more safely, but.at least we.are doing it 3
today and I commend you for your ac'tions._
4 Any other comments from my fellow-Commissioners?-
5-(No response.)
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:- Thank'you very much.-
We stand' 7
adjourned.
3 8
-[Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., the meeting.was adjourned.]
j 9
l 10 11 12 13 14 1
15 16
-b 17
.q
- \\
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 j
C 25 4
1
___a
_?
=
y
+
4 IL
- 2
~ REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
)
.3 4
This'is-to certify thatiths. attached events'of a>
5
-meeting of the U.S.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission' entitled:1 A
6 7
TITLE OF MEETING:
System 80 Design Certification 8
PIACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
.o 9
DATE OF MEETING: Mon' day, November 30, 1987 y
10 11 were held as herein appears, Land.that this is;the original) 12 transcript thereof for,the file of thw. Commission taken:-
f 13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by-l 14 me or under the direction of'.the court reporting: company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of.the 16 foregoing events.
17 18
_ N A.
Marilynn M. Nations 19 20 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates,1 I,td.
23 24 25 8
. l-f i
, %p
,m,
-. 49%W f= W " A.
~'-
r,
1 4
- t..
' SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE:
BRIEFING.BY COMBUSTION ENGINEERING ON NEW STANDARDIZED-PLANTS SCHEDULED:
2':00 P.M., MONDAY, NOVEMBER. 30, 1987-(OPEN)-
DURATION:
APPROX 1-1/2 HRS.
,3 PARTICIPANTS:
.C_0MBUSTION ENGINEERING CO.
(APPLICANT)(1 HR)
DR. S. T. BREWER
'SR. VICE PRESIDENT,. NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS' A. E. SCHERER.
DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR' LICENSING DR. R..A. MATZIE~
DIRECTOR,' ALWR' PROJECT 0FFICE R.-E. NEWMAN VP NUCLEAR SYSTEMS DR. M.. D. GREENE, PLANT LICENSING MANAGER, STANDARD e
9 e
q 9
2'-
i
[ 1.-
~
)
~
m
],
~
DESIGN CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
~
- 4 Y
amdI $
~
NUCLEAR POWER MODULE
^
i.
MEETING WITH NRC COMMISSIONERS J
[
NOVEMBER 30, 1987 L
SONIBUSTION EPIGINEEIRING.
i nU
- j j.!
, ' p'..
ri.
'lj C'
\\
AGENDA SYSTEM 80+ DESIGN CERTIFICATION -
MEETING WITH NRC COMMISSIONERS
'j
\\
1 NOVEMBER 30, 1987
(.
L 2:00 - 2:10 OPENING REMARKS
.DR. S. T. BREWER SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 1
[
NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS'
{
4 MR. R. E.--NEWMAN'
?
VICE PRESIDENT
~
NUCLEAR SYSTEMS:
(,
2:10 - 2:30 PROGRAM OVERVIEW MR.
A'.
E. SCHERER AND SCHEDULE
- DIRECTOR,
' NUCLEAR LICENSING.
2:30 - 3:00 SYSTEM 80+3 DESIGN
'DR. R. A, MATZIE
- DIRECTOR, ALWR PROJECT OFFICE I
)
3:00 - 3:30 DISCUSSION AND MR. A. E.'SCHERER SUMM,ARY j
l
)'
(*
. bl
\\ seassusnom%mamanmes q
i fi j
I
.. r,.
m
9 r.
I.
r
)
1, f
r PROGRAM OVERVIEW i
L.
\\
p AND SCHEDULE 8
(
)
I.
i i
A. E. SCHERER
- DIRECTOR, 1
NUCLEAR LICENSING i
t 6.,
I*
p s..__..>.
J
=
_ __ __ _- - _ _:: = _m=_m.
- ===~ =
i
s irdw yd n et.
mt k s
ny enc c
t eo ea s
v i
ir es lo Ss e e
Sel drh r o l
i rPH ePC ee.
c a
e P.
n c J.
ai c lci uV J vVW F
N d
RO A
r t o ct O
1.'
je i ecs r N
O A h et g
or e F
PDV ri O
atecW NI r e ojJ.
