ML20236W530
| ML20236W530 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/01/1987 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8712080074 | |
| Download: ML20236W530 (89) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
w m3m Y
\\ U.n
.g O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
Title:
. Briefing on New Westinghouse' Standardized Plants Location:
Washington, D. C.
' Date:
Tuesday, December 1, 1987
]
(.,
Pages:
'1 - 63 a
)
I i
Ann Riley & Associates coun neponer, 1825 1 Street, N.W., Suite 921
(
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3060
~
4
+
8712080074 87120$
o
l' i
qM j;
i f[
rg e
, J. i..
m T.
- =, 14. ) i,,
(3.
q -; n
. M./ "
1' D 1 S C L A!!!M E R j'Lp 2-
.t>
'S'
- f
'i.'.
.4
.~5 6'
This is,an unofficial' transcript <of a meeting of'the 7.
. United States'. Nuclear Regu l a t ory. Cone l'ss i on he l d ' on 8.
12/01/87 In the, Commission's office at.1717 H' Street,
'N. W., Washington, D.C.
The. meeting was open to'pubilc.
9['
L has'.not been ' attendance'and observation.
Thisitranscript 11 l reviewed,'correctedi'or ed'ted, and it may contain i
,.p,
4,7 12 inaccuracies.
13 The: transcript is intended solely-for general-14 Information 1 purposes.
.As provided by 10 CFR.9.103,-It: is 15-
- not part of the formal or informal' record of decision of: the 16
..ma'tters discussed.
Expressions of opin'lon in this transcript 17 do.not.ne'cessarily reflect final determination or beIlefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with t he Ccen i s s i on in
'19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20
- or argument contained'herein, except as the Commission may 21-
' au t hor I z:e.
1 22 *.
i 1
23-
%/
24 25
, <!.(
I
.PWm**f - l FPJr M TQ 9(i!-
i7W*,'N 4P?t9.,
-**P 8=*"1*'6--
f **vb W8DednP*r8=S
- f -+ '#' **
+8***-vmWP'*
e
__y_-_-_-.
,. 7
& %Q :
J
~ '
?
N-4-
y:w,f.,, ;.
- v..
1 t
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' U!
..g;;j 1 J
/
a.
7:(
j
.'2 -
lNUCLEARJREGUIATORY COMMISSION
, + J.,
., t 3 '.
,! 4 -
' BRIEFING:ON.
W 5-NEW WESTINGHOUSE STANDARDIZED: PIANTS c
- 6.-
- 7.' -
PUBLIC MEETING I
e.
7F
- 8:
- g. '
[
9 Nuclear Regulatory-Commission.
- o' n-10 Room 1130
~ 11-
.r.
1717.H Street,-Northwest-o
, Uj,. ',,
t 12 :-
Washington,'D.C.-
I.
1 t
13-
^
(;
e i.
~14 TUESDAY,. DECEMBER;1,.-1987 i
15 '.
l
'16 The Commission met in.open session,.pursuantLto-
'17 notice, at 2:00 p.m., the Honorable IANDO W.JZECH, ChairmanLof i:
.18
- the' Commission, presiding.-
-19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
20 IANDO W.
ZECH,. Chairman of the commission p;g 21'-
FREDERICK M..BERNTHAL, Member of the' Commission l,
,22 KENNETH CARR, Member of the Commission y
23 KENNETH ROGERS, Member of-the Commission 24 i
- 1
- g, - 2 5 1
5 b.
h Eg l
i 4
s
{
.)
dm__.m..
,_,..maa wy, ym.
5.w
n
.u. - - #.
n.
b i, o,
9--
o
~au lli STAFF AND PRESENTERS. SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLEi c
2'
y;
'3'
'S.
CHILK
'4 W. PARLER ii' 5
.J.'GALLAGHER
'6'-
'J.
MOORE' b-
'7-
.. W.JOHNSON' g.
. '8 ' -
'T.~VANDEVENE 9
B. MCINTYRE 10.
l' h
'11
' AUDIENCE. SPEAKERS:
12L
.13.
-N..LIPARULO
- .-1
' 14 '
R. VIJUK.
e 15-16
-17~
?'
18
--yg.
20 H
.'21 22
.23 24-ki.a';
25'
.p
')
=
4
) k l 'O'
_._!i_____.___:_
______.______.1._.___.__._._._
A~..
a+-
.*~e.
t
?
3 3'
li P R 0 C E-E D I,N G S
(
2' CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
3 Commissioner Roberts will not be with us this 4
afternoon.
'5 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently revised 6
its Policy on Nuclear Power Plant Standardization.
The Levised 7
policy encourages the use of standard plant designs and 8
provides the information concerning the certifications of 9
designs that are essentially complete in scope and level of 10 detail.
11 The purpose of today's meeting is for the 12 Westinghouse Electric Corporation to brief the Commission 13 concerning the status of their efforts to have a standardized 14 design certified under the Revised Standardization Policy.
15 This meeting follows a similar meeting yesterday in 16 which combustion Engineering made a presentation on their.
17 design certification efforts.
i8 I am particularly interested in hearing how" 19 Westinghouse intends to handle the balance of plant, and I know 20 my fellow commissioners are interested also in the same 2'1 subject.
22 Members of the NRC staff are available to answer 23 questions, if we have them.
I understand that copies of the 24
. slides that will be used today are available in the back of t'e h
t.
25.
room.
i i
r b
\\; ;
,zv 4
i.-
lL Do'any of'my fe,11ow commissioners have'any opening 2
comments to make?-
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Not really.
I just.always.
- 4
.cok forward to these extracurricular activities, because I.
5.
admit,lall the problems like the ones we' heard'about this 6-morning,.itLis always a pleasure to hear about the future.
So, 7
let's'go.
i '
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:.All right.
Thank you very much.-
9 Mr. Moore, did you want to begin?
10-MR. MOORE:
Yes, I will. start.
Thank you.
'll CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Please proceed.
- 12 OPENING REMARr2:
13 MR. MOORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 14 commissioners.
Good afternoon.
It is a pleasure to be here 15 and be able to share with you our programs and plans regarding
'16 design certification of the standard nuclear power plant 17 designs.
18 Jim Gallagher and I'will be giving you the formal 19 comments.
We also have with us Bill Johnson, Theo Vandevene, 20' and Brian McIntyre over here to answer the tough questions.
21
[ Slide.]
122 Our discussion today will cover the Westinghouse 23-Standard Plant Licensing Programs and briefly describe the new 24 plants that we are developing in4 conjunction with those 25-programs.
4,.
l-
\\
- ~--
- -l
~
.Lo.
.c
- ;- - - p
~'
%R ;6
.h 9.y:
(
g ;'
~
,'s u
i
-j
,N
.'1 TOf particular interest,isithe recently issued
- r
. 2' standardization Policy, which we view as a" foundation upon:
3x
- which the' return of'the" commercial market:will be built.-
o-4:
(Slide.];
u 15
' Westinghouse:isiencouraged,by:the commission's September?15,J1987: issuance;of the Standardization' Policy 6-7 Statement and the positive' approach t' ward standardization o
o 8'
.which;thatistatement' signifies.
b 9
' Westinghouse was anfactive participant;in the.Nuclea,r.
' 10.
- Industry: Study Group onothe: practical application of 11 standardization of. nuclear power plants in the United States n,
'12:
and'.theJindustry's Standardization Oversight Group, which:
c 13 fspearheads,theTindustry's efforts to bring about'the benefits,
,4*
14' o'f standardit:$ tion and licensing. reform.
15' Westinghouse participated in the NRC' Workshop on
.16'
' Standardization conducted'by the staff on October 20 of this
' 17 L
~
. year, and has had substantial. input to the comments' filed with 18'
.the'NRC by the NUMARC Standar'ization Oversight Group this d
19 November.
20 The next major objective in standardization must be
+
'21 for the Commission to adopt regulations which implement the 22 Standar'dization Policy Statement.
23 We believe.that most of the provisions of the 24 legislative licensin'g reform proposals, which the Commission 4j 25' submitted to the Congress earlier this year, can be implemented
'fr
. _('
j 4
6 1
under existing statutory authority, so that the framework for, (s
e 2
standardization can become a reality.
3~
procedures for design reviews and early siting 4
decisions clearly should be adopted by.the Commission as part 5
of the regulations implementing standardization.
6 In this regard, we believe that the design 7
certification should be allowed either through the rule ~ making 8
process or through a licensing process.
9 According to the briefing by the Commission's staff 10 at the october workshop, design certification is contemplated 11 through the issuance of a design certification rulemaking.
12 We believe the Commission also should adopt design 13 certification procedures which would allow for a certified 14
. design license.
An applicant should be free to choose whether 15 to attain design certification by rule or by license.
16 In any regulations adopted for standardization, two 17 fundamental items should be addressed.
18 First, there needs to be a firm regulatory standard 19 for controlling re-review and re-litigation of issues covered 20 by design and site approvals.
21 And second, there must be provisions for practical 22 licensing procedures encompassing a single stage license.
23 It is possible to provide sufficient information and 24 criteria prior to the commencement of construction to enable 25 the Commission to determine whether a facility can be t
h y
~
. 7 l'
' constructed and operated in conformance with the Atomic Energy' N
2 Act and Commission regulations.
Public input clearly is more J
3 meaningful under such a process.
4 Fundamental issues of safety and site suitability 5
should not be left open to challenge when plant construction is 6
.almost complete.
Uncertainty and unpredictability must be 7
eliminated or minimized in order for standardization to become 8
a reality.
9 Inspections, tests and analyses, and the associated 10 acceptance criteria can be established at the initial stage of 11 the licensing process as part of the combined construction 12 permit and operating license.
13 Therefore, with a firm sign as you go process, the i
\\
14 NRC can assure compliance with the license through its 15 inspections and testing procedures.
16 When a plant is ready for operation, any hearing 17 request should be required to meet a good cause standard.
In 18 this regard, we think the Commission's approach in its 19 licensing proposal submitted to the Congress is proper.
20'
,Since design, site and related issues will have been 21 resolved prior to commencement of construction, the pre-22 operational hearing, if any, should focus on issues of the 23 licensee's compliance with construction authorization i
24 requirements and commitments.
i
(.
25 Such compliance should be reviewed within the
.------~_-..._.a~__
m..- _ _..
,,m
j i
8 1
. framework of those inspections, tests, analysac and acceptance
.{
(f-s -
2 criteria which were adopted at the license issuance stage.
~
q 3
(Slide.]
i 4
Westinghouse remains firmly committed to the future 5
of nuclear power.
We are the world leader in nucleer power 6
with extensive experience at all major aspects of the nuclear 7
business.
8 We are in the unique position of having designed more 9
nuclear reactors than any other reactor vendor in the world.
10' Thus, we have accumulated substantial and perhaps the most 11 direct experience with practically all phases of the nuclear 12 licensing process in the United States and worldwide.
13 As a result, Westinghouse has a broad perspective on 14 the future of nuclear power and how licensing and regulation 15 affects nuclear power plant design, construction and operation.
16 This broad perspective leads us to believe that the 17 future of nuclear power in the United States rests with a real 18 commitment to standardization.
19 Also, the competitiveness of U.S. vendors and designs I
20 in the international marketplace is enhanced if U.S.
regulatory 21 approval via the design certification process is obtained.
22 Unless standardization is achieved in such a manner 23 as to eliminate the regulatory uncertainty and instability that 24-all too often have characterized our licensing process, there q
25 is no viable future for nuclear power.
O
~"
' " ' ~
s[ ( k' O
C' 4
s ep
- g 4
c., C 3
,-,w 9.
u,
+on:thE other! hand,Rif standardization isjachieved_
c g,, G 13.
hNi2
along:with other improvements,:: as we will' discuss,'nuclearJ f.3, 4. 3i
~
~7
.!. ~
g' powerfwill!.have a bright future:when'th'e' demands forl power in1 1
J L41 (the,1990s!begin their/ inevitable increase.-
f
.7..,. 5 " '
j; w:
i TheLWestinghouse commitment to nuclearcpower is EL "exemplifie'diby[ Westinghouse's involvement.in1the development'of' 6
j gg; 7/
ainew generationHof nuclear p wer plant; design andithe~ advanced; y..
8 pressurized 1wat'ar reactor, about whichiyou will1 hear more in a m
'9 few: moments.
x o
9g
.:10 '.
our; commitment-also is exemplified by the. work we t
11 '.
have done and,the' resources we have devoted in= connection'with.
1 412 Lthe development'of standardized plants for the more?immediate' g,
13
' future, M'
'14.
.If the~ industry and'.the NRC' continue'tolwork to
.,I}'
t, 15.
successfully reform'the licensing process, the,climateswill be h;
' 16
- established to' allow'the' return of-commercial nuclear power, l173 EJim;Gallagher now will~ describe the specific programs 1 1
.18f that Westinghouse ~is working on and'their relationship to the 19 future return of the commercial nuclear market, as well as how:
~
.o 20-
.Wes.tinghouse is using and will continue to isplement the
[ Standardization Policy.
'21 22' Jim.
M=.
I23 WESTINGHOUSE. DESIGN CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS:
1 24 MR. GALLAGHER:
Thank you, Jim.
' n 2 5 '.
[ Slide.]
N.y. ann
\\y 7
11 ; c:.
i
/q :
10
'lL Westinghouse has been a pioneer in the (I
2' standardization process, and I thought it might be useful just 3:
to spend a minute or two on the various aspects of 4
standardization;that'we have been involved in, in the past.
5-As you know, Westinghouse was the first vendor to 6
take advantage and work to.get a manufacturing license under 7
Appendix M with the floating nuclear power plant.
8 We pioneered the Reference Safety Analysis Report 9
concept, the RESAR-3S being the first of those, and then came 10 the RESAR-414 which is applicable to the South Texas Project.
11 And in addition, we also championed the SNUPPS concept which 12 was a standard 4/13 plant, four loops with 12 foot cores, and 13 also the four plants, to wit: Byron and Braidwood.
(
14 So, Westinghouse has a long experience involved in
~
15 the standardization process.
16-Next slide, please.
17
[ Slide.]
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Just a quick question.
I i
10 guess I should know the answer to this.
But in the view of i
20 Westinghouse, which of those two plants, the SNUPPS or the
'21 RESAR, or the South Texas Plant, to be precise here, 22 incorporated the more recent design features?
Was it the 23 SNUPPS?
I assume it was.
]
i 24 MR. GALLAGHER:
Well, I would says that the South
_(
25 Texas Project in certain areas, particularly in the I&C area, 4
6
_-_.____..2
-.4 m-m.m.---..c-.
