ML22230A083
| ML22230A083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/10/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780210 | |
| Download: ML22230A083 (69) | |
Text
REJURN TO SECRETARIAT RECORD J NU CI.EAR REGULA ro RY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PRESENTATION BY BECHTEL REPRESENTATIVES ON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT STANDARDIZATION Place - Washington, D. C.
Date - Friday, 10 February 1978 Pages 1 - 66 Telephone :
(202 ) 3A7 -3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, 11'-l'C.
Official Reporten 4..4.4 North Capitol Street Washington , D.C. 20001 NATlONWICE COVERAGE* DAILY
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on February 10, 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. The meeting \'Jas open to public a,ttendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviev,ed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or infommal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opini-on in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
(
1 CR 6341 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MIMIE:
ro mask 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PRESENTATION BY 5
BECHTEL REPRESENTATIVES ON 6
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT STANDARDIZATION 7
8 9
Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
11 Friday, 10 February 1978 12 13 The presentation was conve~ed, pursuant to notice, at 14 9:45 a.m. before the Commission.
15 BEFORE:
16 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 17 RICHARDT. KENNEDY, Commissioner 18 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner.
. I 19 PRESENT:
20 On behalf of Bechtel: Messrs. C. D. Statton, D. W. Hallig B. L. Lex, S. A. Bernsen, and R.H. Stone.
21 On behalf of NRR: Messrs. E. Case, R. DeYoung and 22 R. Mattson.
23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
2 34 1 ~*o 1 -~ 1 P R O C E E D I N G S jwb CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We.11; we 're glad to see you.
2 I wasn't sure whether we would turn out a quorum today, but 3 we have, so it's a Commission meeting and we scheduled it 4 in case we could gather a quorum~
5 I guess you want to tell us where you are going 6 on standardizationl, Bechtel style. Please do~
7 MR. STA TioN: Okay. we~re prepared to proceed.
8 I'll kick it off for Bechtel.
9 We represent Be ch tel Power Corporation, _and my JO name is Charles Statton, and my associates ,are Mr. Halligan, 11 Mr. Lex; Mr. Bernsen, and Mr~ Stone*~
12 The Bechtel Power Corporation's strategic plan 13 provides for a periodic reappraisal or reassessment of ~he
- J 4 di re ct ion we've elected to take in serving the e le ctri c 15 utility industry.
- J6 Now*, we also attempt to assess the directions that
- J7 the industry is taking; the impact of .the agencies that look 18 after those ma.tters; as we 11 .as those things that occur from 19 the manufacturers.
20 We attempt to assess those from the standpoint of 21 how they might change our long- or short-term plan 1*
22 Based upon those appraisals and assessments', we 23 then pre pa re a de.f ini ti ve plan. i~e present that to our 24 chairman and the board of directors.
25 We have!, on two occasions -- and as you will hear
1~ 0 l
- 2 3 jwb further today - discussed the Bechtel Power Corpo.ration"s
- 2 3
4 position respecting standardization of nuclear generating facilities. The first occasion was in 1973. We have looked objectively at those conclusions that we have made, 5 and what we have done with that conclusion over these past 6 five years*, and we'd like to share some of those .re.sults 7 with you today.
8 We would like to.solicit as many of your comments, 9 as we proceed, as we believe that your comments are pertinent 10 in d.eveloping any modification that might cccur to our plan ll I Within Bechtel Power. So, for that purp.ose, we would like 12 to keep this as generally informal a.s possible 1, so feel free
-t 3 to interrupt.
14 -Our presentor is Mr. Lex. Bert;~
,! 5 MR. LEX: ovr RUrpo.se .today\ gentlemen, is to 16 discuss the NRC Nuclear Power Plant Standardization Program, 17 and exchange views on the nature of a Reference- Design 18 Application which the Bechtel Power Corporation might sutmit.
19 As you may know~ we have long been a strong 20 supporter of efforts to promote standardization in the 21 nuclear power plant industry, and have carried on .an extensive 22 standardization program on our own part, but we have notk
- 23 24 25 elected to submit a Standard Reference Design Application.
It appears to us that your recent efforts to expand and strengthen the standardization program may now
534 t ** 01 ~ 3 4 jwb offer new opportunities for our particip,ation*, and it is
- 2 3
4 that possibility which we wish to discuss.
First, however, bec.ause some of you may be unawar.e of the structure and range of operation of the 5 Bechtel Group of Companiesr, we thought it we 11 to spend 6 .a few minutes giving a brief thumbnail sketch of our 7 organizational structure~ as we 11 as of our intern.al Bechtel 8 standardization program. When we have accomplished that, we 9 wi 11 then present our views on standardization and examine
- 10. how they might mat ch your requirements.
lI Please feel free to Jnterrupt my presentation at
- *12 13 114 any time that you have questions which,you would like clarified: Could we have Slide CS1 ide ~ )
1; please?
15 The Bechtel Group of Companies is canposed of 16 three prin cipa.l operating entities - the Bechtel Power t7 Corporation; the Bechtel Corpora ti on; and Be ch tel, 18 Incorporated-- all reporting to the chairman and senior 19 executive management under the di rec ti en of Mr. Stephen 20 D. Bechtel*, Jr:
21 We undertake engineering, construction~ and 22 construction management projects, both domestically and 23 internationally, through eight operating divisions which 24 report to different operating companies and which serve 25 specific industrial areas of activity' ---- such as thermal
, \ -- -- -- --
/
I ~01 ~4 5 jwb power~ refining and chemical, and mining and metals areas.
2 Our general corporate services -- such as legal, 3 finance and accounting, personnel and procurement are 4 carried out by Bechtel Corporation for a 11 three operating 5 companies~
6 (Slide. )
7 The Bec.htel Power Corporation serves the electric 8 utility industry thr_ough three operatirg di-visions -- Los 9 Angeles~ San Francisco, and Gaithersburg --- reporting to JO President Harry o., Reinsch and a senior management staff.
J1 The Los Angeles Di-vision sponsors an Area Office i-n Houston*,
12 and the San Francisco Division1sponsor..s an Area 0-ffice in 13 Ann Arbor~
14 CSl id e. )
15 Each of our divisions employs the same basic 16 organizationa*1 structure composed of departments for business, 17 de Velopmen t~ construction, engineering', project operations',
18 quality assurance, and services - all reporting to a.
19 division manager, although obviously with minor variations 20 to suit local needs.
21 CSlide.)
22 The work undertaken on individual contracts is 23 performed through a project team organization where all 24 personnel necessary to the direct execution of that project 25 are assembled in one physical loca.tion organized under the
,341.0l.5 6 jwb direction of a project manager, and work only on that 2 project.