T o
Kr -
s m
P I
n s
TC t
n se mt n is e
FhSie i
c yd r n
r ee a AI n
r sw sdm t
r e
e o e re r e ysw i t ZI h
w Pr See L cc B
r T
eS rP N o e.
I r
r a
P N R t
a Di.
ic T.
le e E.
l A
e E.
V r
i a r. S c c AE s
lcS N
N uViR c
e u
GC M
u N
t r A
R egn ce O N ja o
o n r
s a
P u
G Mg a
r nt e EI o c F.
S
^
e izjC r o s
CE ArP g
D l t in r
n l e
d e
r el e
u i
nrf d
o fig igtow sc r
e a rM nca l
le P-EerirC L.
sD c
e N icP m
D.
u e
V J
ts y
S
.\\
m' y
,g w
,t 1 iii l1
.]
i4 1
3]
i
T F RO O N F O n o NI i 8 g l 3 t an T s a r ine A mt s ci n t r ~ O o r dm n a o AY iut t e e c ae m a h n R c u a l s e cig P I Fy u HF TC R e n S r ME tsn AI I I F ZI ~ = T bl g{l d lf Il eIl I ~ N R E AE T ~ E ~ GC M R A O N gn 7 G iree rk EI ne r igu gat S n n E a S. CE RM R W D lh s smt re k e g e nc c i Wan e Ra ts eo i r z nn f yd n i Rf ot Ss r Ot a L c M ly e e W eM A d rh F t r ePC L cr IR a P. m. c ei A j D A. n e. aic P. r o P gE r R vVW P Eo d r A P 7 er g Rasni Wa va ~ LMD A m. E a A. Or gG Dor c P a f 6 l:: i i1i! ' j,; l
- i L
jj]i A i - !1 .t
a. ..y.
- v.,..
m\\ ',;9. ii. n ,s fvQ i cf 9 s 3 c f. 2, a.
- 3. o t
t.. ea. - fosse - ww q' {' . n - - anse - u.,.. VH f ,!;;! 'S./; ^. x, t-jh f !? i f f' ,c- . r ,,o. 4, . L.. t' ' 4 s, ' fr. U y-( l a BNSPML@aLV j" \\ h 4 T-t i u'f;;i 1, T R -^ o BilILD UPON SYSTEM 80 st y4 1 ( s,q I g, T r-1 o ' SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE SAFETY l, i ;' s 1 / , r i~ AND RELIABILITY 1) 4k o CERTIFY SYSTEM 80+E s s p,r D,,, r {,'l r - s ;4 t ig f. 1. /; "4. + s , I d .<^ t t L/ ' 'r (4 i l <Y 0,. . jt ,a' .' '3 ( i . p' k iT t) 'k 1 Vi+\\ { / G r' U d s 1v + i, i/.-
- /
(tY X t \\ consesnomismemannme J o' }1 i .1 i,,,-.-,..--,.e.,~,--ym.e4. ,. ~,. +,... gy m g - - , m.yr.y_, --,,7
3 S P E N L N Wl tn O e 3 Am T S V D dn P F e E m L e 2 A I -V M P f M 1-V A P R 2 G A D O F 0 R 74 P 0 i 5 bP NT 4 S o A N D te kcoD D i ! i l a!}!1 s' li Il'
T no ni t ~ gae cl isiu f eiR Dt - reC A t .n e 3 , I. S Am OC P D D d E N l n F N W L e m t O n A e I T 3 Am V D d S n P F e E - m L 2 A I V A,iII' .M P II III i1 M. 1 -V A P R _2 s G A A x D ^7 O F 0 R 7 4 ~ P 0 ts 5 ei NT S
- C D
F te o-AA k - oR ^2_ N c D R e D A / A P t k S S cS wS oE eE DC NC 1 j y :'
- ]t11!!;i1
- j1
_ = _ _ _ _ _ _ 't e 9 SYSTEM 80 ATTRIBUT$S o PROVEN, STANDARDIZED DESIGN O FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL FROM NRC o IN OPERATION AT PALO VERDE 0 100% DESIGN DETAIL AVAILABLE o OPERATIONAL FEEDBACK INCORPORATED 4D EORESUSTIOGIhEISCINEERilst '*w . w pemee4*s woveer+ v e e*,m ewm *ge= ese. .-=*Heenaeem - we pie. '
p i,.. t l-EXAMPLES OF ADVANCED LWR FEATURES-ALREADY IN SYSTEM 80' l I o DIGITAL PROTECTION SYSTEM l;u
- {