,me.-,
. wecy smo.vm
R: '
..s-11
.1 have the'more advsnced features, and also some of.the
~ 2 mechanical systems were more advanced, because that design came 3
along after the 4/12.
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
So, that post dated 5
SNUPPS.
6 MR. GALLAGHER:
Right.
.7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
By how many years?
8 MR. GALLAGHER:
Probably three.
9 MR. MOORE:
I would say about three years, yes.
And' 10 it is a different size plant, a larger plant.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes, that I know.
12 MR. GALLAGHER:
In terms of the current and future 13 areas that we see that are important in the area of 14 standardization and design certification, we have them listed 15 on this overhead.
16 In the area of design, we believe that it is very 1,7 important to incorporate into the design the lessons laarned in 1
1 18 the area of maintenance, 19 And the two designs that we are going to be 20 discussing today, the SP-90,'that design, in addressing the l
-21 Chairman's opening comment, is a desi'gn for the nuclear island.
22 And that includes, to put that in simple terms, that includes i
i 23 everything in the plant except the TG.
24 So, all the traditional, what is called the BOP
(
25 systems, are incorporated in this design, and Westinghouse l
I
fi? 1 L.i; m
Krs 12 7
l' would'be the single point, responsible agent for-the safety;of' e
2:
thefplant.
3 So, we rec'ognize the:importance of reducing the Lw l4L
interfaces.
5' For example, on the SP-90, which is'a Jt.panese-6-
program,..weare anticipating a 51 month. construction schedule 7
.in Japan.
'8 In terms of the area of. licensing, we, as Jim
.9 mentioned,; support the standardization policy of the.Commissio'n 10 and also we. view that it is important for licensing reform, 11.
where we have early site--approval as well as the COL.
12 (Slide.]
13 And in terms'of the design certificat' ion process, we-
, e
- (-
14.
~ strongly encourage the-Commission to adopt'the inspection,
' 15 '
test,. analysis and acceptance criteria during the' construction 16' process.
As we refer to it, the sign as you go. process.
w 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Are you saying that you are not 18:
including turbine generators in the --
19 MR. GALLAGHER:
In the SP-90, which is the submittal 20 that we have for the 1,300 megawatt plant, we have the total 21 nuclear island without the TG.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
The turbine generator?
23 MR. GALLAGHER:
Right, the turbine generator.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You are not including that?
25 MR..GALLAGHER:
We are not including that.
i i
13 l'
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
'(e 2
MR. GALLAGHER:
In the AP-600, it is the' total plant, 3
including the turbine generator.
4 So, we recognized the evolution of the process to 5
reduce the interfaces and we feel by taking on the APWR,'the 6
1,300 megawatt plant that we are working with the Japanese, the
)
7 nuclear island has1all'the safety related systems incorporated.
8 into that design and into the submittal that we have made.
'And i
9 the. number of interfaces, from a safety related point of view, 10 are'very small with the turbine generator.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
'Let me ask this:
I. assume you scout 12 the' competition from time to time.
And when was it, a day or-13 two ago we heard from -- just yesterday, I am advised, we heard o
14 fro,m one of your competitors and this very issue was.dincussed t
15 in some detail and of concern to a number of members of the 16 Commission.
17 Are you prepared to, comment on a comparison between how much of the pla't you are going to pull under your wing.and 18 n
19 consider as part of your standardized design versus what we J
20 heard yesterday?
21 MR. GALLAGHER:
Yes.
j l
22 MR. MOORE:
Basically, I think contrasted to some of 23 the other approaches, such as the one you heard yesterday, we 24 believe it is important to try to embrace all the safety
'( j 25 related kinds of systems, to keep those interfaces very clear i
4 f
m-f~'
1 9;G %,1-o l
M 1'
-y.
x e
.i 4
l a
~ <
. M 93... _ "
Jand understood.: !And that istwhat we-have-dohe:with.ourj1,300:
+
- 1f
- ri T ".
.s...,
y
- V
,r' Q
- /;
[2[
! megawatt ~ design.
.q s
2.
,ma e3 But'as you willTsee in:the-later discussions'of;our.
, jy -
4:
,(60'OimegawattLdesignfwe'haveevenHincludedtho'totalplant,1 a;
L l5 ^
just'iforJthe.. purposes.of making sure that all'tisose= interfaces L
)
1 6. "
.are(undershoohandt'aken' care;of,withoutthepossibilityof-i
':7 1droppingithe; ball between.
p-8 J
jj
- S.
7 So, we havel.got'a' total; design there.'
'9.
. COMMISSIONER lBERNTHAL:' It' sounds;like youLhaveL bracketed what we' heard yesterday, th'at they certainly went' 10:
E
- 11-
'beyond justLaafety related systems.
Whether it.was total plant
/12
-- I J think itNas, ;though, actually, everything but the site
<w
, 13 specific-' features.l Wasn'tLit?
.,o o h
F
.14-..
90' percent they
- CHAIRMAN'ZECH:
Pretty lmuch,'yes, 15 said.- They gave us.a figure.. Can;.you give us a figure.LthatL e:
. 16 would relate to that?-
[ L'17.
MR. MOORE:
On.the.AP-600, it is"100 percent of the,
.]
- 18 design of the plant is incorporated.-
n-
- 19. '
' CHAIRMAN ZECH:
How about the SP-90?
e, 20
-MR. MOORE:. And the'SP-90, from a design standpoint, h
L21'
.t e percentage that is covered by --
y 1
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Without the' turbine generators.
2 3'-
~ COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But it is only safety
'24 related.
{j 25 MR. GALLAGHER:. No, it is 100 percent of safety I
k 't
-,..S
. ME"T' m#?WT ~
-'W
^
vr
~
'y_
-r,$.s k..$,
4
'}
.i IN kuf
- g g'
,li?'
(;, ; y e
' ='
g.
8
.o W'
< w' 15 L
.. 3..
n t'.
J
- 1:
1 related. :.
g
_?-
MR./ MOORE:. 'Yes, but-it is.broaderrthan;that.
n.,
m D
y?
k 2/
e 7
.g m',,
M.3;
- COMMISSIONER'BERNTHAL
- iBut ifJitils'only all'of the; g
b4
, (4 l,
(safety, related --S youiare 'saying Lit :is; broader than just safety.:
I 9 '"
- 5 frelated?'
- g
/{ p V
f 6. " ~
MR.1 MOORE: !ItTis broader.'
w
-)C Right.
ItL-. is all' of : what - is' c-
[' J
- 27 '
. MR' GALMGHER:i t
^
L8
. traditionally referred-to asLtheibalanceLof plant' system.
u e
,,9~'
MR. MOORE:
The feedwaterJsystem.:
\\!,'
T Llo.
LMR. GALLAGHER:-
For. example',.thefrad wasteisystems;
+
/11L are all included.in this design.
'.12 S '
COMMISSIONER BERNTHALt.
Why - noti tlis' TG, then?
.I.
s<3
-13?
wiguess..that is the question.
.k.
J
-141
! MR.'..GALLAGHER:
Yes', that could.'be a1 question...That-
.o 4,.
1
+
- m.
7; 15L Lcan be included.'.The' reason was that we were working'with our y
" 16 ' -
Japanese partners 'and that isit!he way the designf went.
p "17
-COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I understand.:
~ 18 MR.'GALLAGHER:-
Whereas on the AP-600, which is a
--19 U.S... design, total U.S.- design, you have' heard what we are-120 doing innterms of the' total plant.
~ 21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I understand.
m
.22;
-MR. GALLAGHER:'
I think we have discussed this slide.
,j r,
7-l23 Lpretty much.
Next slide, please.
' 24?
[ Slide.]
'y4A 25 In terms of the SP-90 or the APWR, we commenced on
~5a e
\\
iL. I fL
~
Q?Q =: j~;
W
(
i a,,,*,
W '. ;.%
m
.m h.,:j ~ 7f..
u
. ~.
T
'16i
%.m m l$ IYN I
'l f
ti-
'th' abembryonic'., development of this design'inithel late 1970s and
]
L 4
7, -_
7
' formally 1sihnad1aTcAntractin' August [of1982with.fiveJapanese:
.1 L
/ Of L21' b.
w a
/ 3; util'ities,LMitsubishi Heavy, Industries,., Westinghouse.
- w. r,,
"AndiinIthe'APWR development program'there have:b'een-
'41 3
7.
O
' 152 5over:[$150million'expandedand. shared;bythe'partiesof1thei o
j l6l w Japanese utilities, MITI, MHI andLWestinghouse.
17(
R-
.Theistatus-of;that' development program is1that we t'
w R
u 8
have"ess'entially; completed,the-preliminary design as.'of March' A
f' E r
L.of thislyearf and includingiextensive verification,testingLof-9' g
j
- 10) the'componentsLin..that design.
The majority of.that'testingL
~
e
~
Twasidonatin' Japan, but a considerable amount was done hereLin:-
"11
- 12
'the/UnitedLstAtes.-
13
' [ Slide. ]-
O,.
- 1 47
'Some'ofIthe features'and objectivesKof,that' design; g
L
'15
- of = course,. we were. designing
- to enhance plant. safetiy.
F
-16 OneLof.the unique'featuresiof this design.is"that PRA', i
.l.'
t
^^
117:
was' used as: a design tool throughciut theidesign.' LAt feature
)
G 18
.that came out-of that' evaluation was the design.lof using..two 19'
- turbine driven pumps and two motor driven emergency feedwater L'
l
-20 pumps.
That is an example of what came out of the interactive m..
21
. process of using PRA.
y h
, 22;
~Some of the lessons learned in terms of ol' aations,-
, :23 the' design, we.have separation, and we have taken into account V
7 24, systems interaction.
"? %.
j G 25:
We have extensivo design margins, 400 degrees. peak i
,. ~.
'Y t
> j
../.-
']
- ll l
.[
a
--- - - ~ ~
s 4
u:
'h.
i c.
UL r
s,.SJ :q,
- p
~17 w
Ei 11(
' clad temperature margin. :Weihave-lookedcat^the f'luence in'the r;.
..c 4
~
)
21
-;vesselLto extend' life, iWe have avradialLrefl' actor that reduces:
,n -
E J3' thetfluence by a'.factorLprobablyLof two andLa' half.-'The:
n~
4'-
. average l plant.is.5 times 10uto'the 19th.
This'is down1to-p.
.fn [
J.5 '
.around one and a, half..-
ym 6
y We:have done level.one.PRA,on this design.
So, that; v.
7 has:been. incorporated as,we went'along.
.7
'8!
In terms of plant performance,;the. objective isL90.
t.
l1 _
9
' percent availability with 98-percent availability between-t,
!10
.refuelings.-
L
~ 11:
Occupational radiation. exposure, the' design objective-4 112L
'is'100 man rem per year... We have'?a target'of 50 that we.are n
workington'.
And'that..is' achieved by looking at the materials.-
13
~
I
( 14 -
-of construction,de'ducing the' cobalt, improving the j
b
- 15.
purification systems, Land the longer fuel cycles.
l a.
h
-16 So-that when.we talk about having a/ design' objective y,
n 17.
of-100 man rem, that'is looked at system'by system,. component-I L18 by component, to see.how that'is-going to be done.
'l 19 In terms of additional features, we have gray' rods-to o
. 20 achieve load follow, such that there is.no boron shifts in 21 terms of reactivity.
z i
22 And,in waste management, where the design goal is 23 about 1,500 cubic. feet,per year, which is about a factor of 5 24.
to.10 lower than-current destgns.
(25 Also, in terms of plant, simplification, separation,
~ = = = =
cr-v-
s 18 the 'lant capital cost is a very important issue in Japan, as 1
p
[ \\'
2 it is here,=and our objective was to have a capital cost i
3 reduction of 15 percent over the most current Japanese plant,
'4 which was Tsuruga 2.
5 And with regard to the fuel cycle, we have achieved a i
6 20 percent reduction in fuel cycle cost compared to standard i
7 plants through the use of the spectral shift design.
_1 8
so, that is just a summary of some of the design 9
objectives and features.
10
[ Slide.]
11 With regard to the probabilistic risk assessment, it 12 was instrumental in looking at the design of the emergency 13 feedwater systems and the safety injection systems, and I will I
14 be going into a little bit more' detail on the outcome of those 15 evaluations.
16 As I mentioned, it was an iterative process,'which 17 was unique for a design, incorporating the PRA techniques along 18 with the deterministic design process.
19 As a result, the mean frequency on the core melt 20 frequency is 1.5 times 10 to the minus 6 per year, which is 21 approximately a factor of 50 better than current designs, and l
22 the severe release freqtsncy is 3 times 10 to the minus 7 per 23.
. year,.which is more than a factor of 10.
24 And in addition to the efforts within Westinghouse, 25 our PRA analysis has been reviewed by Brookhaven, as well.
y ;#.-
m
-- - - -- - q
' i,:
h i
9 y;g;
- y9 1
?
1 COMMISSIONER.BERNTHAL:-
Let's.see,-I always forget.,
j i
2:
What does the level 3:PRA'do?
j 3.
.MR. GALLAGHER:- The level-3 is based'on' dose o
4
' analysis.. Level 2 is looking at releases into containment, and j
5 level'1 is looking at.the' core melt frequency.
~
-l
[6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
And1why:would you not-7.
go beyond that to'do level 3,'for. example?~
n.
8-MR. GALLAGHER:
We don't have'a' specific site at the-9 moment.-
We can make estimates based'on --
~
.10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Oh, I see.
Okay.
-111 MR..GALLAGHER:' 'But most of the work has been'done.
12.
That would not be expensive' work.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
On the. core melt' frequency,
- (l'
-14' lht me ask-the'same question'I did yesterday. : Ten to the minus 15 6 ista mean.value.
What can:you tell"us about the' confidence' 16' that'you assign that it be less than 10.to the minus 5, for 1
- 17' example?
18 MR. GALLAGHER:
The confidence level with regard to 19 the mean frequency is about 80 percent, and at a 95 percent 20 confidence level we would estimate it might be a factor of 3 1
21 worse.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So, you would say better than 23 95 percent confidence that it'is less than 10 to the minus 5,
~
i 1
24 easily?
{,,
25 MR. GALLAGHER:
Yes.
4 E
_ -,-mm - ~ mw --r
~
- - ~ ~ *
~
x I.