3 The typical team structure provides for 4 engineering, construction, quality assurance', and cost and 5 schedule services. The engineering portion of the team is 6 broken down -into the. classic engineering discipline groups 7 of civil, mechanical, electrical, control systems~ nuclear-,
8 and architectural.
9 (Slide.)
10 This slide is intended to displey for you the 111 responsibility and reporting relationships between corporate 12 management~ division management, and project management.
13 Corporate management is composed of Mr. Reinsch, 14 Mr. Statton~ and four functional managers -- mysel.f, in il5 Engineering; and managers of Construction, Operations and 16 Services, and Quality Assurance~ .I have .reporting to me
- 17 four chief engineers who coordinate the technical ,activites 18 in the principal engineering discipline areas.
19 The division division managers rep::>rt directly 20 to Mr. Reinsch and Mr. Statton~ The basic departments of 21 their organizational structure receive line direction from 22 their division manager, and functional guidance from the 23 functional managers at the corporate level~
24 The engineering department has chief engineers 25 in the disciplines to oversee the technical work of the
341.01~6 7 jwb technical work of the engineering department. These chief 2 engineers receive functional guidance from the corporate 3 chief engineers~
4 At the project level, the project manager and key 5 team members recei~e line direction-from their respective 6 department management~ The project manager provides 7 project direction to the key team members, and the divisional 8 ch.ief engineers provide functional guidance to the discipline 9 engineering groups*.
JO (Slide;)
11 Bechtel's nuclear power experience startec:f as early 12 as the construction of the Experimental Breeder 'Reactor at 13 Arco, Idaho; and participation in the Nuclear Power Study 114 Group in Chicago. This slide tabulates the 1i ght-wa ter 15 reactor nuclear power stations in the U.S. and abroad for 16 which Bechtel has performed eng1neering and/or construction 17 services since 1959. The 24 BWR units total 20~112 megawatts, 118 and the 50 PWR units total 48,236 megawatts. Neither 19 sodium-cooled nor helium-cooled units are included in these 20 totals~
21 (Slide.1) 22 This slide shows the locations cf our current 23 major domestic nuclear projects, consisting of 36 units at 24 20 plant locations around the U.S. The overlay adds the 25 locations of 26 units previously completed and in operation.
I I .
341 .O I*. 7 8 jwb The addition to 12 overseas units at -7 plant locations 2 brings you to the tota-1 of 74 nu.clear units in which 3 Bechtel has been involved in engineering and c01struction.
4 This wide geographic location of site locations 5 have required that our designers respond to virtually every 6 level and combination of seismic criteria, environmental 7 and climatic conditions - such as tornado design, wind 8 and temperature extremes, tsunami, et cetera -- and soils 9 conditions which it is possible to encounter.
JO ( SI id e. )
l I Our activity is the performance of engineering 12 and construction services tailored to the ne~ds of our 113 client. The scope of services we contract to undertake 14 therefore covers virtua_l1y every variation or combination 15 of direct execution or management of engineering, procurement, 16 and construction activities, as summarized on this slide.
117 Typical projects illustrating some of these 18 examples are: engineering, procurement, and construction 19 job: Arkansas I and 2 Units; the engineering, procurement',
20 construction, management variation: Trojan and Rancho Seco 21 were handled und.er those contracts; engineering only, a goOd 22 example of that is the Oconee Nuclear Island design; 23 construction only: the Ginna Project; engineering and 24 procurement is bes..t illustrated by the SNUPPS Project, 25 which is a powerblock design and a major equipment
1 341.01.8 9 jwb procurement assignment; engineering management is the 2 typical mode of operation of our overseas projects in 3 Spain and elsewhere; technical,,service agreements covers 4 areas of continuing operatin.g plant support such as 5 the Pilgrim I contract.
6 (Slide.a 7 Within the general categorization of scope of 8 services offered, we encounter many variations needed to 9 respond to the requirements of individual eLec.tr.ic utilities.
10 Some typical examples are summarized on this slide*.
11 On some occasions we wi 11 undertake engineering 12
- at the very earliest conceptual stages of a pr-oject where a 13 Client involves us .in site selecti.on, NSSS specificatico 14 and bid evaluation 1, but quite frequently we wiJl encounter 15 clients who have already selected their site and perhaps
=16 awarded their NSSS and T-G\ and we come in with certain 17 preestabli.shed ground rules to work to'.
-18 On the .licensing and PSAR side, we have been 19 called -upon to coo rd ina te the preparation and publishing 20 complete task on PSAR; we've been called upon to support 21 our client who was handling the coordinatiQ'l and 22 publishing. We have occasionally worked with use of outside 23 clients in addition to the basic -- pardon me, outside 24 consultants, in addition to the basic trimverate of client',
25 NSSS supplier, and architect-engineer.
34 1
- 0 I
- 9 JO jwb Procurement is handled in almost any fashion
- 2 3
4 you can imagine~ Bechtel sometimes functions as a direct purchasing agent, sometimes as agent for the owner'~ sometimes as a supplier of specifications and bid analysis for owner 5 procurement; and occasionally specifications.supplier tor 6 contractor or subcontractor purchase.
7 Thank you for bearing with me for this thumbnail 8 sketch of the organization and of the backlog of nuclear 9 experience which is .represented in our group.
JO Now let me turn your attention to the Generic l1 Nuclear Plant Standardization Program which Bechtel has been
- 12 13
,} 4 carrying out since the early 1970s.
In comm on with many other archi tect-eng in eers and NSSS suppliers, Bechtel had already taken some internal steps 15 at standardization of designs when the AEC standardization 16 policy was announced in 1972. After careful cO'lsideration of 17 the policy-~ we concluded that it was too ,restrictive in 118 application to meet the needs of the electric utility 19 industry and the responsiveness to site-unique 20 utility-unique requirements which our clients expected of 21 us.
22
- We completed de ve lopmen t of the Generic 23 Modular Power Plant concept upon which we were working at 24 that time, and prepared a presentation on cur Generic 25 Standardization Program. This presentation', and our views
341 .011 .10 IJ jwb on what was needed for a viable standardization.program r
2 were discussed with the AEC by Messrs. Allen', Collins, 3 and Schmitz, on January 31st., 1973; and by Messrs. Reinsch, 4 Collins~ and Schmitz, on February 1st, 1974~
5 'C Slide.*)
6 That program .is summarized en this slide. It is 7 composed of six key elements: criteria. definitionf, criteria 8 application, licensing, basic systems design 1, physical 9 layout', and procurement*.