O SUPPLEMENTARY PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR ATWS l o HPSI SHUT 0FF HEAD BELOW OPERATING PRESSURE i' l ~ 0 PIPE WHIP RESTRAINTS REMOVED i O FLOW RESTRICTORS IN SG N0ZZLES o MAIN. STEAM ISOLATION SIGNAL ON LOW SG WATER LEVEL f a HUMAN ENGINEERED CONTROL CENTER f a 100'i, LOAD REJECTION CAPABILITY f 4 0 INDIVIDUAL CONTROL R0D SHROUDS l i: 7 J \\ somousnen) mamesame p ..i
~. .,i, e 1 SYSTEM 80+ CHANGES DUE T0: q a ) o C-E DESIRED CHANGES C-E's SAFETY AND RELIABILITY UPGRADES l EPRI ALWR REQUIREMENTS q 1 o. NRC MANPATED CHANGES a SEVERE ACCIDENT-POLICY SAFETY GOAL POLICY I STANDARDIZATION POLICY o 1 l 1 h JYMi .u j ,_._11
. [,, 4. p* 9 1 f 1. 4 SYSTEM 80+ SCOPE i i i. l I o EXPANDED SCOPE 4 EMERGENCY FEEDWA.TER .i. i CONTAINMENT t 1 CONTROL ROOM 9 STANDARD FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIONS 0 t i 'l 1 >] 1 f \\ u i-a s A- / h1-I i bYb?$ M-I ._m,,,-,,.,,.
M ETS YS ~ 'h - S Y TN &T E I YLM I T BE E AV FI O AL R SE P R M I Y T hE N 2 F O -A I N T D A G A F C ISI S E F I DT R S E C E 0 g C 8 M g N ET g A SYS g H A N E S N N O O I I T S AS LI U M GM EO RC & EH S T E LF UO R - L jji
- ~
1i!!, f:.f l ;-ji[]ffu I l l L j
j [l o e,. J. 1 ( { DESIGN CERTIFICATION PROGRAM r l STANDARDIZED FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIONS t I t O CURRENT VERSION OF CESSAR (FOR SYSTEM 80) INCLUDES. INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS FROM NSSS SYSTEMS ~ j g i e h .s 1 I i 1 a I i . ( :- .a ,e ,-c-mp... y .,.. 7..,,W _ , w ,a,+~..-o p.y... ;_. c,.. , m-m.% % y y...y,-..,.. y.. ..y
- p..
7 DESIGN' CERTIFICATION PROGRAM - STANDARDIZED FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIONS 0 CURRENT VERSION OF'CESSAR (FOR SYSTEM 80) INCLUDES INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS FROM NSSS SYSTEMS O NEW VERSION OF CESSAR (FOR SYSTEM'80+) WILL INCLUDE 9 DETAILED FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES OUTSIDE OF NUCLEAR POWER MODULE'S '(NPM) SCOPE WHICH AFFECT SAFETY l 3Y&t h h P ._________-.t. _ __1
0O hh E T A R Y ET E. L A S M A W O N D T O O' EM N R I5 E E TN C6 FT E L O Nj YS M R Uy CY T p N S E Fi N C O Dh E N C R"" G R A" E A D" M. N' H A E N TS E T E N P E O M (, V C N S I A 3 T N S O T C N EM E V O RP M I g ~ 1JIIt i1!1tlj;i
- 1ii I
1 Y 4 I DESIGN CERTIFICATION' PROGRAM-(CONT'D) STANDARDIZED FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIONS (CONT'D) . i . j \\ 0 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIONS WILL INCLUDE INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS FROM NPM-DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM / STRUCTURE ASSUMPTIONS FROM SAFETY ANALYSES AND PRA, j INCLUDING RELIABILITY REQUIREMENTS EPRI ALWR REQUIREMENTS 1 ANY OTHER INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR NRC 1 TO CLOSE OUT REVIEW 0F NPM-1 i O DUKE POWER CO.IS ASSISTING IN PREPARATION OF STANDARDIZED FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIONS f Jnstw h $ e -' y