I 4
'i I
g f-
' ll:
Y' ' > ;
_+f I
.;,,a' Ohf
- o f Y'
.X o. :r_
~
qwg.
y'.
v20" i
A
.y.
b, t
i
,.. ) 'f : M:
i 9
W4'
,19 MR.L MOORE :
gnY ",
':Yes.,
1; 8
Y-12i
~
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: :That isiveryfgood.
You(mighb +
+
v@;ve.
[3
. wantito giYe'usisomeKclues onihow~you achieve:.that,n and/Ii
[
- y...;y s,
c 4
a'ssume?you'. wilt.s 4
y
.c x
1MRUGALIAGHER: L Yes. -
!5:
b, 'f(;
a
>z f
,6:
(Slide;F
, n L7?
'With' regard:to operating-plantsf in the;SP-90'de' sign 1, 2
1 8
we have, withfour Japanese.partnersL ma,detaura that"we.take:
.p 4
,(
9-
)into accountmtheLexperiencefwith regard to. maintenance, Land.onet a
P
- 10 Indication, as I mentioned,.was-thatobjectives;with reg'ard to o
g i-o s
hg i, 11l iman rem: exposure.,
e
'121 In' addition, we have'fimproved-. considerably 1the:
,f(
.13) separation',.separatingTsafetp.grtade:and cont ol: systems; A'
7 v v i
c n
- 14L goodJexampleiof that is the charging = pumps,5which on'a? number;
+
15
- of.plantsLare;both the highihead safety. injection, pumps;:and-c.
M<
116
. charging pumpsffor-the' chemical [and= volume; control, system.,
.17 :,
Also, we have: redundant: safety: trains,. four: trainsj L 18 i
'with.the high head pumps.1'00" percent, and the design has q
19;
- reduced the. possibility.of common mode failure, suchjas. floods, 1
y,
- 2 0'.
fires, by the-separation that we have used'.in'the design.
- b.
'21 And another important feature.of the design lis that.
]
- 2'2L the' refueling water storage tank is located inside containment,-
m y,
123 such.that.no operator action is required to switch over from
-)
~
[24
' the Linjection phase to the recirculation phase following: a
-)
o m.,
1 ':1,., ' 2 5 ;
loss-of-coolant accident.
6
Uf,
!w
,, f t
14 gy:
if,
4
_N..__
3
4 21
- i.
1.
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:- Excuse me.
Let me ask one
.(I 2
'other question here to'make sure that I understand'your PRA.
3 If I asked you what the core d.amage frequency would 4
be, are we using different terminology when we speak of core 5
melt versus core damage?
That issue has come up in sizewell, 6.
for example,.as you know.
It is not an issue, it is just what 7
people choose to use.
And whether or not it means so'mething I
8 different when you say core damage versus core malt, what about-j 9
your case?
10 MR. GALLA'HER:
I don't think so, but I will refer to G
11 Mr. Johnson.
12 MR. JOHNSON:
No, they are really the same.
13.
COMMISSIONER BERNTRAL:
Okay.
So, as far as you are 14 concerned, those are interchangeable terms?
15 MR. JOHNSON:
Right.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Before you go off this slide, do you 18 have -- the earlier question, I am not sure you answered it 19 specifically -- do you have any licensed operating plant that 20 you are basing this evolution of the SP-90 design upon?
Is 21 there any specific plant out there now?
Or you have got a new 22 design?
23 MR. GALLAGHER:
This is a new design.
Of course, it 24 has all the experiential base of Westinghouse over the last 2'0,
)
25 25 years.
(,
l L
l l
l 1
l l
W l[
n'
' '2 } $
3 j
~
~
c r
m
!a,*
7; y
v r.
- 1 -
2
- (
fg,.,, mj:7j w
j 3
y 22 V
w
~
D FM W
- 1=
7 JCHAIRMAN ZECH: Lyes,.I! understand..
- r a.
.c s
.: ' f-b
- b. i D. J':2 MR. GALLAGHER:JTAnd it"incorporatesifeatures? rom?
L i
m;y, a i
K i
...e..
Q, L31
. earlier' designs f as1well_/.As: evolutioriary ~ improvement.; 4 y
y.,
3 pg g, 3, -,.
f p,
m s.
with;a reactor' cool' ant pump loop,fet. cetera, and then,welhave 5.
P o %._ >
.up<
?
16=
1taken particular.: systems and focused on them1where there.have':
W 7:
- been'issuesiof: complexity and so;forth.
N 1
x 8
, CHAIRMAN'ZECH:
I guess 1I was' thinking ahead a'little-A o
~.
<a-19 :^
! bit, thatJif you havelgot a'~newLdesign then you:ar'e'reallyLnot.
l, q;_
3-l10f factoring /in.anyEvery specific operatio'nal.experiencelori 4
lla
.maintenanceLexperience,.surveillanceexperience/thosekNd/of; t
~
g A
- 121 things.
%4 13; MR. MOOREs.; Hardware,;you definitely are,o the basicL
.g 3
y 5 f,.
14l components./
y
- 15-CHAIRMAN ZECH:' Well, not - on l an ' operating l plant.: ' Youi 16'
.areiextrapolating,jobviously, fromexperiencesyou'haveihad.L w
I But youTdon't have;a'~ specific plant you'can,baseLoperational-17:
18 experience._upon, for example.- JI guess that is what! you are 119.
telling me.
- 20:
MR..GALLAGHER:
I think what we are saying is it is 21-based on the lessons learned from operating plants.andxtaking
,4 122!
the problems, incorporating them into the design in a' rigorous-23 manner.
24.4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Into'a new design.
]
.{f.25f
. MR. GALLAGHER:
Into a new design.
l
.L' f2 W'
i
]
m
' e' b s
..,r
[,y D
n
____;_E_._
23 1
1 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All.right.
(
2 MR. GALLAGHER:- But, for example, if we have a. design 3
where you have two components'in the same cubicle, and you have 4
exposure issues when you try to maintain, in this design we 5
have compartmentalized components into single compartments in 6
. terms of separation.
7 So,-there may not be a spe'cific plant with that 8
particular feature in terms.of separation, but I think it is 9
very important to take the lessons learned from existing 10 designs and existing operations and make those design changes.
11 COMMISSIONER CARR:
The Japanese plant will be the 12 prototype plant for the SP-90, is that right?
13-MR. GALLAGHER:
Yes.
14 MR. MOORE:
But if you take the steam generators,-
15 they are:basica11y our steam generator design with some 1
16 improvement in materials.
The reactor coolant pump is 17 basically the existing operating reactor coolant pumps.
So, we i
a l
18 get that experience, q
i 19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
But you haven't had that particular
]
20 configuration together before?
j l
21 MR. MOORE:
As exactly --
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
This is the first time?
1 23 MR. MOORE:
That is right.
24-CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
25 MR. MOORE:
Now, I would want to point out, too, that
~
i
gli g
s
,f WA _
[
~
e x x
kd'i
/
24 j.
M.
k,
}1)
'because'of[ourinterestinmakingsurethatsthisdesign
~
1,. :.
~
2 Ereflected' ongoing l experience and concerns,L.we had a veryl good-lp ~'
f 3L utility review group that sat'with;us on'a regular basis in the.-
ip 4-conceptual'part'offthis designito make:sure,that we factored v
,-5 thosel lessons:in.
[
L6
. CHAIRMAN-ZECH:;. Fine., Thank.;you.;. Please proceed.
4 7-COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
May I just~ask1a question"while' E8
- you.are on that' subject? fAnd thatfis, does thisiincorporate 4
.9 L a'nyLnew~ technological-innovations?..Or'is'this a kind,of new 10.
- way.of putting. standardized components together?;
-11.
MR. GALLAGHER: JIt'has'a. number of' innovative-
'12 features.:'For example, thefin-containment emergencyfwaterj
~
13 storage'tanktis;anlinnovative feature to reduce the need"for.
II operator action, as I. mentioned.
- 14 15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: - Well, what I am~really trying 16 to get.at-is whether there arenany technological untested.and 17
. untried featuresLof this that'you are incorporating, or whether
~
'I 18 you'are moving away from a pretty solid standard' base, justito j
19.
what extent there is anything new in there?-
'20-COMMISSIONER CARR:
How much.R&D'is involved,'I guess 21-
'is the question?
22 MR.~ MOORE:
More.D than R, I'think.
II L23 MR. GALLAGHER:
Yes.
It is more a development effort 24
,than'a research effort.
1 1
, j, 25 MR. MOORE: 'For example, in the control protection.
I 4
9 4
g I i
4
- ewm
q.--
- 1
- " q q;14 !
q; a,
-j f
25 r
1" '
system, welare applying the new concepts in terms of control.
H 2'
systems, solid state and so forth.
But it is.tried' features.
j m
l
' 3;
.It is-theLapplication of putting them together in.the systems
.c
'4 L that11s;wherefthe work-is going, but not in the basic research m
5 itself.
6'
. COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
z7 CHAIRMAN.ZECH:- All-right, proceed.
j i
8-COMMISSIONER'BERNTHAL:
What'about this storage tank
]
9 that you just mentioned?
Are you going'to tell us some more 10
'about:that. water: storage ~ tank?.
1 Lil MR. GALLAGHER:
Yes.
We'have a slide later on, on 12
.the integrated safety.
.]
- 13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Good, because I would like to
(
A 14:
hear about'that.-
o 9
15
-(Slide.]-
-i 16 MR. GALLAGHER:. One of the, I would=say, innovativeL 17 features of the' design of the'APWR.is shown on this slide.
d 18 In the typical pressurized water reactor,Ethe loop j
L19 seal, which is the line from the outlet of the steam generator
)
20 into the suction of the reactor coolant pump, the lower j
1
~21' elevation of that is about one third down into the core.
j 22 As a result of the TMI accident and the need to be 1
"E 23 more cogniz' ant of the potential for rmall breaks and economic 1
-(
24 protection to the utility, we have made the innovation of 1
25
' increasing the length of the reactor vessel where we have more s,
J.
y4 m
a
--_l
26
'1-water above the core, which is a safety enhancement,.and then,
(
~
of course, the loop seal is above the core.
j 2
3 The. design objective was to have no core uncovery.for-4_
breaks up to six. inches.
And our analytical models now 5'
indicate to us that that will have no core uncovery for breaks 6
up to-ten inches.
7 (Slide.]
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
For how long?
9 MR. GALLAGHER:
Forever.
10 MR. MOORE:
The course of the accident.
11 MR. GALLAGHER:
For the course of the' accident, as 12 long as the break size is that.
i 13-COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So, as long as.the water,can k.
14" get' drained somewhere, you can keep pumping it.in fast enough 15 to replenish it?
16 MR. GALLAGHER:
That is right.
-17 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Is the APWR synonymous with the 18 SP-PO?
19 MR. GALLAGHER:
Yes.
20 COMMISSIONER CARR:
How do you get to something like 21 SP-90?
Is there a code for that?
Or is that proprietary?
22 MR. GALLAGHER:
Well, the SP-90 was the submittal to 23 the staff which meant " Standard Plant for the 90's."
L 24 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Okay.
1 j
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, go. ahead, please.
I e
y
g"> 4 ',
f(
y, 4d J
ys
- n i
- g e'
( P..
,y:
sLi n,
t 7g i
- f4'
)k-i 7.
- g. y ;
- 1. t.,
[]
j
'27; H
p,m: Je y c.1;;
/
v MR'1GALIAGHER:/ With regard'to the severe accident
-y b.21 hpolicy,fwehaveaddrassed,JasJI.' mentioned,itheEPRAatalysis;and\\
c a
.! P
.c
- c. ;,
3- ' # also;theiunresolvedEs'afety. issues,.:and'haveLdocumented that'to d,
w; t <
1the. staff:in the regulatory conformance:moduleLthatLwe'.have-c.4 :-
w
,7 r
,e 51
/ submitted.
And that" addresses': issues'of station h??ckout,.
.n m
J6L
.dec'ay.he'at removal",fsystems interaction; y
'7
- [ Slide.]l m
8x In summary,,the' safety philosophy that'we.usedTon~the.
9'-
'SPr90::APWR meets the present'and expected NRCirequirements'.;-It1 O
Ji -
10
' al'so has been 'a model for 's'pe'cific EPRI: requirements: document.
~
.ll(
This' des'ign.has come,before,the' current ~ effort:in-EPRI with-y M
i '12-LdevelopingLalrequirementsidocument, iso that there1was the:
4
'13:
-t:s
. opportunity to,take: advantage of:some'of the things'that:we:
.y (V
14'
- have done here, and.LspecifiedLthose in the EPRI? requirements' 3x
'O J15
- document.
'16 Also,.We;have met'on November.6 with the'ACRS and:
?
1 t
17' addressed.the.12 concerns of'the:ACRS';~and had a. meeting,.'a' good--
-18 meeting with them in terms of a'ddressing,the 12' concerns.-
l19 And again, as.we'have mentioned, the design b.i
-20
' incorporates the. nuclear power' block and c.aptures all the items-21' having safety significance in the-designs we have discussed.
.22' (Slide.]
l
~23-'
-In: terms of -- I,will just spend a few minutes on the j
v
- 1
(,
' integrated! safeguards systems.
Here are some of the features, 24 y h 25' d'
.as we mentioned, as the EWST inside containment, such that 1
i i -Q '
,j, n: c: }
h+. ' /
[l',.(-
-~. -.- '
A:r
- 3;
..s v,
y n
..28 ng,,
4 4
r #
.the're::(is no,requ'rement'for' changeover from the injection pha'se uiL i
o fm f.j.-c '
2L to the' recirculation phaseLfo11owing a;1oss of-coolant:
m i
w', n 31
~ accidant.
3
{I -Lj 4-ThisSis a.:four_ separate train-system'. :So,.there are-i
'j.,
j,
'}:
l
,L
- four
- identical trains s in" the APWR ' design. - The. accumulators, o
a-9 Y
'6' which injectLint'o the col'd leg, the. core reflood tanks,;_.which
) j 17 essentially replace the low-head'safetyjinjaction pumps, injectj
~
8
'directlyfinto the vess'el, a's well.as the.high head pumps 9-
-injecting _directly into the vessel,Las-opposed to the loops.
2.10-
'And this'isLone'of the features that was incorporated'into the:
11 EPRI requirements' document.:
1, 12.
So,~ we have a four train se'parated, integrated 13
- 4. g safetuard-system.which we believe is-a significant improvement' 14 in safetyiand.came out:in ourLPRA analysis.
'15~
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:: 'How much' water is_ contained,:
16:.
- then,' in th'attin-containment supply?
' 17; MR. GALLAGHER:
Six_hundred thousand gallons.
'18'
[ Slide.]