10 The element of "criteria definitionu is handled il l through two activities. First is the participation in 12 national codes and standards writing groups~ During 1977, 13 some 162 Bechtel people have engaged in 3011 separate and 14 distinct code- or standard-writing committee assignments 15 under the .auspices of the prim~ry technical .societies who 16 direct and .coordinate these activi ties 1*
i17 The second aspect of 11 cri teria de.fin! tion" is 18 the embedment of established design criteria and reg.ulatory 19 requirements in our engineering standards program, which 20 encompasses preparation and dissemination of standard 21 specifications; standard drawings for typical engineering 22 details; design guides govering method.s of criteria
- 23 24 25 specification, _selection; and application; preparation of instructions; .and the design control procedures.
The second key eleme~t of our standardization
534 t
- 01
- l 1 12 jwb program is criteria application, which is implemented
- 2 3
4 through technical topical reports prepared to facilitate licensing.
These reports cover detailed design or analysis 5 methods .for subjects such as post+tensioned containment 6 design~ missile impact analysis~ and so on~ Bechtel has 7 13 current topical reports, 11 of which have been .approved 8 by the Commission, and 2 of which are under review at 9 present~
10 The third key element. is the Bechtel standard ll l safety ana lysis report. This is an internal "PSAR without
- ,12 13 14 number.s 11 which provides basic text for use by our engineer.s in preparing safety analysis reports in conformance with the NRC standard format.
15 The fourth key element is a set of key design 116 documents which we have prepared ~o outline basic sysxems 17 designs. These are standard systems desc;ripticns, describing 18 the design and functional performance criteria for nuclear 19 safety related and auxiliary systems, systems flow diagrams, 20 preliminary piping and instrument diagrams 1, basic system 21 control logic diagrams, and electrical single-line diagrams.
22 The fifth key.element of the standardization
- 23 24 25 program is the generic modular plant arrangement. There are some eight or nine basic building blocks of wh~ch a complete power plant is com,=osed. Each of these blocks has a number
34 1 :o 1
- 12 L3 jwb of restrictions requiring internal consistency of design*,
- 2 3
4 but a relatively small number of interface requirements for association with other blocks*. This permits standardization of the basic building blocks themselves, while retaining 5 some flexibility in their arrangement en a par..ticlilar site~
6 The last key element of our standardization 7 . program is in the area of procurement', which .is addressed 8 by the extensive s.tandard specification program described 9 earlier, and by standardization of procedures for supplier 10 qualification and surveillance inspection activities.
11 You might ask: What have been the bene.fits of 12 your program'.? Or how many plants have used .this generic 13 approach and generic modular arrangement at Bechtel?
14 (Slide~)
15 Of 8 BWR units undertaken since 19.72, 4 units 16 have made partial use of the generic, and 2 units have i17 followed it directly. Of 23 PWR unitsl, 3 have made partial 18 use of the generic;, and 12 have followed Lt direct.ly. In
,19 power generation capability terms, some 25 1,000 out of 20 35,000 megawatts of capacity have _been based on partial or 21 full application of the generLc designs since J972.
22 The Generic Design has. continued .to evolve during
- 23 24 25 this time, as feedback was received from projects employing BESSAR to help prepare their license application, as experience has accumulated in the execution of detaiied plant
341 ~Oil ,.13 14 jwb designs based on the Generic Modular Arrangement,' and as
- 2 3
4 new regulatory guides have been issued and regulatory positions established.
This. feedback has been incorporated into BESSAR 5 through periodic uj:dates~ and in our Generic Modular Nuclear 6 Power Plant Manuals .for both the BWR and the PWR. These 7 manuals contain plant and equipment layout drawings, 8
- standard system de sign criteria and functi cnal des er ip tions, 9 preliminary piping and instrument diagrams', and control 10 log.i c diagrams.
i] 1 In combination with our standard specifications'*
- 12
- J,3 14 these documents have permitted an .extremely rapid start of design and licensing for several foreign .and domestic jobs, including the Florida Power and Light South Dade 15 Nuclear Project, with a high level - on our part -- of 16 confidence of the technical adequacy and safety of the
- 17 design~ It is indeed unfortunate that Florida Power and 18 Light had to*defer South Dade.
,19 Now, with that _background on the Bechtel internal 20 effort at nuclear power pl ant standardization, let us finally 21 turn our attention to the form in which we believe that a 22 standard reference design application could be carried out.
23 C51 id e. i) 24 We would prefer to see a st~ndard reference 25 design-process which we would call 11 Generic Reference Design~"
1*~01.14 15 Jwb which provides for a modular plant layout coupled with
- 2 3
4 standardized design criteria and standardized system design~ but with sufficient flexibility to accommodate each. of the major* NSSS packages; each of the major i
5 turbine-generator set*s available; and a family of site 6 specific design parameters - - inc1uding seismic design 7 levels; tornado design levels; other safety related natural 8 or man-made hazards phenomena; soi ls/foundation conditions; 9 and topography!, cooling water source, .access requirements, 10 and visual impact:
11 CSlide~;)
112 To be viable*, a Generic Reference Design approach 13 requires: an extensive data bas..e of experJence; top 14 technical resources available and dedicated, acceptance by 15 potential utility clients; and demonstraticn of its 16 li censabil ity.
17 We believe that the firsx three points are 18 adequately covered 1, and it is the fourth point which we 19 are discussing with you today.
20 The several slides present the key characteristics 21 of a Generic Reference Design which we believe can be defined 22 or specified with .sufficient exactness to allow an 23 independent examination and finding that a plant meeting them 24 can be designed, constructed, an¢ operated safely. They 25 concentrate on the establishment of the safety design
34 I .O l
- 15 16 jwb criteria, and the methods of design and analyses which will
- *2 3
4 be employed. to mee.t these er i teria, as we 11 as on the acceptance limits or bounding conditions which must be met by the design.
5 They do not require completion of the final 6 detailed design, but allow .suffi.cient *flexibility in detailed 7 design to accommo:fate equipment from any qualLfied s*upplier, 8 .and to meet site-specific and utility-specific needs.
9 These key characteristics include:
10 (Slide.)
ti I Firm* design ,criteria for safety-related systems~
- 12 1,3' 14 components*, and structures inc.luding i dent 1 ti cation of applicable codes and standards and conformance to NRC requirements and guidance.
,]5 Criteria would address those characteristics of 16 the items that are important to safety to the same level of
,]7 detail as a typical safety analysis report.
18 The various key design documents such as system
- 19 descriptions, piping and instr.ument diagrams, electrical 20 sing le-line drawings, and control logic diagrams which are 21 currently required for SARs would be provided in preliminary 22 form but with sufficient detai 1 to identify features of the
- 23 24 25 systems to satisfy the design bases.