- M WN7_fa9,N'*N 'J W** 7"WNN r ^N4*M*99-T-
"t*W**Nr**~.W.W. r-t*ti eura 9's-
j r- ...i4 >n [' ~ ~ n { c 1 t., j il 1 r, I \\ b SYSTEM 80+ 1 1 r i 1 .i 4 I t I-C-EWILLPROVIDESUFFICI5NTINFORMATIONTOALLOW i 0 ~ } THE NRC STAFF TO CLOSE OUT ALL APPLICABLE I I REGULATORY ISSUES e i 4, )~ .) I e r = l a .I : 1 ,2 mu&# m h 4 ? s [. .EI) "-__ M IN Y- - U -Y I'I' " ' ' ~ '
l SYSTEM 80+ WILL MEET COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR FUTURE PLANTS u O MEET CURRENT REGULATIONS SYSTEM 80 MEETS CURRENT REGULATIONS (BASIS FOR PVNGS OPERATING. LICENSES) P o RESOLVE USI's AND MEDIUM-AND HIGH-PRIORITY:GI's a UTILIZE CRITERIA DEVELOPED IN THE EPRI & ARSAP PROGRAMS i l O COMPLETE PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT PERFORM A LEVEL 3 PRA o COMPLETE NRC STAFF REVIEW (INCLUDING' DEGRADED CORE ISSUES) G MM 4 4 9 l ______-_c- .r m---'~^ - -~~~ - - '~ ~~""~~ ~ ~ - "~ - "-~~
~ q. ',d y r li TECHNICAL ISSUES REQUIRING-NRC ACTION I o -DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA FOR RESOLUTION OF-UNRESOLVED AND GENERIC SAFETY ISSUES 0 DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA FOR RESOLUTION 0F DEGRADED: CORE ISSUES i o DEVELOPMENT OF CUT 0FF FREQUENCY FOR'PRA-l l 0 RESOLVE (WITH EPRI) ALWR OPTIMIZATION ISSilES~ 6 I 1 .t %d i s ] l i
- i..
Mart h h _..,.,_m.,_.._,_...,,,,.,_.._. . 1
i l D T E N U E i E SM S D I L RN i N EE U O SM IT LA A A D A C N D I I E NF FF l GI H I T SR EE DC C S i W E l I F ~ V D s W E E E U IV S i R S E I R R D E E S C l T D T A F R R A l L G R C E D D A N T - T N RT s AI I c SM f SB /' EU CS A i B ,\\ l i b - i = t }~1 ;1i1-i 1 a]j[ jj3
- t ql
i '] [l. 4
- s.
j e a l'*1 ' t. r- [' D g., k. i SYSTEM 80+D DESIGN FEATURES t I s i { J l 7.. l J + 1 b e i i F 4, R. A. MATZIE ADVANCED LWR PROJECT DIRECTOR I' t I I 2 i e 2n5yghh { c, I 'J ,,g/,, .,w- ,wg-w-.m.,.~,,-- , pw,~, w,y,.,_. g . p, y. y .y.
m N ~ G IS r ot t n mM WDe E ce a d e ie D s Er c a cr e** Od ag e c e o M ~ m*F r r n ep T a v v e m ds a a rg o n r o i Rt Ra / t P W *" i A*- Wim c L* Li a w f Ce R r r Aeg o e Ri l v i R '" c Evo Ne I W i E*a r P9 OnP R Dig s L e d A E 8r -C t g D n:m m x e E E,Cra Et ;a M,,l Cuio r ,,&g c g I o F r dvr P oeP I rd p& TR EC 7 c1
- jfaN, 1
Ii jj i!
l-t l DESIGN CHANGE PROCESS-EPRi e s NRc t CE I i j -u REVIEW SYSTEM 80 C ~ MAINTAIN DESIGN - DES GN DEFER CHANGES . 1 I INCORPORATE CH ANGE F PRELIM.' DESIGN
- PRA CHANGE i
1 lI I J DES.. . COST ANAL EST y 1 MAINTAIN 0ESIGN 60 CESSAR PREPARE CESSAR 1r 1 SUBMIT CEssAR mudd \\ newef-*wsw m _ w<en,- *w ce++pe*<- n+n is um*y m* r c.