- 19' In terms of the design certification process,.we hope-
'20 _
to_ complete the PDA'of the SP-90 APWR in the latter-part of 21-
-1988,Eso that we can provide certainty for the-final design, 22' identify any regulatory hard spots, and then proceed'with the l
23' FDA program based on the Japanese project, initiating final 24~
design activities such that they'will be completed in' 1990.
~
2 5.'-
(Slide.]
o l
k G k
..\\,^
a
___2.
________1_*i__
_..._,..__g__
..-..m..,
ib '-
- i.
.4 29 l
i 1
The overall schedule isishown here, leading to:
t f
2.
initially in'the fcurth quarter ~of 1988Lthe.SER and.PDA, and.
l 3L then following.with the'FDA submittal in' conjunction >with the 4;
Japanese project, leading to' design certification in: late 1992.
J 5
(Slide.)
6' The:next program I_would'like to' discuss briefly is-7' the AP-600 Development Program.
1 8
COMMISSIONER:.CARR:. Can'we go back to that.last one j
~
9.:
just-a second?.When does the Japanese plant finish on that 10'-
schedule?'
i 11.
[ Slide.]
1 12' MR.* GALLAGHER:
The Japanese plant will probably
-13 finish -- construction or design?
Design would be finished; 3.
14 about 1992.
-15 COMMISSIONER CARR:
So, there will be no operational 16 experience.by the time you'come to us for' certification?
17
.MR..GALLAGHER:
That is correct.
I 18 (Slide.)
j 19.
With regard.to the AP-600, AP stands for Advanced j
4 1
'20 Passive, and it is a 600 megawatt electric. plant.
1 21 This is'a program that is sponsored by DOE with EPRI
- 22 support and Westinghouse participation.
The design is using 1
23 extensive use of passive safety system,.and I will go into i
24-those-in a little bit of detail later on.
(;
25 The features within the plant, we have made extensive
]
g 1.i p
r 4
4'
,4 j
- p..
30 l'
plantwide simplifications.
For. example, the building volumes
~'
are: 40 percent.:less; than a current Westinghouse 600rmegawatt 2
.3' two loop plant.
4
'In this particular design, we have160 percent less y
5 valves and piping in terms of simplification of'the plant,L.and 4
L 6
we would.like to have an initial' safety: review by the NRC in 7
1988.
8 (Slide.]
9 In terms'of.the features of this design, this is a 10 600 megawatt plant, a two loop plant, and in this particular 11 design'we have a 157 inch reactor' vessel.
The importance of 12 that is that that reactor vessel is-the standard vessel?for our.
13
.1,000 megawatt plant.
So, we have reduced the core power l'
14 density.by over 25 percent.
v 15-
'In this particular design, we have' extensive margin' 16
.in terms of;the core power density.- For example, in a normal
'17 600 megawatt plant, there are 121. fuel assemblies.
In;this 18 particular plant, there are 145.
19 In addition, we have eliminated the shaft seal pump 20 and incorporated a canned pump, similar to what is used in the
- 21-Navy program and as Westinghouse has extensive experience with.
y 22 And they have been mounted into the -- inverted into the 1
23 channel head of the steam generator to simplify the s,pport 24 structure.
=(j 25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Somewhere I got lost in the w
z+>-.
,e w <w-en m.
m
.A.
31; IL step from two to three systems here.
We are. talking about ry g
,1 -
2 three,different designs, basically, the AP-600 --
1 3-MR. GALLAGHER:
No, I~think.we may have confused you 4
with my nomenclature.
The APWR. design,'which is Advanced 5
Pressurized Water-Reactor, is'a11,300 megawatt design that we 6
are working with.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That is the SP-907 8
' MR. GALLAGHER:
And it is the same as the SP-90.
L9
. COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:, Okay.
10 MR. GALLAGHER:' Pardon me for the looseness in the 11 use of the nomenclature.
12 COMMISSIONER CARR:' 'Those' canned motor' pumps are-11 3 sized up a. lot'from current pumps?
Or'you are just' going to
_7
(:
14
.put a currently 1 manufactured pump in those. loops?,,
15;
. MR. GALLAGHER:
Yes.
They are what, 49,000 gpm.
16
- [ Slide.].
17 In termsLof the safegu'ard systems for the AP-600 18' design, the design incorporates the use;of passive safeguards 19 cooling systems.
20 In this particular design, following a loss-of-21 coolant accident the valves that need to be operated are
.22 operated by_ batteries.
There is natural circulation core 23 cooling, and air convection containment cooling to take care of 24 the decay heat in the long term.
,. -,(,j 25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Are.you saying that from the 4
y
-wm
p --
j
^
j-32 l'
time of? scram, natural circulation, because of the size of.the-(
2 vessel and the lower power density, in and of itself is capable 3
of-handling decay heat?
4 MR. GALLAGHER:
Yes, and the appropriate cooling 5
systems.
6 The next result is that there are no emergency core 7
cooling pumps.
There are no containment spray pumps.
There 8
'are no cooling water systems, such as safety related component 9
cooling or service water systems.
And finally, there is no
.10 requirement for 1E diesels in this particular design.
11 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Are those wet cells, the 12 batteries?
13 MR. GALLAGHER:
,Can you answer that?
14 MR. VANDEVENE:
Yes, at the plant right now, yes, 15 three day, 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> capacity.
16 COMMISSIONER CARR:- And you will be operating valves I
h 17 inside containment with the external battery supplies?
18 MR. VANDEVENE:
Yes.
19 MR. MOORE:
Which you operate it once, right, and 20 that is it?
21 MR. VANDEVENE:
Yes, you' operate it once.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I know you have de.tonstrated i
i 23 the natural circulation and cooling for a liquid metal system, I
24 and I would assume the thermodynamics, thermohydraulics is well l
/-(,j 25 enough known that you can calculate this with confidence.. But u..
- -*e-*-
4
.33
.4 l'
hahe'you.done,ii in the field?
Or is it just such a
'.2.
straightforward calculation that'there is no question about it?
3 MR.. MOORE:.- In normal' plants, in the exicting plants,
.j.
4
'we do. natural circulation tests, have done'in the field, and'.
'5 have' confirmed the kinds of calculations involved.
So, I don't 6
see that as'a big issue..
.7 COMMISSIONER'BERNTHAL:
Okay..
8.-
MR. MOORE:
It is the same kind of system geometry
.9 and all that.
10 MR. GALLAGHER:
Another important aspect-of this
.11 particular design, in order to.try to build certainty into the 12 construction process, we-have a construction schedule objective s
13 of three years,' going from first! concrete to. fuel load, three
~
14' years.
And that'we are1trying to' achieve.
15 We are working extensively with Avondale Shipyards, 16 who have a very creative approach-to modularization, such that
.17 we can design and build modules for the auxiliary systems, like--
18 the rad wasta systems, and have a. parallel' site construction 19 activity and a construction activity in a shipyard, or close to 20 the site.
21 We believe that'is very necessary in order to'get 22 certainty into the construction schedule.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Is there anything new on the 24 steam' generator side?
25 MR. GALLAGHER:
In terms of steam generators, we have.
f i
~
~
,Ij t
)
,...t q
-n g R:p
?
.T,,
734' o
o.
a
[x li 1a'newlmaterial, Inconel.690, which has: prove'n in our. tests to-y 1
y, ; ~j:
U J{ d =2L Lhave higher corrosion resistance.
-So, that'is one feature.
g
.In'additionE we have' additionally features'in' terms of
~
.3
f 4
mud collection drums'in the upper <part'of.the steam' generator.
w In'this'AP-600 design, in'your 5.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
,p '
1 i:,
h 6/
" innovative approaches, do you intend.to do any experimental-
- 7.
. testing?
l, 8.
MR. GALIAGNER:- Yes.
In fact, we have initiated'some-9
- preliminary laboratory testing of the containment'because, with
(
10~
,tho' natural circulation requirements for remov'ng the decay-i 4
l 11 heat in the long term,. and with the design, we' feel we will-
~
12 need to have testing of that concept.
p 13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It'looks to'me like you'are. going to r.
.p 1
.14 Jhave to test more'than'just the containment, though.
'.15 -
'MR. GALLAGHER:
Yes.
At the prese.nt' time we have been involved with DOE and EPRI in this.-design for.now.about 14
-16
-n 17-months, so that getting the, design concepts worked'out, we 18' looked at various alternatives, and then that' leads to.the x
19 requirements for the testing program.
t 2 0 --
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, when you. submit this designito-L 1
21 the staff for their review and certification, I would hope you 22
'have as much testing and experimental-facts as possible, rather 23, than-just asking them to certify this based solely on your-24.
analysis.
25 MR. GALLAGHER:
Right, exactly.
e
[ ',,
/
4 0
.\\
Il
,c 35 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Let's proceed.
2 (Slide.]
3 MR. GALLAGHER:
This slide combines the certification 4
process for the SP-90 with the AP-600, and the current intent 5
would'be to submit the AP-600 in the first quarter of 1990.for 6
the FDA submittal process leading to design certification.
7 Currently, as I mentioned, we are 14 months into the 8
design of the AP-600 and that will ev'olve through 1988 and 9
1989.
10 I
might add that in discussing this particular 11 design with various members of the industry and utilities, they 12 are very excited about the concepts that we have come up with 13 in terms of the simplification, the man / machine interfaces, the
~
14 addressment of maintenance and operational radiation exposure, 15
. issues.
16 So, there is a lot of good thought that is going into 17 this particular design.
18 I would like to now turn it back to Mr. Moore.
19
[ Slide.]
20 VISION OF THE FUTURE:
21 HR. MOORE:
Just in summary, I :hink you have seen 22' two designs which we are working on for the future.
We are 23 very excitc3 abou*. them.
We think that they represent a 24 reasonable evolutionary improvement based on our operating Q 25 experience.
__L-
i 36-1~
Kn-awful' lot of direct' operating experience'has gone
(~.,
2 into the designs, and I think you can see that from the 3.
transition from the SP-90 to the AP-600 just in terms of 4
additional continued simplification, in terms of the overall 5
operations.
6 So,.We are very serious about moving forward in'both 7
of these designs and we believe that the design certification 8
is very much necessary for that process.
So, we support your 9
activities wholeheartedly and just note that we really need to 10 define the rules and the regulations on how we are going to 11 implement that policy, so we are all sure that we are going to 12' b's in compliance and working,on the same'page.
13 It is important that as we proceed with this that
(
14 your resources are available, working with us, to go.through 15 these review: processes.
16 These are not paper reactors per se.
There is a lot 17-of operating history behind them, plus testing experience.
- And, 18 we have learned that from the Japanese very well, th'at you have 19 to do a lot of up front testing.
20 In comment to Commissioner Bernthal's comment, I did 21 vant to clarify, I believe that we have been responsive to the j
i 22 concerns of making sure that we have sufficiently defined this i
23 plant in sufficient depth and scope to make sure that what is 24
- being certified is something we can all go ahead and build with l
(j 25 some assurance that it is going to meet all the regulations.
0
___-_-__._---o..
.n_,..
w 37 1
In that-regard, I believe that we are not bracketing
!~
lh 2,
what you-heard yesterday and today.
I think our SP-90 goes 3
further than what you heard yesterday, because we have embraced 4
a much larger part of the plant.
And, of course, our AP-600 is i
5 the. total plant.
i 6
So,it think that represents a movement in the'right 7-direction for all of us.
8 That concludes, really, our formal presentation.
If 9
you have any other questions, we would be glad to answer them.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: 'Thank you.very much.
We appreciate 11 it.
1 12 Questions from my fellow commissioners? ' Commissioner 13 Bernthal.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
The PRA that you referred to 15 earlier, is that on the 600 or was that the 1,300?
16 MR. GALLAGHER:
The 1,300.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Do you have estimates on the
'18 600?
19 MR. VANDEVENE:
Yes.
We have done some preliminary 20 PRA and the initial values are similar to the SP-90 for the 12 1 core melt frequency, but probably less for reduced release 22 frequency because of the palesive containment cooling.
23 MR. MOORE:
Which gives you higher pressures really 24 at times.
(_)25 MR. VANDEVENE:
Well, you are not really depending on
c 38 1
any active systems for the containment cooling,' so that'even if (m,
2 you do have a core melt frequency, you have still got the c
3-passive cooling backup.for the containment..
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:'
I am not sure I understand 5-that.
If you melt the core --
6 MR. VANDEVENE:
In the SP-90, many of the -- or the 7'
core melt frequency contribution tnat results from loss of all 8
AC will ultimately also. lead to containment failure,,because 9
with loss of all AC you miss both your core safeguards and your 10 containment safeguards.
11 In the smaller plant, core melt frequency can occur 12 if, for instance, certain valves donit open.
But you still 13 have your containment cooling as a backup.
So, the severe
(
14 release frequency will still be reduced, will be better.
15 COMMISSIONER BENNTHAL:
But in the containment 16-mitigation systems, you do take credit in any large dry 17 containment,for the sprays and whatnot.
18 MR. VANDEVENE:
Right.
)
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
As a mitigating feature.
And I
20 why would the --
l l
21 MR. MOORE:
Those are active systems.
l l
22 MR. VANDEVENE:
Those are active systems.
If you j
23 have loss of all AC which leads to core melt, you would also --
L.
24 inevitably, if the loss of all XC lasts long enough, it leads
( ) 25 to containment failure.
i L
- i. -
1 l1 4
I_____u-.-____
A
7 h?
39-1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:- I see.
So, it is the
.'S i
(()
2 difference in the PRA for the active versus passive-systems,
'. 3 you are saying, that leads to the improved release frequencies..
4-MR. VANDEVENE:
Right.
5
'MR. MOORE:
Yes.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:- Okay.
Not to beat the' horse 7
.too long here, PRA is not the holy grail,.but I wanted to ask' 8
one more question on the PRA that you have calculated here.
, 9
.You stressed that it is for' internal' events.. I 10-assume then that does not include loss of off-site power or 11 station blackout, which has been one of the dominant 12-contributors.
(.-
13 MR. VANDEVENE:
It includes that.
, 14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
It does include station 15 blackout?
16 MR. GALLAGHER:
Yes.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
Thea let me ask the 18 question:
What are the remaining dominant contributors?
q I
19 MR. VANDEVENE:
Probably seismic, which is not
{
20 included.
)
L' 21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That is not surprising.