- The report would commit to specific analytical methods and associated acceptance criteria for analyzing
1341.01.16 17 Jwb the consequences of accidents and for radi cacti ve was.te
- 2 3
4 management.
Design and analysis methods would be described and appropriate acceptance. criteri.a provided for engineered 5 safety features and other systems as currently required for 6 SARs.
1 CSl ide. )
8 All material covered in Bechtel Topical Reports 9 would be included or incorporated by reference. Criteria JO and design rules governing physica 1 separation', . fire 11 protection*, a.ccess controls, and radiation zoning would
- 12 13 114 be provided consistent with current re. gulatqry requirements.
Standardized- design details', such as .typical Penetrations, seismic supports, pipe whip restraints, and 15 other installations would be included.
116 The report would contain the required general 17 listings and description of safety--related components, 18 however in most instances .specific numerical ,data on size, 19 ca pa city, horsepower~ and so on, wou.ld be replaced by 20 de.finitive criteria f.or. setting these values.
21 Interface requirements for each NSSS turbine 22 generator system w.ould be included.
23 <Slide.)
24 The report would contain sufficient layout 25 information to define firm arrangement and relati v.e location
- 341 .01 ~ 17 JS jwb of safety-related .features~ To the extent possible, Specific
- 3 4
2 dimensions would not be included, however, except in instances such as the turbine generator unit where its or.ientation and separation, from safety-related structures 5 might. be defined by 1imi ting dimensions~
6 A family of site-related design bases-would be 7 presented; and specific change in plant criteria and 8 in features ..to accommodate each, set of site parameters 9 would_be defined.
JO The report would also contain sufficient utility 11 interface criteria to show how si ta-dependent features, such
- 12 13 14 as cooling water and ultimate heat sink and mu! ti-unit arrangements, would be accommodated*.
CSlide. 1) 15 Many of the key characteristics of a Generic 16 Reference Design, as we h*ave just described them, are .clearly 17 in conformance to the Standard Format for SARs and the 18 Standard Review Plans. Several may not bei, or we may be 119 misinterpreting those requirements, based on our experience 20 with custom SARs. This slide compares our concept of a 21 ttGRD, 11 or a Generic Reference Design, to our understanding 22 of a PDA/SDA, and highlights the things we believe dif.fer.
I 23 To pi ck two examples: Take the seismic bas is 24 where the present PDA/SDA scheme requires a single seismic 25 design envelope - placing this in the position of having
>341
- 0 I
- 18 19 jwb to make a cut. between various geographical ..areas of the
- 2 3
4
- country that can or cannot be met by a given seismic design. We would prefer to include~ in a Generic Re.ference Design App li ca ti on~ several discreet seismic 5 intensity level bases to bracket a wider range of sites, 6 without penalizing a low-intensity leY-el with a design
'7 for a high-intensity case.
8 Another example is the -~*containmenti,-11 where the 9 present standard_ revie~ plans and format end up driving us 10 into a fully dimensioned presentatioo on the containment.
11 1 We believe that our topica 1 report describing the .analysis
- 12
- 13 14 and the design methods for the containment!, the handling o.f critical details, and* telling yo.u virtually everything about a post-tension containment except the diameter and 15 the height of a particular containment*, provides an 16 entirely adequate design base fo.r a safety finding on 17 containment. We believe the plant design can be licensed 118 on a gen er ic-:reference bas is* without limiting the 19 particular dimension that it must be speci.fied tor a 20 given NSSS and utility site condition.
21 We find customers with various problems1, in terms 22 of the physical limitations of the site*~ that may .lead to a 23 minimum needed containment diameter vs. units like Calvert 24 Cliffs and the. Pilgrim 2- Project up at Plymouth Rock, where 25 local scenic conditions and historic interest leads to a
341 .O I
- I 9 20 jwb desire to have the lowest profile plant possible --- hence
- 4 2
3 the maximum reasonable containment diameter.
room for that variation.
We need I don't intend to go through every one of those 5 items on the slide. We would ask if there are any questions 6 or comments, or discussions you would like to have around 7 it at this moment.
8 .C No response. )
9 MR. LEX: Dr. Bernsen, is there anything you'd JO particularly care to single out on there?
ll DR. BERNSEN= Well, for example there might be 12 some concern in the looseness of defining 11 containment,*1 13 if necessary, for ex.ample, some minimum containment volume 14 might be identified, and things of that sort. But we"d like 15 the flexibility in diameter', and height, and things like that.
16 And again, in the case of arrangement, as we have 17 said .before, the relationship of components;, without 18 necessarily specific dimensions, or typical dimensions.
19 Because, particularly in preliminary cases*, it appears that 20 the important features are the criteria*, and not the 21 preliminary di mens ions.
22 Vie have comrnitments to satisfy a certain 23 safety objectives, and if the dimensions have to change to 24 meet those, we do that anyway, normally, in a given situation.
25 But I think we could get into that discussicn
341 ~01 ~20 21 jwb a little further later on.
- 2 3
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRI Es back to this.
now.
I guess I~ll want to come -
I don't know whether I'll want to comment 5 MR. STA TioN: It would be appropriate; 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRI Es Maybe I would do better to 7 hear some more; and then -- okay?
8 MR. LEXs Well, it is.apparent fr,om this slide 9 that the basic difference is in the lack of specific 10 numerical data, rather than in criteria bases, design l l methods, features~ analytical approaches-, or acceptance
- 112 13 14 limits.
The benefits of standardization have been described 15 in many ways and from many perspectives. Underlaying the 16 perspectives of the regulator, the uti 11 ty owner, the
,17 equipment supplier~ and the archi tact/engineer~ however,
.1a are two fundamental objectives: to expedite the licensing 19 process, thereby shortening licensing sche,dules and 20 improving the utilization of the NRC staff; and to stabilize 21 designs and design and analysis __ methods, thereby allowing 22 Projects to proceed in a more orderly. fashion with less 23 exposure to late redesign~ and allowing the NRC staff to 24 conduct more thorough reviews and develop greater confidence 25 that important issues have been identified and resolved.
,341 ~-0.1
- 2 l 22 jwb (Slide.,)
- 2 3
4 We believe that a Generic R.eference Design has se*veral definite advantages in meetin9 the objectives of standardization~
5 A GRD would stabilize design features by 6 es-.tablishing the design and performance criteria significant 7 to safety, and the .acceptance criteria or limiting condi ti ens, 8 which must be met by a safe design.
9 A GRD would a.llow flexibility, for response to 10 site-unique and utility-unique design featureS-- without 111 sacrLfice in underlying safety criteria.