- .a
-v~ .+ -,r. o w-* e r w n uan.c r
i !q, ,o b(m 1 SYSTEM 80+ f OVERALL PLANT DESIGN ASPECTS 1 1 l ) i l o IMPROVE SAFETY ~ l II l 1 l o REDUCE SEVERE ACCIDENT RISK i s t 0 SIMPLIFY DESIGN ) ~ O. DESIGN FOR HIGHER PLANT AVAILABILITY j 0 DESIGN FOR IMPROVED OPERABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY t O DESIGN FOR REDUCED RADWASTE AND PERSONNEL EXPOSURE 1 o DESIGN FOR 60-YEAR LIFETIME i o DESIGNFOREAS$OFCONSTRUCTION d t-p mis h $ o L 2 '. ~" r ?"' im' wn.: **S"e~w ---w"" m-~:~~~~~ ~ * ' ~ - ~ ' ' = - ~ ~ - - - -
SYSTEM 80+ -t REACTOR AND REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS o INCREASED OVERPOWER MARGIN OF CORE o EXTENDED CONTROL R0D DESIGN LIFE-1 o RODDED MANEUVERING CAPABILITY 0 REDUCED HOT' LEG TEMPERATURE (T ) H l O RING FORGED REACTOR VESSEL ~ J I o LARGER PRESSURIZER o INCREASED STEAM GENERATOR MARGINS l l ^ 4 _ _ _qqwe,_ 4emd9 we.wwye,ogy, m,nge,y. p ag..p, wwsm, .n., ....,m. ...._.__u--.._-._.i_-_-
,'], ( -]- i t
- a i'
3. i .f" L f SYSTEM 80+ I SAFET( SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS 1 I-J 1 j .q o 4-TRAIN SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM.
- i O
SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SEPARATE FROM SHUTDOWN COOLING SYSTEM 1 1 -) 0 4-TRAIN EMERGENCY FEEDWATER SYSTEM i 1 1 i o SAFETY DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEM I l o IN-CONTAINMENT REFUELING WATER STORAGE TANK i l l O INCREASE SHUTDOWN COOLING SYSTEM I DESIGN PRESSURE J
- i 1"
o DIRECT VESSEL INJECTION I f U juggdf p .. t.: __ma
- I SYSTEM 80+
CHEMICAL AND VOLUME CONTROL SYSTEM. IMPROVEMENTS q ELIMINATES NEED FOR SAFETY GRADE CVCS DESIGN' LETDOWN HEAT EXCHANGER DESIGN PRESSURE INCREASED CENTRIFUGAL CHARGING PUMPS H SIMPO FIED LOOP CHARGING AND AUXILIARY SPRAY: PIPING s l m l i' i -, -, - -,. ~ _. -. - ~. _., -, -,.... -. ~.. -. - ~ ~ - - -,.