22-I want to go back to the design certification process i
23 here, because you have raised an issue that I thought was the 24 issue that was of some debate on the part of the commission, l
(
25 but it appears to have been couched in slightly different terms j
I i
--_-__---_--___.--_r~
.O 1
1 1
]
e 40
]
1?
in your presentation.,'And'I am-referring'to the distinction
]
[
'2 you make between rulemaking and a' license.
p.
3' I have known Mr. Moore for a long time.and he is a-q 1
'.4.
man.of candor, and so I would hope.you speak very clearly here.
5 But my understanding.was that the concern or the question may q
- 6 have'been more.one of whether one'should'go through full l
7'
- adjudicatory proceedings prior to issuing a designL
.g 18 certification, formal adjudication.
9 As'much as we all might regret the overlegalization 10 of.the process here over the last.20 years, it is.what.we live' 11' with now.
And'in this particular instance,.I have to say.that 12 I always viewed'goin'g.througn that process as being essential
'13
.for'the protection'of everybody involved, a la. Clinch River if 14 you will, that you finally have argued in an'open forum, in an advers' rial process, the technical merits of the case and those 15 a
16 who. object have to make their case based on the technical 17 merits.
18 Now, you are making a distinction that, I take it, l's 19 not one of. full adjudicatory proceedings.
Correct me if I am 20 wrong.
Instead, you are focusing on rulemaking versus a 21 licensing procedure.
Explain to me all.the advantages and disadvantages.
22 23 MR. MOORE:
Well, it is not the adjudicatory part of 24 it per se, wh'at you get with the licensing procedure, either y
25
way.
l m
__.m.
.,-..,.,.m
- r
- 1 -
l.
g, g.a 3,
~
m% L 1
y k < p:d up, r y F
.n 1,, ' h !-I.[
2%
O 'l i
j
- w1
- 3 ;^,
uf 41' 4o 7e
'i.
k1 I' ! O
- ' ' ly LNow,
- the issue'is'that!the' prescription,cthe'.
a 5
- 2L
- procedures,ithecrulesifor'aLl license.'.are.very clearLand. defined; N ' ;#
L 3 :-
and.you-get-a license'for a. specific design and it.would be;our! 4
- p 4
14:'
license.~
p%
"5!
The rules for a rulemaking/are not?quite so clear and:
y
!ii:-
((
'6' irulemakings traditionallyLh?.ve beenLdeveloped for. analyses,~for.
a c
p 7-fcooling,lfor example,.and the limitationsoon-:a ruleLare not W
8:
clearLin the. sense of ho'w can'they be. changed,fcania rule be
?
?
,y, 9.
changed byTfiat from the NRC.
i" e
A license'cannot'be.-changed that way..
You nave:to go?
10 u
.11'
'through'a.difforent;'more complicated process.
4 y
(
.12'-
So,.a? lot of it just depends,on our feeling;and-sensei
~
s; f
of certainty.about. wha't we have at the'end.of that process:and~
13
~
A;
- 14 ' '
. the ability to. use -it. and apply it, that we, feel, based ; on) just 15l what our experiences are, that there may be'a preference to~go-i L16 toward the license.
s 17 An'd that is the route we chose with the floating 18 nuclear. plant,.and we weht down that route,'went through the
~
19 whole~ process with the hearing and all, to get a' manufacturing' p
l' 20.
~1icense, which then we had.and owned.
. 21 -
There is an iss'ue that is still open with respect to
. (
22 proprietary information and how that is handled between a 7,
.23' rulemaking and a license. - And the rules'are clear, acceptable o'
24
'I: think,' and' undlerstood between the NRC and the applicant -- in
- s25' this case, it would be us -- as to how.you take care of De
,-__-__-_-__x_-
7 42
[
l' propriet'ary' information.
~
. e.,.
(
2 So, that is really where our sense is coming in of v
3 making a ' distinction, ar.d there might be a case where somebody 4
for a particular case would~rather just go with a rulemaking, 5
but we see a lot of advantages to having a good, solid license 6
process..
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTMAL:
But you would agree in either 8
case with the formal settling of the litigation in advance as a 9
. highly desirable feature?
l 10 MR. MOORE:
Absolutely, no question.
And'it is just 11 what happens after that is where we have got the concern.
12
.COMMISS10NER BERNTHAL:
Would the-General Counsel 13 care to comment on rulemaking versus licensing?
We have heard
.(-
14 an analysis here of advantages and disadvantages, j
15 MR. PARLER:
Well, you are hitting the General 16 Counsel' cold wi'th this, but the General Counsel will comment.
17 The distinctions between the rulemaking and the 18 license that are talked about here, there may be factors.
The 19 importance of certain factors being dealt with in one better 20 than the other, quite frankly, escape me at this time.
21 It seems to me that if, for example, there is a need 22 to protect proprietary information under one approach, we could 23 also do it under the other.
24 But certainly as long as there is the belie'f tha't one
(_) 25 perhaps may be better for a particular situation than the 4 -
fu
43 1-other, I don't think either should be precluded, at least j
2' without careful thought.
I certainly am not at this point able 3
to say that either option should be precluded.
4 To me, that -- that is, rulemaking versus licensing -
5
- is the easier of the two questions.
6 I thought the question that you were going to get to 7
was whether in either you had to have adjudications across the 8
board.
9 I would strongly recommend that adjudications, as we 10 have known them over the past 25 or 30 years, not be 11 perpetuated for the future.
12 If a particular issue has to be yanked out and 13 adjudicated, do so, whether it is in a licensing proceeding or 14 in a rulemaking proceeding.
But these torturous neverending 15 processes are not at all compatible with what the overall 16 objectives are.
So, we should certainly, at least, as far as 17 the process is concerned, learn that lesson.
18' This agency has had the benefit in the past of a 19 number of Supreme Court decisions.
One referred to at least by 20 the lawyers is the Vermont-Yankee Decision.
The Supreme Court 21 of the United States told us by majority of that decision that 22 we could use informal rulemaking proceedings to make policy and 23 to resolve issues.
24 So, you have that available to the process.
You have
(_j 25 the legislative type hearings available to,the process.
You d
.,_..e.-m_.-.__ms.-
~
- - - - ~ ' " ' - ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' - ~ ~ ~
~
^
4 i'
c a
44 1
have the hybrid approach that was introduced in one of the
.(,4['
2 sections in the High Level Waste. Policy Act, and you have the 3
adjudications to resolve things where there are factual 4
disputes.
5 What should not be continued -- and.I repeat this --
6 is the neverending adjudicatory process that we have 7
experienced in certain instances over the last 10 or 20 years.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You have my sympathy, but I' s
always thought that it was your shop -- not yours personally, 10' but the legal shop here -- that argued'that while th'e law 11 permitted us to do otherwise, that 25 years of precedent, 12 particularly on something as important as design certification, 13 would not permit us anymore to go down that road.
T l
14 MR. PARLER:
There are some places where you have new l
15 departures, and the reason why I went through this rather,long 16 respense is that this would be an' area, a point for a new departure.
l 18 So, 25 years of precedent under the two step li 19 operating license process, fine.
But obviously, if that is L
20 going to -- it is obvious to me -- if that were continued for 1
21 the future, that wouldn't work.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
No, I am not talking about 23 two step operating license.
I am talking about departing from p
24 the formal adjudicatory format, as opposed to going to a
( ~
(,j 25 legislative format, a single step legislative format.
l-
"~~
F:
io 45 l'
MR. PARLER:
What I am trying to say -- let me just
~()
2 put it in plain English -- it would be a new ball game, co'you 3
wouldn't have to worry, it seems to me, about departing from 4
the process of the past.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
If we went to one step 6
licensing, you are saying?
7 MR. PARLER:
If we tried to come up with a process 8
that made a little bit more sense, that was more predictable.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
And therefore, probably the 10 best precedent that one always cites for what you normally 11 would seek to attain in a design certification, Clinch' River, 12 the Clinch River precedent, you would say even that need not 13 necessarily be the pattern to be followed here?
14 MR. PARLER:
That is true'.
Of course, Clinch River, 15 as you probably know better than I, there wasn't too much i
16 choice there because part of the legislation or the 17 demonstration objectives was to demonstrate that it would be 18 licensable, presumably under the process that other commercial 19 plants had followed at that time.
20 Along with the gentleman who was talking to you here 21 about the designs, I think that there is the opportunity also 22 to reflect upon the process, and I gather that is one of the 23 messages that we are receiving.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
I want to ask one more
'(,
25 question, and then I will defer, at least, any others.
l
46 1
Getting back to that tank of water.that is inside
(
2 containment, has there been any thought given, despite whatever 3
passive systems you may have, to utilizing that -- I don't even 4
know what sequence might lead to its availability -- but has 5'
any thought been given to utilization of that tank of water as 6
a mitigating device, mitigation device in the event of a core 7
. melt accident?
L 8
Now, whether or not there is any water left to be 9
ured in a given sequence, I suppose is a sepa; te question.
10 And as part of that, what I am getting to is the nice feature 11 of having lots of water as a scrubbing device.
12 And then I have got a follow-on question, which you 13 can about guess.
But let's answer the first one maybe to begin 14 with.
15 MR. VANDEVENE:
Yes, we have considered,the tank to 16 be dumped in the case of emergency below the reactor vessel, so 17 that you.would always maintain core cooling, and we have 18 somewhat struggled with a passive way of achieving that 19 without, you know, inadvertently flooding the vessel while it 20 is in a hot condition.
21 So, I would think that is still something that we are 22 looking at, and that certainly is a potential because, as you 23 say, the water is there, it is located generally above the core 24 and above the reactor vessel.
So that if you could come up
(_
25
- with some kind of simple and relatively foolproof way of
_.__.__.__._____m__._
- - - - - = - - - -
- - - - - - - = - -* * * ' ' " -
"* * * ~ " " ' " " * * " ~ " " " ~ " ' ' * ' " * * ~ ~ ~
47
- 1 diverting;that water to the. reactor' cavity, it.would certainly
(...... '
2 be a tremendous benefit in case of a core melt, if it could be 3-done passively, I think.
4
_ COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Now, if you located that tank 5
outside the containment or perhaps in a reinforced structure 6
extension of r.ontainment, then one gets to the question of 1
7 mitigation in the case of the worst case of containment
-8 failure, an hour or two venting situation.
9 Have you looked at the question of filtered venting 10 in the sense that many European countries are now exploring, I
11 that issue, when all else fails, limiting in principle the 12 emission to a' tenth of a percent of inventory?
13 MR. GALLAGHER:
i
. Yes, we have looked at that from a 14 PRA analysis point of view.
We don't see much benefit.
And I l
15 think from my discussions with Europeans and some of the things l
16 in the press, I think their calculations confirm some of the 1
17 calculations that we have done, and they are doing it for other 18 reasons.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So, what is the controlling 20 factor?
The point is, the claim is that you achieve a factor 21 of 10.
As you know better than I do, you drop the maximum 22 possible emission in the event of a containment failure or
- 23 impending containment failure by a factor of 10, perhaps, from 24 a few percent to a few tenths of a percent, a tenth of a
(_,
25 percent in the case of the latest Swedish design.
L
_____._-__-_L.
- - " = ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
" ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' " * " * " " ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' "
48 1
If you do a cost / benefit on that, why is itithat in 2
your judgment'this fails the cost / benefit test?
3 MR. GALLAGHER:
Well, as I mentioned, from the 4
analysis that we have done with regard to our PRA techniques, 5.
the benefits of adding the filtered containment just don't seem 6
to substantiate themselves in terms of a cost / benefit analysis
'7 vis-a-vis the decrease that you get in terms of core damage 8
frequency.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, core damage frequency 10 is not'the' issue, though.
11~
MR. GALLAGHER:
Well, in terms of core damage leading 12 to'the severe accident releases from the containment.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But why do you say that it is 14 not reasonable to expect that that scrubbing, that tank of 15 water, if you will, to vent through that tank of water, why is 16 it not reasonable then that that would reduce the upper -- it 17 would reduce the limit for a large release by a factor of 10, 18' is that what you are saying?
Or are you just saying that of
. 19 the accident sequences you have studied, the possibility of 20 that being needed and available and functioning in that o21 capacity is remotely small?
22 MR. GALLAGHER:
Exactly, that is right.
23 MR. MOORE:
Because.you are out on the tail of the 24 curve.
It would be a factor of 10, but you are way out.
f.(,/ 25
.MR. GALLAGHER:
That is right.
.i_.________.___.... - - - - - -
~~'
'"~"'
" * ~ ' " ' ' ~ " ' -
wy-j g.
y F'4
'['
j y
.d,
?
,pg 4 s_4
'49 0 1
. a -.
=q; 3;'
,y COMMISSIONER' BERNTHAL:
Do.you have an' estimate,'a.-
~
.,,i numerihal"estiinatei forI-- if yourl.large release,elet'.sf say, is..
i1 i
2
- y, i
311
'a' fact'orJof 10)less than the. severe core damage frequency,.
a perhapst.10.to'the minus!7,ias~yous.say,Lwhere~are we,lthen,'.if ~
2 '
~
L41 4
w, 7we addIthat mitigatingJfeature??
I M
5L
[6'
/Arehoutalking'abouttherealmofc10totheminus.'8 y
7.<
can'd thereforetit'isnot worthwhile?.'IOr whatlis the number?-
' 8:
CHAIRMAN:.ZECH: -Would'ybu identify?yourself;forlthe-
~
wr
'9 :
reporter, please?;
7
,.10 -
- MR'. ILIPARULO:" Okay..
-My.nameLis NickcLiparulo. 1Itam' y*o,
~ 11" twith Westin'ghouse Electric.
31'2-JWeLhaven't done.a specific analysis.toLquantify Ehe!
x q.
.. Lexact'value thatLthe decrease'.'in release'would be. ~,But'what we 13L
- b.c
.14; ido know is.that we;are in the tail and-of'the; curve. "Our l
'15 ' ~
- release frequency is very low and getting to the' point where nr-16 things'like.seismicJevents.willibegin to dominate.
And'whether
.17L
.you have.afcontai'nment. vent or not at.that point becomes, you
.18 know, an int'aresting: study, but in' terms of the cost / benefit, 19.
not very'. beneficial.
2 0.-
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, I appreciatethe 21L
' commentary.
Ijthink that'is-a commentary that needs.to be put-L 22-into the public arena'when you are prepared to supportzit with 23 analysis'an'd numbers, because it is already in the public 4-3
- 24 arena, as you know.
- y y 25 I am going to let somebody else ask some questions 4
e 1
(
(
,i
m m. ----
Q 50 1
before I go on.
(~)
(-
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Commissioner Carr.
3 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Yes.
Let me follow up on that.