- 12 13 14 A GRD wou.id minimize the potential cost penalty of unneeded overdesign forced .by 11 enveJoping 11 criteria.
A GRO-; by focusing on design and _safety criteria
,15 rather than on fin al detail, would permit more timely 16 updating to meet changes in the state of .the art with
,17 minimum _impact on overa 11- design and project schedules.
18 A GRD will provide stabilization of the design
,)9 process in a manner which will permit an optimum and 20 competitive respcnse by the industry~
21 Finallyi, a GRD will have broader .acceptibility 22 in the utility industry than a "single-case" reference
- 23 24 25 design.
Gentlemen, that completes the formailly prepared presentation. _ We have copies of it for you', which copies
34 t
- 0,1
- 22 23 jwb do include tw9 appendices providing some backup detail
- 2 3
4 relating to the containment design question\ and to the manner in which system descriptive information would be presented in a generic reference design.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. and I hope there are a 6 couple of copies so that the staff can have copies~
] Well, let me te 11 you how it strikes me', and 1 11 8 ask other Commissioners to comment. Perhaps we can hear from 9 the staff.
10 I've recognized Bechtel-'s. reluctance to come down l I the path that others have come with this on standardization,
,12 going back a long time --- there were some meetings Jn '73 and 13 '7 4, s orne in Gaithersburg, and in our offices in which we 14 covered many of these same subjects. And the reasons that 15 seemed to you, in the light of your experience and. the way 116 you do your work, were good reasons not to come in and focus 17 down on single designs, and this is certainly consistent 18 with that thrust.
19 From my standpoint, I must say that as I look at 20 standardization propositions -- do it this way; do it that 21 way; try some variation here; the various options - I keep 22 looking at it from the standpoint: If we accept a particular 23 option or avenue, okay, and go down that line, after the 24 staff has argued with you over whatever there is to argue 25 in that option and that~s settled and agreed upon, and then
i34 l ~01 .23
- 24 jwb we come to put a specific unit into the precess, I ask 2 myself: What does the staff have to do in order to go 3 forward and get a construction -- make a case to justify, 4 as appropriate in the particular case, the necessary 5 findings for the construction permit?
6 To the extent that that work that was done 7 previously on the so-called "Standardizaticn Module, 11 or 8 design, or whatever, is complete and speci fie enough so that 9 this work that staff has to do for a specific unit~ for a
- 10 specific CP is either zero - which is an unrealizable 11 ideal - but at leas-t minimum, then I have a higher regard 12 for the standardization option.
13 Conversely, to the extent that the option has --
14 that that particular standardizaticn approach has, as yours
- 15 does, ..a considerable variability into it -- so that when I 16 come and have the specific app.lication for the specific unit--
17 then I think there(s still a substantial amount of staff 18 work to be done.
19 And that, it seems to me fr om my standpoint, makes 20 it a less desirable option from our standpcint.
21 Now\ I"m willing and I recognize that I have to 22 temper this view, also, and take into account what is 23 practicable from the standpoint of the people who have to 24 prepare these designs in advance of specific orders, or 25 -Jtmodules,n or whatever, and carry the burden forward of
,341 .OJ .24 25 Jwb developing them far enough', and defending them in the staff
- 2 3
4 review*, being able to carry that preinvestrnent --- you know;,
normally engineering firms aren't like heavy capital intensive firms; their stock and trade is in their heads 5 and in their design notebooks*, and you *typically don't put 6 it to work until you've got an order; you don't have a lot "7 of expensive machinery that you have to buy be fore you can 8 be *1n the business. And in a way, the standardization things 9 are going in that direction~
)0 It's your form of buying a lot cf heavy machinery, 11 l which doesn"t pay off for you unti 1 you get an order for a 12 product.
1L3 So, there are some practicality limits there, in 14 terms of what you can stand to do~ And those limits :vary 15 ..from firm to firm. They're different between the vendors 16 the NSSS vendors and architect/engineer firms, clearly.
17 There are also the anti trus.t considerations, 18 which mean that we cannot be in a position of locking into 19 specific suppliers on components that may reascnably be 20 supplied by a number of people in the field. We can't lock 21 in on one and, you know, get him .a preferred position because 22 he happened to be the guy whose design got used by an
- 23 24 25 engineer in presenting the thing. That clearly is a place we have to go back to performance specs and so on and work fairly closely with the antitrust people to make sure that
>341 ~01 .25 26
- jwb itJs-- But in spite of those elements of practicality and
- 2 3
4 the antitrust considerations, I must say my own *view about the possible ways to standardize is that= The closer we can get to the place where the thing that we.talk about 5 in the beginning -- apart from any specific application 6 just comes and is as speci fie as it ca,n possibly be, and 7 allows us to settle the differences of opinion that there 8 may be, and get agreed on what's going to be acceptable 9 bet.ore we get to the specific application, that's where I JO think the p.3yoff in the desirable pa th is, from our side.
l1 Now, as I look at your generic modular approach,
,12 it does ap,Pear to me to lack that degree of specificity which 13 would allow us to go into the construction permit._review on 14 a specific item using it, with really a great deal of the 15 safety review already in hand, and written down in the generic 16 st a.ff safety e valuation re port that goes~ with the design.
17 It seems to me that what you have here in the 18 direction you go is one in which we can get a piece of that 19 done ahead. Your generic standardization - the module 20 scheme - - amounts; in effect, to a series cf presumably 21 coherent and internally consistent topical reports, to the 22 same extent that other topical reportsi, dealing with how
- 23 24 25 you do a certain piece of analysis, or what your approach is on some design - safety related design prcblem~
To the extent that these can be thrashed out
I 341.0J.26 27 jwb ahead of time with the staff~ then when they arise in a
- 2 3
4 particular case*~ why we already know what your point Of
--view is*~ we already know what the* staff's point of view is', and that's a help in getting on forward with it~
5 But it does seem ..to me that your approach would 6 .leave tor a specific CP application for a specific unit*--
7 would still leave the staff with a review effort which, while 8 perhaps somewhat less than that that might be involved with 9 a complete custom-design,* sti 11 is pre tty extensive.
JO And I wouldn't be surprised to see that the IJ I di fference.s in the manpower investment and the time investment 12 on the staff's side, between that and sort cf a 13 run-of-the-mill custom design, is not a:11 that great.
14 After a 11 ;* not only would the staff have to look
- 15 at the way in which you have linked the modules and to go 16 . over the interfaces, but considerably beyond that, in numbers 17 of areas, instead of presenting specific dssigns~ specific 18 analyses, you say: Here's how we're *goi~ to do the 1)9 analysis. Or, here are the rules we are gcing to follow to 20 do the design.