I 1, ~ 2-P l SYSTEM 80+ I&C FEATURES-i. o DIGITAL PLANT PROTECTION SYSTEM WITH AUTOMATIC TESTING i t O CURRENT FIRE PROTECTION CRITERIA MET WITH. GE0 GRAPHIC SEPARATION AND ISOLATION r i q COMPONENT CONTROL VIA PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC CONTROLLERS WITH EXTENSIVE REMOTE MULTIPLEXING .i 0 EXPANDED USE OF REACTOR POWER CUTBACK SYSTEM TO AVOID UNNECESSARY REACTOR TRIPS O MICR0 PROCESSOR BASED DIGITAL PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS j o ENHANCED CAPABILITY TO LOAD FOLLOW f L \\ ~ jygfg d L ,4.,,,_ ...c.-~,..... g,g_,,,...,,%.,. ._m,
4 .e i -l SYSTEM 80+ MAN-MACHINE INTERFACE 1 0 CONTINUOUS PLANT OVERVIEW DISPLAY o INTEGRATED INFORMATION PRESENTATION AT .l WORK STATIONS 1 O ALARM PRIORITIZATION, REDUCTION AND MODE l DEPENDENCY i l I O INDICATION PRIORITIZATION AND REDUCTION ^ ! j l i c 0 DYNAMIC PLANT MIMIC CRT DISPLAY O DESIGNED FOR 1 PERSON OPERATION FROM HOT SHUTDOWN TO FULL POWER e k Ybfh Y' ~' "^ Y 'M '
- A
'W***V'
Tp;, e ~ e_. a y. .i ? j il j SYSTEM 80+ 1 f, CONTAllMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 1 ) o LARGE. DRY CONTAINMENT f :- t o' CONSERVATIVE DESIGN BASIS (GUILLOTINE PIPE-t 1 BREAK) a 7.,
- [
O SEVERE. ACCIDENT HYDROGEN. CONTROL r .j. 4 0 IN-CONTAINMENT REFUELING WATER-STORAGE TANK' WILL AFFECT PLANT ARRANGEMENTS-l 1 o OTHER SEVERE ACCIDENT CONSIDERATIONS MAY AFFECT ( CAVITY CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN j I. 1 y m l .f. \\ j c]: .i i 3 e) '_) - p i T
- s.,.._ _,
4 IMPACT OF SYSTEM 80+ DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY CONTRIBUTORS (EXAMPLE) t 4 TRAIN ] INITIATING EVENT ECCS LOSS OF 0FFSITE POWER TRANSIENT.S STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RUPTURE + SMALL LOCA y ATWS MEDIUM LOCA + i BORON DIl.UTION LARGE LOCA + STATION BLACK 0UT MMihhh 8 4 . pp,wpewee u*9 6' m,= f twpg .A wiv.,m 4 :p *- as.*,ea teper.a rve te*.w d e m. m.
- e,vesen * %e.r -
-w='+=y w es.-<#petm me ne wwww -$.3 .m
- =ww w +
~ . q, g.. 1 O IMPACT OF SYSTEM 80+ DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS F CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY CONTRIBUTORS (EXAMPLE CONTINUED) l r 6 SAFETY I INITIATING EVENT DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEM 1. F I LOSS OF 0FFSITE POWER 4 TRANSIENTS f STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RUPTURE 4 SMALL LOCA + AlWS f MEDIUM LOCA 7 BORON DILUTION LARGE LOCA f STATION BLACK 0UT Avarthhh g .m..
c -i 1 IMPACT OF SYSTEM 80+ DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY CONTRIBUTORS (EXAMPLE CONTINUED) 4 TRAIN INITIATING EVENT EFW l SYSTEM LOSS OF 0FFSITE POWER f TRANSIENTS f STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RUPTURE f SMALL LOCA 4 ATWS 4 l MEDIUM LOCA BORON DILUTION LARGE LOCA STATION BLACK 0UT f 1 -r-4 ..w ,.m......w. s-,... ....--,..~, r_
i y -i. -.3 g a IF+ q h ' F t '3 4 CLOSING COMMENTS I f l t . i ?
- e e
A. E. SCHERER i .I L i i I f' min $$$ oL I wgy E. m a-_ w ewr.+. 4-
9 G' 0 SUMARY-O C-E DEDICATED TO ACHIEVING DESIGN CERTIFICATION BY 1991 8 4 =-
Document Co'ntrol' Desk, 016 Phillips TP.At!SMITTAL TO: p j ADVANCED-COPY TO: The Public. Document Room /o2M/[7 DATE: [ FROM: SECY Correspondence & Records Branch Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting i document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and j placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or j a
- required, Meeting
Title:
&s E Ne bw s b-C me, i i R&w LxJ E v i Meeting Date: ///3g/) 7 Open / Closed ~ ? j ltem Description *: Copies Advanced DCS 'O' [ ,8 to PDR Copy t C 2 g g.
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1-1 E
AlbOuwd] b L a AJ,uas s 3:. / / E. 2. $e fj s:: g l 5. 6. I J
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
1 Lp&R Branch files the origina C g apers. 2 .h I alRG I I bYhlYbb bl kbb hbh b0hhklfb _-}}