4 I noticed it says here canned motor pumps are the 5
type used in the Westinghouse Shippingport Plant.
Are they the exact type?
6 7
MR. VANDEVENE:
Yes, the same model number.
i 8
COMMISSIONER CARR:
Well, are you still manufacturing -
)
i 4
9 those pumps?
l l
10 MR. VANDEVENE:
Oh, yes.
i l
11 MR. MOORE:
We still manufacture canned motor pumps.
l 12 COMMISSIONER CARR:. Yes, I know that.
13 h. MOORE:
And in large sizes for the Navy.
14 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Yo,u are going to take two off the 15 production line?-
'16 MR. MOORE:
No.
17 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Well, that is my point.
Are you 18 sizing them up, are you sizing them.down?
19 MR. VIJUK:
Ron Vijuk, from, Westinghouse.
20 The Shippingport is a Model 8006 reactor coolant 21 pump, and that is an intermediate size in the-size range of l
22 canned motor pumps that Westinghouse has built.
23 The specific numbers on the pump we would apply in 24 this design is a slightly upgraded horsepower but below the j
(_j 25 largest pump we have made.
So, it is within the range we have l
=- -..
- 7..
3'-.
g 4
j
'.,(
Ipm 1::
w.
y
,3g y,y
- 51..
c I*,,,
0' r.
l[
1 l*
T1 Lmade'butL'slightly. different than'Shippi'ngport.'
'21
.COMMISSIONERECARR:'Lokay.
Would:somebody.' walk'me
-n
- 3) othrough:this?. (As I. read your 600,)the' ultimate heat sinkiis
-4 tho' atmosphere..- H'ow'about walkingme through thatLcooling
-5~
' system?
~
\\;
3 :.6 tit'says'you are. going'to spray water on'the\\outside
'f
./-
.7'-
and then~ transfer to' air, and I don'tL--:from'yourJsketch, I'
s
..s i8L can't seeth'at.
y g 9
'IsLthat a steel liner.you are. talking labout?,Are you' q
10"
- going)to have the: radiator fins on the'outside?.'Arelyoul going i
+
L il. -
to makeIit morelefficient?
' 12-MR.;VIJUK:
Itiisf.a steel ~cyl'indricalLvessel, an. inch 13 and three/ quarter-inch diameter steel! vessel.inside the 7
14 concrete shield building, and the, annular space between-the
'15
- shield building 1and the containment vessel provide the' air
~
16
- ducting.
There is a.v'ent on-the top of the shield ~-building to:
4
?
. i.:
-17
' allow the air lto escape.
1 18 Now, this is in cartoon form, I would call it, but.in L19 the roof of;the shield building is designed a 350,000 gallon
-20, water tank.
That water tank will provide -- there will be 21:
pipes'provided from'the water. tank-to distribute water onto the 22.
conta'inment-shield.
23-
~ COMMISSIONER CARR:
Okay.
So', there is some' tank up W
24=
th'ere.that will initially floo'd'the outside of the shield?
- g. 25 MR. VIJUK:
That is right.
And that will be like a 7
q 3
?
l 2
g b.
-)
1 n,
m..
, - <, g,,
m; f?
7
'=
Q k:).
7
.. y
,i
'1' Mi y
1 f
3,;,
pL g
52'
-1t 411 tliree jday supply of watier..
. 121 COMMISSIONER:CARR::- Now,.areLyou going!to.have any-u W
31 0Dforced' air co~oling, or is'it just natural, convection?
.1 1
44-
'MR.~VIJUK: 'Just rmtural convection. !And thak is=
- q 5"
- sufficient to!take-care of decay heat.; With the waterfsupplyL
,_eW
- 6L
- we have.now,.it-willttake: decay heat out'to:the threeldhy-m t
I7.
peNiod. - Fromftbat-pointion','the air cooling alone will:
A m
[8l maintain thefcoht'ainment integrity..
l
,.9 COMMISSIONER CARR:: Okay.. Thank youk-
'i
.d L10 CHAIRMAN <ZECH:. Is-that regardless of.the'outside' ci
- 11' temperature?
4 j,
te 124 MR.'VIJUK:
Yes.
Our design calculdtioris,were do'ne -
g t,
at.like.110 degree.outside, or-100. degree outsidestemperature.-
- 13'
[
- 14.
COMMISSIONER.CARR:Everywhere but' Arizona.
515
.[ Laughter.)
' 16 '.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:' All right.
Commiss'ioner Carr, 17 anything alsa?.
18' COMMISSIONER CARR: :No.
19-
' CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commission'er' Rogers.~
l 20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
What i's-your estimated. lifetime 21 ':
on these plants?
What:is your design lifetime?
224 MR..'GALIAGHER:
On theLAP-600, we are meeting the 23 EPRI Requirements' Document number of 60l years.
.24' MR. VANDEVENE:
On the RESAR SP-90, the design life
.'25' currently is 40 years.
But the vessel has been evaluated to be_
h- {
s't..
a n
- f
' % 3 g.
~
- e e
u.
- Ay: 7.gy A
' i m,,..
nw - q.i.
53-pqM
.g
^
,, N.f 1(
all'.right!forl60jyears.. And) generally, all components *'are C
4 a
- i.,.
- f. M 2.
"designedLto be" replaceable.
g
~y
'3 '
' CHAIRMAN'ZECH: 'Anything~else,;; Commissioner Rogers?
A
, 4..
. COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
-No.
No, thank you.
~
/i > >
...*4
- 5 CHAIRMAN ZECH
We mentioned'mainten'ance earlier a f
16
! 11ttle bitiand; surveillance.'?You are proposing to build two p
+
1 74 inewfplants; I hope that you willlgivelsome thought to f
'8 designing in the ability to maintain lthese planto 3nd conduct c
l surveillance.
- 9.
g,,
. v.
' 10'.
.Have.you given any specific-thought to.that?: !I thinkl 11I there !is: mucht room for improvement Lin that, e and -I: hop'e <thatL any
'12 >
new. design would1take thSse factors into consideration.
f H.4
- 13 JMR. GALLAGHER:
Yes.--
As I mentioned, part.of the a.
14 design objective'of the occupational radiation. dose of 100 man-r "O
c15;'
. rem'p'er. year,.in order to achieve that we have had to look at 16
- the'layouti and improve'the. layout.
And.one of the things that
,i
'.17 we have'd.one'with regard to the layout is h' ave access-a
.18
' preparation zones.
19 We-have improved the shielding and the' separation, i
20 which.also' improve.the. ability-to maintain the equipment.
i
. 21 :
So, all.those features have been incorporated into
]
1
.i-22 the SP-90. design.
j
-i
'23 MR. MOORE:
We also are very interested in diagnostics, on-line diagnosti*cs as a way to also improve your h_ 24 maintenance,-so you maintain things when you need to, not when.
25
\\ -.
+
[
W 1
t t ~:! O o.
.._._._.._.....w.
.; = ;.
q l
e fc:4 54 l
you don't need.to, and you maintain them before they get into a
('
2
' failure mode.
3 I have a personal-bias that the next plant that is 4
' ordered in the United States, nuclear plant, will be ordered by 5
the people who run these plants, not.by the engineering 6
departments, not by the head office..It is going to be the 7
people'who have the operating experience.
And we are very 8
cognizant'of that and I think the designs are going to reflect 9
that, because I think those are going to be the buying l
~ 10 decisions.
11 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Well, in your AP-600, though,:one 12 of the points you made was 40 percent less building volume,
'I 13 which doesn't check with more maintenance availability room.
I y
i.
14 MR. MOORE:
Fewer things to maintain, so you don't 15 have the volume to put all the equipment in, 60 percent fewer 16 valves and piping.
17 COMMISSIONER CARR:
And 40 percent less room to 18 maintain them in.
4 19 MR. MOORE:
But as we said, that is what we are 20 looking at to make sure we have the shielding and the lay-down 21 space and the access.
4 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
How about surveillance testing at j
23 power, which we have done so much of here over the past years?
24 Have you thought about that?
And how'do you view that in your s
V 25 new designs?
)
w.,
'[
l
,m, 5 51
~1 -
MR.- CAIiAGHER:
In the APWR'SP-90'as ' ell as the.AP-w
'2-600, Incorporated in:will be our integrated' protection and q
'3:
integrated control systems, which'are of_ microprocessor design 4'
such that you have self testing _of thel design and(instantaneous' 5
readout.
And it has reduced the' surveillance testing, when you b.
'61
-have a monitor'in the trip mode, from maybe 20 minutes.or a L7.
half hour or longer to less than 5, minutes.-
8 So that.those' kind of features are' incorporated'into 9
the design. /And-also, we have those type of systems availacle l
10-for existing plants.
l l
11 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Are you bringing' Japanese 12-ma'intenance practices into oura, or are we goiniJ into theirs?
13 MR. GALLAGHER:
I don't:Know if I can_ answer your 14 question directly,:but_we have had a'very fruitful process-15 working with the Japanese and their thinking and our thinking,.
I 16-and it has been a very beneficial'proces.s for both parties.
I q
R 17 think both parties have learned from-each-other.
y l
18 There were initially.some_ concerns because of the two
.i i
19 different cultures and the fact that this was the first major I
20 program, that~we had such a close tie,.but now that we have l
21-
.been into it'for almost five years, it has been a very, very l
-22.
successful program not only from the technical point of view l
i but from an underst'nding of the cultures and being able to 23 a
i I
24-communicate between the two to learn their practices and how a
7D 25 th,ey do things and how they evaluate things, and them learning 1
4 1
x
=
-__a-_-
- - -.. \\
1 56' 1.
from us.
2'.
Soi it has been a.very, very fruitful. process.
.3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAh:~
I think the Chairman, I 4
suspect,~also was interested in more-than the control'. system surveillance.J.How'much are you wiring the plant for component i.
1 jm 6
surveillance, preventive maintenance; surveillance?
7' MR. MOORE:
That goes back to my diagnostics, where 8
we get signals that.we will-do continuous analysis-on that you, 9
'can monitor to see whether.you hav'e any kind of dev1.stion, so
~
10L that it will.give you an anticipation of degradedfperformance.
4
.11 You'can do'this, the microprocessor ~is' avail'ableLnow.
.12-It'will'give'you.a' tremendous abllity to. deal with' imp
- roved 13 sensors and the treatment of that data right.at the component, 1
]
14
right at the reactor coolant pump.
And~that will be factored-
'15 in.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, I would hope that with your a
17
. coming forth with two new designs that you would look very,
~
i 18-very hard at how we can better maintain these plants and how we 19' can better conduct surveillance, rather than just in a
'20 superficial sort of way.
21 This is an opportunity with the new design.
How can 22-we better maintain these plants?
And diagnostics is one way, 23 but I.would' hope that you'could take a real good look at how we j
l
. 24.
can better maintain these plants, not just space and ip 25 accessibility, but look at the major equipments themselves and
-=
g
. ;~ ~
- ~ <
~ ~ - ~ -
~ ~ ~ ~
~~-
~~
u,
r 7
N {.i :
b? Y0 [_1;:
Y I Iui:
A;n 4q
,.1 1
.o t
4 >
~-
@s...
oJ
- 571
,m i
, g 6 {j
~*
il-
.see how we'can better maintain these" plants.
..e
/
M; 2!
We'are not doing as good'asjob, in"myfjudgmentifover 1u m.g'
?) ~
- We have not focused' on >it as much' as: we should J
,~
the years.-.
13i p,
m 24 have. --
7 s
i 5
'Here is:a chance to do it'in a new. design..
L 7
"6L
..MR..GALLAGHER:. That is right.-
=
7-
- CHAIRMAN ZECH:..AndJalsoLin surveillance,;we conduct w
s y
L8 surveillance'and, testing;at power.and. Lit"causes problems.:.
9' So,'I think.with the new design,'it:is'an opportunity H
$10 to.; build this.~into theldesign.' 'ThatLis my' point.
~
c
).
Q.
l11L
~'MRO GALLAGHER:'.I-would agree.:
12?
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Doyouh' ave'anarchitect/ engineer
.I I.'
113 -.L
- that you consider.'a. partner'in'this process?
or are'.you k:.m
\\
14l
-looking. atjtheJapanese'asyourarchitect/ engineer-partner?
n L15 Have you thought of'that?
3 q
16 MR. GALLAGHER:
In the AP-600, we are working;with
'17'
' Burns &' Roe as well as Avondale Shipyards in that' proc ess.-
18-In the SP-90, it is with the Japanese.:
19-CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Other questions?
'20-COMMISSIONER ROGERS:. Just one'other area.
- 21 CHAIRMAN ZECH
Yes, Commissioner. Rogers.
'22-COMMISSIONER' ROGERS:
Have you'done anything about' 23 fuel handling that'is different, an aspects of fuel haridling 24.
and fuel-lifetime and things of this s' ort that are involved y
y..25
. here?
l s
,k I
i.} I f.
l ' C *2' y,
g 1_n
- -.____-__~m
-==*e-
+
m
" P " # "
fund
. eg: g~,
r? ',,,
,@[
/
r Y
58-
,g 3
1 Ag 9 MR. VANDEVENE:..Well,;the.fuelLdesign is'for the-
.,n
'T - -
',4
. g; i] J.w u
- 2, ftypicalthigh. burn-upsithat are being - '45,000,magawatt days-n,.%,
j 1
A 6
f3; Yp'erimetric(ton ~or so.
'4
. In' terms l'of fuel handling, the cystem is designed to
.o E,
!5[
' allowblifTnecessary, fully automatedlrefueling'without any
'6}
- operators.
That.is;the; capability'of theisystem,"although at.'
1 17L this.poibit"in[ time,the radiation exposure that;comes.from thei
, ; 8.'
! fuel hhndling.itself is rather low,'so-I don't think the?firstU f
s 1
pla'nts would/ operate"in that. mode..:But-the; capability-is there; e
g-.,.
k-10' to;have'aiwork station that is outside containmentDand
' l <11; essentially load?andHunload fuel'.totallyaremotely without'any.
p
- 12-operators'being'present.. Althoagh, like I said', for the! firstl L13. '
~ plants we' don't' foresee that_that would, in fact, ocdur, butL g
7
- 14 the capability:is there.
s15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
How many commissioners will T
716' it take to run one of your.AP-600 plants, the control' room?
i
- 17'
[ Laughter.]
.. l 18 MR. VANDEVENE:
I think the control. room staffing is 19 probably the same as' it would be: todr.y.
I really. don't foresee a
20
.that the control room staffing would change as a result of the; l
21-
~ specific.' design.
g
[
' 2 2.