21 Now',* we may have agreed back yonder that those 22 were reasonable ways to do the analysis, reasonable rules 23 for the design. Now you've got a specific design. We're 24 going to have to look at it. The staff has to come forward 25 in that CP review and say "we know what the specific design
1 .OJ .27 28 Jwb is"-- preliminary design, at least. "We've looked at it,
- 2 3
4 and we can find this and that about the safety standpoint."
They'r.e going to have to look at that specific design you present, now, and decide whether in fact they agree that 5 you've *applied the criteria rules in a way that they agree
- 6 with.
7 And by the time they get through doing that, I"ve 8 got a notion there may not be a great deal of manpower 9 di f.ference on the staff's part between doing that and having 10 taken a specific custan design presented and just said 11 I good. 11 start at day one, and we' 11 work through it and see 112 whether we agree with it or not.
13 Now, obviously there would be some areas where
- )4 that's not so and where there is considerable advantage, 15 but I"m afraid there'd be a number of other areas where it 116 wouldn"t.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY= Could I ask something 118 be.fore - -
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. That s crt of runs me 20 down.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes:, I'm anxious to hear 22 your response on this.
- 23 24 25 But to what extent is your thinking tied to coping with the licensing process?
really driven by other considerations.
And to what extent is it You could mention
)341 .01 '.28 29 jwb that in responding to.Joe.
- 2 3
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes; it's a useful point.
Be cause, from my standpoint~ you know, if pretty well driven by the licensing process, and thatJ,s sort of the end Of it.
5 COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY= We 11*, be cause one of the 6 things that impressed me ------ go'ing up an::f looking at the 7 SNUPPS Project*, was that the.re are just a lot of other 8 important aspects about standardization*, having to do with 9 the way you built the plant", and so on:, which .are quite JO apart from the licensing project~
.] 1 MR~ 'STATIC)N: Yes, much more than we can deliver 112 in a written-document to you.
13 Well; generally~ of course we wanted to address
- J 4 the two objectives that we outlined there -- that we wanted 15 to ease the licensing time~ if we could; and 1 think you've 16 become*, of course, a little bit attached tc whether or noti, 17 does a number make the license process easier for your staff 18 or doesn't it? Does the height and the containment, or the
-19 diameter~ does it. make it easier? I don't know.
20 We have suggested that perhaps it really doesn't 21 make it that much easier --
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY= Could we ---
- 23 24 25 now-*-
MR~- STATION: I don't want to interrupt now --
COMMI SSlONER KENNEDY: 'I don't want to interrupt
341 .OJ '.29 30 jwb MR. STATION: Go right / ahead.
- 2 3
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I want t c come back to that, because that relates to some assumptions, I think, from your side as to how this process does or ought to 5 work.
6 MR. STATION: Yes~ and I think this is the sort
-7 of exchange we really want from you~ Because we're not here 8 to try and "convince" you, or turn you around, or anything.
9 I think we are really trying to get your rebound from the 10 presentation we have made.
JI So that that issue shou.ld be addressed. Does the 12 number, does the height, does the diameter conveniently 13 provide you with more reason to give that a -CP or not? I 114 don't know.
- I5 C01.fM1 SSIONER KENNEDY: Will you', later -- not now, 16 - because I don't want to interrupt what you're trying to get 17 at in response to Mr. Gilinsky's point but will you 18 explain later why you think it need not?
19 MR. STATION: Yes. If I may call on some of my 20 partners here to help do that?
. 21 COMM! SSIONER KENNEDY: Sure.
22 COMMISSIONER STATTON: The other point is, looking
- 23 24 25 at all the experience that Bechtel has had --- and particularly the experience we had in getting the SNUPPS Group. together.
There was originally some 26 utilities invclved that we
1341 ~OJ .30 31 jwb suggested ban together to do what 5 of them ended up doing.
- 2 3
4 The reasons we lost the other 21 were varied. Some of the very same reasons we're talking about generic designs.
One happened to be right in this area. His 5 reasons were z Look, he didn't fee 1 that he wanted to be 6 penalized for the site envelope conditionsr, if we felt we 7 had to.envelope. so we could cover at least the 4 sites that 8 we had~ So, you 1 ose some one on the basis of economics of 9 a design.
JO In looking at .the broad experience that we've Jt had as Bechtel*, from seismic character from the Wes~Coast
- 12 13 14 to the Easi Coast, to the South, we have made quite an analysis of the changes that really need tc be re.spected from any one design to another, insofar as seismic is 15 concerned. And we have a pretty good idea of those things
,}6 *th at rea 11 y need to be addressed.
17 And in some cases, the seismic character of a 18 plant can treated very ea.sily, going from cne location. to 19 another, simply by addressing .the specific areas that we 20 have a pretty good feel for where those characteristics 21 need to be changed within the. desi9n.
22 So, from the point of view of having a specific 23 design with di mens ions, our experience t e 1 J s us th at the 24 market for that, or the useability of that with the 25 utility industry, is going to be substantiaJly limited.
341 .OJ .31 32 jwb Because the utilities have an economic thing that they must
- 2 3
4 considers Is that the most ec-onomical design tor the plant that they have?
We have probably - in the Gaithersburg office, 5 alone no fewer than 5 or 6 audits a year by the Public 6 Utilities Commissions, coming to take a look: Are we in 7 fact spending the utilities money as well we we should?
8 So you can't avoid certain of the economics. And 9 yet, on the other hand, we have to address the fact that 10 we are trying to provide something that has a safety 11 I character well enough to get licensed.
12 So it is for those particular reasons that we 1.3 have some hesitation of picking 11 a 11 NSSS supplier, "a" unit 14 size, 11 a" containment dimension, and coming in and. getting 15 that licensed, and expecting it to have the broad market 16 value or util.i ty interest that we have seen we've been able
,J 7 to get under the generic approach.
18 COMM! SSIONER GI LINSKY: Isn!t the penalty for
- )9 snveloping a number of sites really pretty small? In other 20 words, from maximum to minimum?
21 MR. STATION: I'm going to let.you address that 22 one.
23 COMM! SSIONER GI LINSKY= Because I remembered it was 24 a very small percentage.
25 MR. STATTcJN: Within the SNUPPS character, you are
34].~0I *~32 33 jwb .absolutely right. In-the locations of those plants, the
- 2 _ enveloping that we ended up with was of a very 1 it tl e
.3 impact, say from New York to Kansas. So, it didn't have 4 that much.
5 MR~ LEX: But what's the seismic --
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You indLcated earlier that 7 it might have been quite different, as to an.umber of other 8 sites which are not ih that package~
9 MR. STATION: That's right; tha t"s right.
IO COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I guess that's the question
/
l .I that Mr*. Gilinsky' s talking to.
12 MR. STATION: Now the exact value of that, we 13 didnJ't take time to look at. I mean, we didnJ't go down and
,14 investigate the detail, because at the time there wasn't 15 that much detail to look at~ But it did bcther a number of 16 the utilities that the enveloping was going to be at some 17 particular penalty to their utility.
MR. LEX: Well, our experience, in looking at the 19 cost differentials in particularly civil structural design 20 cons iderat ionsr, and secondarily to some extent the increased 21 quantities of piping, and electrical, and heating* and 22 ventilating, and aJl these other good things that come along 23 as -your plant grows larger*, in trans la ting from some low 24 seismic intensity $ites to examining .35 and ~45 and .55 25 G-type things, we're looking at more than just a few percent.
34 l.~01 ~33 34 jwb We can get.up into ranges of 10 to 20 percent
- 2 3
4 pretty rapidly. - It's a very awkward thing to put a very specific number on*, because you're always looking at apples and oranges*- or else, a hypothetical treatment. But our 5 data do not all0w us to concur in the* l or 2 percent, or 6 5 percent range, whatsoever.
7 The cost of these on San Onofre showed 8 significantly more money inv.olved.
9 COMM! SSI ONER GI LINSKY: We 11, but ---
.JO CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, but those are* almost
- 1) pathological cases in the seismic sense. I think, as you 112 rai.se the seismic design bases, for_ instance, from a very 13 nominal one dOwn around 10 percent of gravity at O period, 14 it does seem to me that the enveloping penalties -- there is
,)5 one, but it's-not a rapidly rising function. And then 16 somewhere around a *third_. the acceleration cf gravity, you
,17 begin-to get into a place ~here you're reaJly having to 18 scratch hard on the design in order to meet the higher
)9 forces involved; and from there on out, why I doubt that 20 it*'s really very practical to present envelope designs.
21 But1, let's see, Dick, what? Somewhere around 22 a quarter G, or .3, .33?
23 MR. DeYOUNG: .3 is the normal type, tor 24 standard plants.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE= The standard ones on which that
1341.0l .3t4 35 jwb has worked through toa PDA have been around .3 -
- 4 2
3 MR. LEX: 1 would agree with that statement.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And furthermore, I think at that level, why you've covered a pretty fair chunk of the 5 U.S., about 75 percent of the likely site locations.
6 Now there is a fraction .left that falls into the 7 ..higher seismic realms, and there - there, I think maybe 8 you ve got to go custom.
9 MR. LEX: Dr. Bernsen, 1 think, had something .to 10 add ..
11 l DR. BERNSEN: Yes, I think there are a couple of 12 things. First of all, one point didn't come out -- and I 13 beiieve you may be thinking about it -- what you talked about 14 three, four, five years ago.
,15 1n this particular.case, we think we re talking ---
16 I shouldn't say we *"think" --- we re talking about a 17 committed layout of the module; a reiationship with the 18 module. It's not the building-block approach where you 19 move things around, but a fixed relatic:nship of complements 20 for an NSS. SC?~- you firm up the relationship of the 21 safety-related structures.
22 And it depends upon how far you carry the design
- 23 24 25 to d.eterrnine how much the cost impact is.
I think we- re At this stage, saying that relative layout of each structure would not change from seismic level to seismic level, but if
I 341 ~OJ .35 36 jwb you get into things such as reinforcing details, and
- 2 3
4 specific wall thicknesses, and additional flaws in diaphrams, then you get to add to the structural cost.
But, in a lower seismic level you-could take some of these 5 out, if they're not there for shielding or other purposes.
6 Now, if you get into fi na 1 de sign and you want 7 to*locate the piping _supports, and snubbers:, and if you want 8 cable-tray supper.ts, and so on, now your costs are 9 significantly different as you change the seismic level.
JO So i't depends upon how far you want to carry the l I design in licensing; 12 I'd like to answer the other question you asked 13 before~ Fro.rn my s.tandpoint, I think that What we're talking
- 14 about would do more to expedite licensing than anything 15 else, and it is really for that purpose. Because it's hard 16 to figure out why we need so many nurnber....s - specific design 17 numbers *- in the licensing process~
18 As I said before; the important thing to 19 demonstrate in the final design is that you have met specific 20 requirements and commitments and limits. If we said we were 21 going to use a 6-inch pipe for some auxiliary feedwa ter 22 system, but we also say we have - and that we supply a
- 23 24 25 certain fl ow --- but we also say that we want a certain rate that will satisfy the requirements to take care of decay heat with so much spilling, the governing criteria is the
i341 .01 .36 37 Jwb one that says you take care of a certain heat release with
- 2 3
4 a certain amount of spi_lling, and not how big the pipe was or what flow capacity you specified.
So we;ve kind of - we've got _a belt and 5 suspenders approach. And the numbers - the flow ra te:s, the 6 capacities', the sizes -- don't govern; it's the criteria 7 that govern. And just as in the ccnstruction area where 8 the I & E inspectors are verifying that the design is 9 carried out in construction', why not have the staff verify 10 that the final-design number5 implement the commitments and 11 I criteria and methods.
12 MR. LEX: Along that same .line, I would like to 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Jt,'s possible,_ Well-, you 14 had some other q.uestions?
,15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY= You were about to say?
l7 MR. LEX: I was about to come back to your 18 earlier question, Commissioner Kennedyi, on the containment 19 diameter and height question.
20 The basic characterization of the containment 21 pipe, the basic purpose of the containment 1, after all, is to 22 contain energy release from a ruptured system. The,basic
- 23 24 25 characterization of that is the energy quantity. It begins to impact or relate to containment dimensions only when you start specifying a pressure and drive yourself into a volume
341 .Ol '.37 38 jwb number. We would have little difficulty in selecting, on
- 4 2
3 a generic design basis, a pressure volume relationship necessary to suit a given NSSS and establishing the contai-nment pressure design level that we would attend to.
5 We".re simply trying to retain some level of 6 flexibility in the dimensions to adjust the containment to
- 7 suit the individual unique site requirements that we handle.
8 And having been personally involved in 9 shoehorning plants - -
10 CHAI'RMAN HENDRIE: We 11 , th ere are more 11 I NSSS-related o from that standpoint, sites 12 MR. LEX: The NSSS establishes the energy-release 13 -values', certainly. And after that, it becanes a geometry 14 question.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I wonder if you could
,)6 comment en how long you see the process taking right now, 17 from inception to operation of reactors., and what you think
'18 is .achievable by fully employing the plans you are laying 19 out?