I think you'will'need less maintenance people because l
.23
- you have less equipment.
I mean, out in the plant.
.24.
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Now, yesterday we heard that,
&lh 25 in principle -- it is like the 757, you end up arguing over how
~
.w
- -*]*
4
~
m
4
's k
L' c 1-many; people you have got'to,have in the control room, whether-pN.
, y} T 2' you.need:them or not,. I. guess.
But yesterday'we. heard, in a.
3 principle,'that much like the Canadian-Can'du Plant,jthe new L
1 4
design would require one person'to bring-the plantzup to full 5
power.
a p
6 LWhether you want to do that in the end'isca separate i
7
- question.
8
-)CR. VANDEVENE:
Yes, I'think those are different
'9 issues.
I think one operator -
these plants are, to a degree, 10 more automated-than current plants.,So, I think one operator--
11'
' COMMISSIONER.BERNTHAL:
I would hope so.
12 MR. VANDEVENE:. Load follow is a totally automatic
.Q-13 operation,lfor instance.
Frequency control is. totally 14 automatic.
But actually, the operator is just there for '
15 supervision.
16.
But I have a hard time seeing that you would get away 17 without a supervisor and a couplefof operators just for i-18
- redundancy.
19 MR. MOORE:
In terms of hands on, actually running H2 0 -
it, yes, they will have less to.do.
21
' COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes.
But I would hope that 1
22
.you are adopting the philosophy that -- well, I know you are,.
23:
in fact -- with a substantially advanced control room c3Sc' 24 that leaves far less for human beings to try to do.
7
(_j 25 MR. VANDEVENE:
Yes, exactly.
i
-f l
h
~
' ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~r ~
~~
~
, i' +
s.
60.
1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:- I-want to step for*a moment
.[,.,.
j ['
2
.outside our area of concern'and responsibility, but as'a matter
- 3 Lof curiosity.
Do you feel that you have a hard cost per 4
' installed kilowatt estimate on either of these plants yet?
5 MR.-GALLAGHER:
As I' mentioned in my presentation,.
6 Commissioner Bernthal, our design objective for the SP-90 in' 7
Japan was to get a 15 percent reduction in the capital cost
~
8
'over thel latest four loop plant,.3425,'in Japan, Tsuruga 2.
-9 In. terms'of. dollars per kilowatt on. overnight costs,
' 10 -
we were shooting for a goal of probably about'$1,350 per l
11 kilowatt..
12 COMMISSIONER'BERNTHAL:
I see.
'l 113 MR.' MOORE:
And we think we got that.
- 3. -
.y 14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
For both plants?
15 MR. MOORE:
No.
That is for the SP-90.
16 MR. GALLAGHER:
With regard'to the AP-600, we will be 17 initiating our first capital cost evaluations,. I think, in the 18 spring of this year.
19' MR.- MOORE:
It is too early.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Do you expect.it to be better i
21 or worse or comparable?
Lower or higher or comparable, I L
22 should say.
23 MR. GALLAGHER:
Our objective.is to be lower in terms 24-of overnight costs.
But recognizing that this is a two loop
. V
,2 5 plant, which' traditionally has a little bit higher capital 1
t
_ _ _ _. __ZI
,_u.
,,, q
- c.,
- .w ;
. 'l,'
,. I f,
y }l s
V
.t m
n g '4, 61,
v,..
. l' s:: cost,"it(will'beLa' difficult objective-to ach'ieve.
But we v.
i
(
2.
' don't' know that 'at the) moment.
'3 But.with the reduction'in the valves'and the'
' ! f,'
o
'4 components,.we..are hoping.to' achieve 1that.
o N
.' 51 COMMISSIONER'BERNTHAL:' Well, $1,300f is not bad wheri 4
[Ep L6'
. compared-with.what:I'guessLis the world's. record of $5,800 or-if 7L something'like that.
i "i
'\\
a
.8
')GR. GALLAGHER:
To; clarify, that is the overnight-9.
- cost, without' interest and' escalation.
4 1
10
.MR. : MOORE:
Which add to it.
But,if.you'look'at;the i
-h.:
'll -
. Japanese schedulej-they.are talking'51 months, not. ten lye~ars,
- 12 and'if you.talkiabout;our AP-600, we are-talking about thres 13
. years construction.
So, your' interest during construction will
(!
.14 be much, much less also.
15'
-But to be consistent, we work.on an overnight costi
.16 so we don'tLget into. hat' interest issue.
J,L 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Are there any other questions from'my' j
g 18<
fellow. commissioners?
119
[No response.)
I n
20.
-Well, let me thank you all very much for a very' 1
- 2i interesting and informative briefing.
)
~ 22-
.As.you are aware, the' Commission and the Congress and
- q
- 23 many.others are very. interested in standardization, have been 24' for'a 1.ong time, especially as it enhances safety and 1.( jj 25 reliability.
t r
1 1
k'k i:
l i
s
~62 1
I think we are 'all' grateful for the -interest that
(
2 Westinghouse has shown in standardization and we certainly want 3
to support your efforts in this. regard..
4 I must emphasize, though, of course, our primary 5
obligation these days, our first priority is to focus on the 6
continued safe operation of the current operational plants.
7 Your schedule for design certification sounds like.
8
' certainly a reasonably aggressive one and one that will require 9
a close professional relationship with the NRC, and we want to 10 work with you on that.
11-I think you can recognize ~that we are working with
-12 others, too, and review of the standardization programs coming, 13 as it looks'like they are, all at once right now is giving us a
\\
14 sizcable task.
But I can assure you we have a comutitment to 15 standardization and we want to support your efforts as best we 16 can.
17 As I noted in my opening remarks, we are particularly 18 interested.in including the balance of p3 ant as much as we can.
19 We have discussed that here again today.
20 And I have mentioned several times, and I think 21 others have, toe, our interest in the maintenance and 22 surveillance programs as we build into a new dendgn.
23 So, I would encourage you to go. forward and work as 24 closely with our staff as you can and to keep the Commission l
25 informed.
I e
__g' g
g M'g 4'
/9'W
_x-_-._was
['
"~
i
-4 63 1
'And I think that I speak on: behalf of my fellow y
2 commissioners when I say we would be pleased to have you come
~
3 back and talk to us again in due course, perhaps in a number of 4
months, to inform us of your progress, and I think that would 5
give us thel confidence that we are supporting you as best we 6
can in your efforts towards standardization and that we are 7
. making some progress in that regard as we face what challenges, 8
as we know, we see ahead.
9 Standardization'has tremendous benefits and I believe 10 that moving in that direction is no question but the right way 11 to go.
12 So, I commend Westinghouse for your efforts and your-13 interest, and we look forward to working with you as you 14 continue to improve public health and safety and the 15~
operational safety of our nuclear power plants.
16 MR. MOORE:
Thank you very much.
We welcome the 17
' opportunity to come back and talk to you.
18
' CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Any other comments?
j 19 (No response.)
I 20 If not, we stand adjourned.
Thank you very much.
{
21
[Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m.,
the meeting was adjourned.)
22 23 i
24 l
i
\\ l'25 l
/
d l
5
__.--._.______m
.%m..,
..m ww.a_.,g.,,-
- 4 q re %pe-
~wh...-
.e=*
e
i j
s 4
!. ).
7 3
)
%s >,
L2
' REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE l3 3
- 4 This'is to certify that the attached events.of a 5
' meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:.
6
+
7 TITLE OF MEETING:- Briefing on New ' Westinghouse Standardized Plants: ; y 8
'PIACE OF MEETING: -
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday,? December 1,: 1987 10 j
11' were held as.herein appears, and that this is the original 12 '-
transcript thereof'for the file.of the. Commission ta, ken
-h.
13 stenographically by me,.-thereafter reduced to typewriting by 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 W6hb1 - "
h's.
%!arilynn M.. Nations
)
- 19. -
20 L 21' 1
22-Ann Riley &: Associates, Ltd.
23 24 e
u 1
t a
y
- u,; ~.
d)1 ' b i?;
?
m' 4b 4
w 3
e:;
.q
- 4
- h g:
9 j$ N(C
,A 5
.. ;p
f, g.
M
- p
,l SCHEDULING NOTESL
- BRIEFING-ON NEW WESTINGH0dSEfSTANDARDIZEDL
' TITLE:
c,3 PLANTSi
- SCHEDULED
- -
2:00 P?.M.,: TUESDAY, DECEMBER?1,il987I(OPEN) j
+
- PARTICIPANTS; WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC Co
('A'PPLICANT)-(35 MIN.)-
EJAMES: S. M00 ret'.
VICE. PRESIDENT AND' GENERAL MANAGER POWER' SYSTEMS BUSINESS UNIT
-:JAMESLL. GALLAGHER GENERAL MANAGER,. NUCLEAR' s
. TECHNOLOGY.: SYSTEMS. DIVISION 1
..c
]
D0'CUMENTS:
APPLICANT'WILL PROVIDE DRAFT VIEWGRAPHS ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1987.-
i; e
1 e
f d
+
- f.
'l
..i h.,
'5 I -
3
.:, j. !
';! ? 4-e A
I
, ' ' )))
a, J
R,\\
i:
J m ~. w-
- ~ ' - ~ " ~ 1 C
- _ m_
-. ~
_ _ -, ~,
.i
+
1.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation A Presentation to the 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION on the WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRid CORPORATION POWER SYSTEMS DESIGN CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS 4
Washington, D.C.
December 1,1987
.,,a
+
I 4
M e
l *
.,n,-
-.,. 5.-
n' 9
IOl%:
7
'4
^
o 1
.[g '5 Westinghouse Design Certification Br'iofing With-NRC Chairman and Commissioners n
t I
'I'.'l Opening Remarks (J. S. Moore, Vica' President and. General Manager,.
Westinghouse Power Systems )'10 minutes
~
~
A.
Introduction and Purpose of Briefing ~
B.
Standardization. Policy C.
Westinghouse Commitment to Future of Nuclear-Energy II. Westinghouse Design certification Programs (J. L. Gallagher,.
General Manager Westinghouse Nuclear Technology Systems Division)
' 20 min.:
A.
' Conditions for Return of Market B.
Revitalization of the Nuclear' option C.
Designs'for the Future D.
Westinghouse New Plant Development Efforts III.'W Vision'of the Future.(J.S. Moore) 5 minutes 1
l I
g 1
no n
i o
t s
a m
is r
s o
a r
ei p
g h
m r
o m
o sr t
7 oo cmp C. 9 8
t C
cen D1 n
i t
r o
oyet si n
1 r
h cyt o
i ot t
e S. a t
r at ge c
t anl nb E
ri nl o
ei i
f h
m e u t
se e
sg wr ac e e s
e We u o r R oP C
D P
r h
n Aa g
g
~
e n
is l
i c
t e
u s
N e
D W
~
~
!sl l
lI i
W-1
,1
~
S MAR G
O d
R n
P a
N s
e s
O tn
.y I
e ew a
l
~
T m
se n
'g A
nie a
e v
a n
C y
v e e s i
, i r
cr n
sr l
c o
yt e a
I e
t t
i F
c n
si e
i l
v e
lo n
s.ui ier h
IT P
v s at c i
l l
e se t
a R
n s e r
n E
o s
gi g
e u
snf a n c o
o nk ot c o n i
i i
t C
a t
a o
s gt a
i h
ial t
z o
r mr e.
ncp g
i t
N d
n a
e e e i
t s
l e ng npc p
r i
G a
ul l
t n
o s
guoi e s c d
e I
n e
S n
'e R C S c
I 'a r
a WR i
L P
E t
D S
e e
n'
[ i f
!(L I
i 4
j4i jI 21I i!
i F
O L
NS OSE I
T C-l A
O
~
Z R I
L P I
1 T
t
~
U N n
e a
O s
l EI n
p d
S T e
r o
U A c
a o
es s
w i
OI g
c 4
wt l
Z l
n d
e i
n u
S 1
i a
a H D v
r ir n
3 4
p l
e S
B G R u
g r
N A c
n s
R'R d
P
/
t r
'R A
A S
s.
P n
i a
t D
A S
S R
d U
o f
a I
T N n
r u
o E
E C
n N
y S
S l
A a
F E
R R
A a
S B
t E
M R
S T
WS e
o 9{;eLp) i
\\
o
~
~
n no o
t s
i a
m is r
s o
a r
ei p
g h
m r
o m
o sr t
.7 oo cmp
- c. 8 t
C cen D 9 n
it 1
r o
oyet si n
1 r
h cyt o
i ot t
at e S. a t
r ge l
c ib anEr t
r i
in nl f
o ei h
e u t
se e
sg wr ac e e s
e We u o r R oP C
D P
r h
n Aa g
g
~
e n
is l
i c
t e
u s
D N
e W
m m
m 2
~
t t
l' l}I ji
nWW L
v i
s m
S a
r M
g o
9 A
rp R
g t
G n
n i
O s
e n
m R
e p
e r
P c
o u
i l
l t
e t
u N
n v
f O
a e
e d
lp h
I t
t T
d n
f A
y r
a o
a l
C c
d p
n i
o lo n
wi IF p
a t
e s
I i
T n
s n
v o
e e
e R
i t
s s
s E
a u
u u
z o
o o
C id h
h h
r g
g g
N a
n n
n G
d iii t
t t
n s
s s
I a
e e
e S
t E
S WWW D
e e
e t!4i I
i i j !i i J
,I l
W-4 S
MAR G
O d
R n
P a
s N
e s
O tn y
I e
ew a
l T
m se n
'g A
nie a
e v
a n
C y
v e
e s i
,i i
cr n
sr l
c o
yt e a
I e
t t
i v
.e c
n si e
F i
l lo n
s ui ier h
IT P
v s
at c l
i l
t a
e se R
n s,e r
n s
gi g
e E
o u
snf a n c o
o nk ot c o n i
i i
t C
a t
s gia a
h o al t
t z
o r
mr e ncp g
i e
t i
N d
n a
t s e e i
l e ng npc p
r i
G a
s guoi e s c l
t ul n
o d
e n
e I
S n
ERCS c J'a r
a WR i
L P
E t
D S
e e
e
~
yRgeg e
.L ! [ I>:!
- !r[I i
, li is
!j t
m Iil m
mm o
W-S M
A te R
k
. G r
)
a 0
O m
9
)0 R
c 0P i
P 6S ts
(
e
. N P
e m
Ar O
o tn( u d
t IT et u n
f A
o me f
e t
mt i
C n
mpa a
r u
mloi IF t
d e oee I
cvm T
r e e r
R n
o sd m E
of i
ut r i
t y
on o C
a r
h af z
a l
g ps N
d s
i n
t r
s iwn G
a e
ts e a d
c I
l eN n
S n
e WP m
a N
E t
o D
S e
e 3
!!p lll!1 !!
j1 jj
,i.
4 j1
's
-j; 1
l
i W-9 F
O 4
.NS OS E
I T C.
A O Z R I
L P I
t T
t N
n U
e a
O s
l EI n
p d
S T e
r o
U A c
a o
OI g
c 4
wt w
es s
i l
Z l
n d
e i
n u
S 1
i a
a H D v
r ir n
3 4
p l
e S
B G R u
g r
N A c
n s
R R
d P
/
t
'R A
A S
r.
P n
i a
t a
D A
S S
R d
U o
f a
I r
T N nu o
E E
C n
N y
S S
l A
a F
E R
R A
a S
B t
E T M
R S
WS e
e.
e i
L
?= [
j
+'
i
lli
_c
+
fL-w m.
s
,s s
n e
~
T o
c i
S t
o c
r U
eop pt M
sr g
e n
noi T
rs i
i R
f pn o
e a
O nic i rl o e F
tt e i
F aih,r ES cct i
f o
E iet E
rc t
U eny R
t S
ca n U
ti TIS dpa n et r U
ac e E
c c F
n E
a g
d isd d DR e n a NH da l
AT n
l f si o
oew TS s
i c
g n
n t
u n
olyo NS iai i
EE n
r t
t s
g anc t
RR s
n c au 6
is n
e 0
i r
0 RD e
o c
is s f
,t 37 i
t 9
UD D
C L
r t
3 s n 2D
~
e e o O
CA e'
o e
Ct c X
1
~
(
il i
?ll4llla l
1
]
.i
W-L t
4
.+
m e
s, S
1 T
N E
M o
g P
O g
L a
EV e
e
~,
E WW t
D M
M O
0
.T O
0 N
3 6
A 1
L 0
P 0
0 9
6 W
P P
~
t E
S A
N e
eIl i
t'
. ~
c
!l ii
p es g
e yn ri n
at s
a n e W
ad mt p
i N
Jn n
i l
a eo O
yI ri T
bH pt a7 T N dM ec8 i
N e
hf 9 E
r1 r) t i E
y n aI de r
T M
n y
)
ohI evh M
yayn Ha sM i
I t
P 2
tegc npn ay s ('
E r
O am apnMr 8
n lpi a ot t E
9 po pma( p mdM sn L
R mCm opsr oe 1
u E
o oCmieocm ol f r
c co G V 3
cec otrCt n n
1 r
nr e (i s A E wr eCscee vt a t
r e
ui s
eo wr dt mv an) r ED wPw o e o
u ncp ha s g
o
.oPwieoG S R u
t l
PicP Hpn I
oyl l
E ciPvEee Mane A
c W-r l
t ct vs N
d cicir ae ee
/ t o r t r
c A P eat et ciesdnee op c
t P A nr cEelemHu ass m
l inle Eoiolapuua o gt l
A soE oE t hht aoorc d
uAsgoJhho J
t ci uk nbi
,ggf i
nt r
i cyaah o o
sMsnneiinj at sk s a ut k
s t t ga r r nk uipt e 0i s si m t a aoyh ai t
np 5iee s o
KHKSJMW1i l
ef
$ uW Wd o t
C7 6
ee e
e 00 8
T 2
8 1
00 0
9 9
i11 e
- iD 1
l
WW i
1 SEV I
ITC.
E e
J n
r B
o u
i s
t Oc ra o
'e p
e x
N c
p el n
G o
o y
a nr i
m c
am ot IS y
t int s
i l
r t
o o
t on o
E e
r o
a nf p
f ce ct f
i D1 agid r
d t
d m s
neyaie got sses ptir r n
R enn e ics t
gg nd rid t
t o
l i
l O
a gi nba/a a ac l
a r c alanwn r
d e t
J pel ac l
o a
eie l
i paio m
npl A
ssma l
t e a c l
d v ao n e d
e an r
e apf e gcy Mcboge c
t si vt uds t
r R
nAs sv o nc a a e
e nl a
a Re ee r ac o wl u W
nPLDS m
OLW oPF h
pl P P
E L
i
~A e
e e
~
i
=-
,~j 1i J
1
i m
l t
a ji;f e?f4p a
rg d
o e
s t
rp e
a t
u n
a l
g r
a t
v is s
e T
e n
d o
r e
N m
a b
e e
E e
l h
r y
li t
d~
M a/
w t
0 e7 S
u s
o 9
y0 t
~
S h
/
n 1
P 8
e E
gu S
7 x
v s0 S
o Rs1 3
>-- e r
S h
Ae x
a l
t c
.A So5.i n
d Er c
r e
e K
Rp1 n
. t s
e n
5 S
u [j nh!d e
r ig yq e
dsc e
s i
h r
n e enr e
s,o dd ef t i:
C w
st u
- ue
- hE i
e ea coqs v
l f I
s T
cc e
n
- ea e
oi isr S
u f
sri e
l
.L a pe Asf a e r
ql l
I elt e
ng i
oe v Rne n
r r
I Peme e a h
B cgv n t
t v
r i
t aai t
e e n s A
el t g 1
i i
r s cr v
rA l
B i
e t
v e oe oD Aiee nt D O
f ef I
N R
P Le O
P s
M
~
L ry ;:11A10j 1 il 5
jIi1
_i
AwW i
i t
=
4 3
m y
't l
t.i t
h s
M e
r O
u l
i R
a 9
f F
l o s e n
S nd r
D o
g t
i T
nao ir E
t r
ot mc e N
n c a v N A o
yn o
R
.t o
rh i
t s e o
L avf mt c A P r
t E
ae amai w
s r
pd o
e s LG eat c
p r
n N
s SI gas oS d
d e dO NT etync eC 4
OA ve uu cE of dd u
S R r aee d o S E pSRR eN E P mR i
LO e
e
~
4 i
I;
N
~
OS y,
}
I 2
R 1
A 4
l P
e d
M o
M OC N
O I
TAR U
~
m g
~
G 5
$*d 5.
s U
i I
d FN O
R l
C W
P A
t P
O O
{
1 00 L
M f
3tD 0
9 9
1 W_
b
. #p 8j L Ha" ii yil 3.f t
' f.*
i
W-e lu do m
s eu e
s c
s n
a icnm gr ir i
es o f
Y ne n ed o C
g C
f d o IL y
n sr O
a eo P
sgt a
d eal T
e ut u
t s:sg N
e sye l
R i
l E
p r
D mtya" o e e n I
i f
C c
n aid C
A s
d e R
d et A
P es en vse m E
d l
e or u R
sd c l
i E
a ed o t
RAD V
e n
E D
U S
e o
L i
i' e i 3i,( l [-
s j
.I t
n g
e n
i m
va e
t h
r n
iu e
s q
m e
m
. e r
u t
c i
C o
l l
R
.d a
N s
s Y
e e
i t
n r
H ru e
u P
m i p t
t u
f e
s a
O d.
r n
c i
S e
u r
q e
e O
c e
c p
t r
n o
L e
o c
p I
I R
c s
H x
e P
S k
P E
d R
c e Y
n c
C o c i
l A
bn a
f T
i a
t c
r E
n e
o c
ei t
e p
wi f
F Y
s s
e n
A e
v o g R
r i
pi r
S p
o s
s A-f n
r o~
a y s
l MR t
e p
et e 2
e d
s cf l
MW 1
O e
o e
ua S
~
D 0
e 0
2 1
i 8
I f
4
,a+{ 1,ji;,ei!1i 4
j(; ' j1; f
Il'
gW l
i~
_I vI 7
tP ~ o g. g 7,
- H i
l d
y a
1T uh-R-
1 p
m I
e ts
=
M
_2 l.
y a
EE ' &
l S
^
- h.. _ r s
^
i d
r
^
I
^
r u
R g-
~
g e
_. 3 f
a e
_ :g S
n.
/
d i
e
't a
g:: 5::. /
Rr Yl_
l We g
- A Vg;9
-Pt
^
Ain s
5
~
l l!
,i.
N s
OY e
i T G I
t iv AE i
t C T c
a A
y I
n t n F R g
cg t
iv ei I
i TT s
t js i
RS e
c oe d
a rd 0 E
p 9
E l
C a
n l
ea9 e
S n
g sn1 i
L if ss efd i
NU l
t e nde o od a
GO
. p -
pt e t.
et l
I r
S H o sa a, a l EG rdin Jip i
prf im t
nn DN 8
a oio r
8yh o c
I I
t E T 9iyf dHe l
1 r y eMb i
S S bot s/o U E nat n a
isai et a
bs OW Anlut Degr mu7 c
e o8 H M Pie a
r c rh9 l
G A mye g g1 e
n t
rf d oih N
ei R
i rt i
pnn v ps c l
f t ITG moe r
o e a r
A S O oCI P DWM d
E C
F R
WP e
4 ;. yp4i i1 j ;!
- )
11:l c
W I
3 I
9 M
I A
)
A C.
R I
D
)
2 G
9 DA
(
I O
I F A
(
RP I
1 I
N 9
I O
l I
T I
A 0
9 I
C 1
I F
l IT 1
A 9
R 8
I EE I
CL gR U
pE I
N D 8
^
S A
E 8
^
A I
G E
^
I ISH EC 7
I 8
DS EE 0e e
R e
e s
w i
SS 9s e
E e
s s
e t
n n
t i
S t
a v
t o
UU Po i
i m
p B
e Sp m
t s
m a
m s
w R
f OO e
Re r
o e
o R
HH AR c
D C
v i
l S d b
e e
a GG En u
u s
R l
l t
t NN Ra S
F u
i o
g m
S S
h n
b 7
I I I A
TT R
i 1
R R
g s
u 0
n n
S 3
C C
SS A
A s
c T
i t
e 9
A 32 EE e
D D
iL 0
WW W
F 02 1
ll1 jll!l_
!li I ;-!
W-
~
tro p
n p
g T
u s
i s
e 8
N d
I E
R s
8 P
s n
9 M
E mio 1
P e
t n
h t d i
O s
d t
w i
L wy i
f e
s i
l E
d p
v i
y e
me V
t r
e r
i E
o s
f y
s a
e t
D n
s o
d e
f i
0 p
e wa s
v s
0 i
6 E
s t
s n
C O
a a
R l
P D
P P
N A
e o
e e
- ,3b 1
!i;
~
AP-600 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM 4
<J PRESSURIZER d
INTEGRATED MODEL T HEAD PACKAGE STEAM GENERATOR Y4 a
' Y 'I L
J
/
MODELT
- COLD LEG ENE ATOR p
PIPE - 20.5" ID
~ ~
(
j(-
~
,((
F HOT LEG PIPE - 29" ID s..
.A,m
(
INJECTION NOZZLE
'w REACTOR VESSEL Q
157"ID CANNED v
MOTOR PUMPS i
w O
,9 V
r i
A
. ~
- 8 R
1 i
.d.1..R4
%( rl[f.
m (q%g 3 t
r jI
$ii j
?
t.
( "-
l s "$p N
i H
i S.
E D^
5
- .rg' D
~^
I e~~^^
~
m i
.T
.~
cN.
.~
e^
" 9" o
H
+ p D
3 H
^
e u _
6^~
i
.he t 6 o
W s
~
r n
E
[y.
NI! jsT ',wW f f
f f
[h I
j ellgM9p{
g g
R n
9 E
^
i lo t
o n
S c
e s
m U
S v r n
e e O
D oi l
a a ct s
s v
n l
H R
n m e o
d o e s ei c s s e
G A
t p p s d t
t i
a n E U al mmy o
r ui u u sE N 0V G e ct p r c p p g1 IT0I oic e S y n s SE v
i C al s yl ng n
r o a S6 r a e r on iC p ol SF E s cC i
t u cl t
E i
t t
o u
PAA r
o o o o a aio s
WAPS B NAc eNNNN
?
- R ****
~
- j.
4
[
W A )C.
i
)
I 3
A AD s
(
9 D
M F
i
(
A A)
)
R C.
w i
)
e 2
G 9
A D
i i
v
(
D e
O F A R
i
(
d, R
l na P
i l
1 a
i t
N 9
t i
m i
b O
l uS IT n
A A
0 D
i 9
F C
(
i IF ll IT A
n 9
R 8
D i
P EE w,
i
)
CL A
e U
A E iv i
N D 8
A S
e A
E ER G E i
8 A
A y
A t
i I
e SH fa EC 7
g S
(
i 8
DS EE 0e e
R e
e s
w 0
s e
0 SS 9s e
E e
s i.
t n
6 n
t i
S t
a v
t UU Po o
i i
m p
B e
P Sp m
t s
m a
m s
w R
A f
OO Re r
e o
o e
HH AR c
D R
i C
v l
S d b
e e
a GG En u
l t
lu s
R t
NN Ra S
F u
i o
g m
A S
S h
n
.b I
I I
TT R
R R
g s
u i
n n
S C
C SS i
e A
A s
c t
A EE e
D iL WW W
F
- l1 j1 l
i
W de t
d n
e n
e o
e m
n i
tu e
s l
lo p
s s
m ec i
e o
o h
r S
t t
p f
d o
e g
d n
t i
r e
s a
e n
p n
e d
s sy c
e d
i c
i l
ni e
n ol n
e oio o
n t
p i
i t
a t
n a
s a
l c
u o c
ec e
gi i
i f
f et i
r i
t ra Y
t u
r r
z edi e
o R
c nd c
s r
e A
a a n
r n
M g
sd g
f is en s
a i
f M
e ut e
t a
l J
D Rs D
S lS e
e i!j k
L,
,l l
4
+ o l
i
/
3 TRANSMITTAL TO:
A Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips g
j ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room-A,2/3,//7 DATE:
i FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records' Branch 5
2 Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting 1
i.
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and m
i placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or 6
M required.
% Ah;w [z ) d b,
Meeting
Title:
d 9
j
,cnkkx /?MJ
$s Meeting Date:
/#//,/f 7 Open N
Closed g
Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS
- 8 fl' to PDR Copy t
!!l 1.'_ TRANSCRIPT 1
1 6.)/AYu & Y Y I[
,Asi'wJ 2.
L 3.
4.
5.
l
~
$ I 6.
33 =
3ll
$U
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
j 3E-C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY E
jj papers.
=
a 5
n[s5 f&0'0'0803090WOWSWMY0WSW
,