20 MR. STATION: Chuck just completed a very 21 extensive study on this. To give the variations on it, you 22 can pick it up from there.
- 23 24 25 MR. HALLI GAN: But the more I worked on it, I think, the le.ss sure I became of what I thcught I knew.
C Laughter.)
341 .01 .38 39 Jwb CHAIRMAN HENDRIE= Yes~' I've had the same
- 2 3
4 experience. There may be other fields;, but this one is notable, that ones confidence level and ones canprehension goes through an early maximum 5 (Laughter.)
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIEs - and I haven't found that -
7 after you - once you peak out, why I haven-'t found that it 8 turns up again.
9 CLa ughte:r.)
JO MR. HALLI GAN: We 11, we can look at 1 t taking l I several approaches~ If you boil it down to the very 12 simplest parts of the problem, we believe that if you would 13 take a* look at from the time you award NSSS until it's 14 delive,red at the s,ite -- which .is a good, key point to look 15 for -- to .date, they're talking about 44 to 54 months .for 16 that in today"s environment. Although*, in talking to the 17 people who make the NSSS systems and their reactor vessel 18 su PP lier s, and ~s team-generator suppliers, they fee 1 that 19 if there were a fairly high level of stability in the market
-20 and in ,the requirements, to where they could make commitments 21 and get the long-lead-time materials such as forging on 22 stream, they could cut that down to something .on the order
- 23 24 25 of 30 months, say.
So, you look at the -- and also you look at the other end of it: 1he time the reactor vessel goes in place
341.0J .39 40 jwb at the site*, and then the bulk work to accompl.ish 2 installing wire, and cable, and piping, and looking at 3 the et.feet ive utilization of manpower - you start, say 4 taking the 44 months - you end up with about 8 years, say 1, 5 from the time you sward the NSSS until you finish it up 6 as a commercial operation.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So there's a bout 4 years.
8 Once you get the vessel on the site, you'r~ about 4 years 9 oft completion.
10 MR. HALUGAN' That is a good ccntribut,ive time.
ill That looks very easily attaina.ble.
12 COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY: Under present-day
- 13 conditions 2 14 MR. HALLIGAN= Under present-day conditions.
15 COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY: And how much time is 16 there before the award o.f the NSSS?
,17 MR. HALLIGAN= In your site-licensing problems, 18 anywhere from 2-to 5 years, maybe. Take 3 years as a good 19 average, maybe. And that's a tremendous licensing window; 20 a tremendous window for the stabilization of given criteria, 21 fr om the beg inning to end.
22 From the awarding of NSSS, it seems practical as 23 a goal to search for in the industry to match what they're 24 doing overseas right now. And that is*, about 6 years from 25 award of NSSS to fuel loading. And they de that by virtue
341 .01 .40 41 jwb of', say, decision making, ~nd not being hampered by the e 2 3
potential interferences, by licensing, everyth.ing moves ahead very boldly, with a sense of confidence that what 4 they are planning today is actually going to occur.
5 COMM! SSIONER GI LINSKY: When you say "overseas,"
6 is that pretty much the case everywhere? Are you talking 7 about Japan? Or Germany?
8 MR~ HALU GAN: It-'s starting to flow down, 9 over.seas, also. Bechtel has not has as much experience JO overseas JI COMMISSIONER GILlNSKY= Well', this is your own 12 experience overseas that you-'re referring to?
13 MR. HALLI GAN: Yes~-
114 COMMI SS I ONER GIL.INSKY: And that would be where?
- 15 MR~ HALLIGAN= France*~ Spain --
17 MR. HALLIGAN= Taiwan; 118 So as far as doing the design, gathering the 19 material together, getting it at the site and putting it 20 together, 6 years is entirely possible. It's a very 21 realistic time.
22 But in today'.s environment in the United States 1, 23 we believe that about the 8 years is something we ought to 24 be. seriously looking at, and not the 10 to 13, 10 or II.that 25 we seemed to be seeing in the last few years.
341 .Qj *.41 42.
Jwb COMMISSIONER GILINSKYz Oh, you're actually
- 2 3
4 seeing something like 10, from the award of the NSSS?
MR. HALLI GAN: Toa t 's correct.
COMM! SSI0NER GILINSKY= I see.
5 MR. HALLIGAN: And of course that's made up of a 6 number of elements, some of it being the lack of stability 7 in the needs by the utilities, their perturbations ***on their 8 side, the financing problems, and also it's th* impact of 9 the licensing process itself and the licensing requirements.
10 COMM! SSIONER GI LINSKYz And how do you see the 11 1 licensing process impacting on thLs?
- 12 MR. HALLIGAN: Probably, in the establishing of 13 the confusion over the lack of confidence of what I plan 14 today, and I can plan a total scheme, and then I put together 15 a method of carrying it out and getting it done, there is 16 enough perturbation a.ssociated both . in the processes and the 17 public hearings and the changing of the safety requirements, 18 however large or small .they might be, it's just enough to 19 keep the industry off its feet from an e.ffective and a 20 very efficient standpoint.
21 COMMISSIONER GI LI NSKYz Now is this up to the CP?
22 Or do you see it also going on after the CP.
- 23 24 25 the CP.
MR. HALLIGAN: There has been considerably after COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I mean, is that a
34 L. 0 I
- 4 J-A *43
- 2 3
significant part of this extra time that you're pointing to, The post-CP?
MR~ HALLIGAN: *In the efforts at looking at this 4 recently -- and believe me; this is not intended as a 5 negative comment towards the review staff in any sense; i t"s
-6 just the fact that we believe the impact of the total 7 11 cens ing acti vi tyi, if that could be reduced to zero so 8 licensing were not- an impact on this whole process, that 9 .about 3 years could be reduced from it.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But this is l1 MR. HALLIGAN' But part of that is en our own side, 12 as far as responding to existing 11cens~ng criteria, in the 13 for~s of adequate or understandable codes, and standards, et 14 cetera.
15 COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY= Let"s see. Are you 16 including the CP review when you say 11
,:: ye ar s " ?
17 MR. HALLIGAN= Yes, I am.
118 MR~ STATION: Oh, yes.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I mean that --
20 MR. HALLIGAN:. And I would .like to go back, and 21 this --
- 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes,, but how about separating that-- which was the question, earlier.
COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY=
- Yes I, in other words 25 COMM! SSIONER KENNEDY: Take the CP out of it, and
341.0l .42 44 jwb then what? After the CP has been issued.
- 2 3
4 COMMI*SSIONER GILINSKY: To what_ extent are you faced with new requirements, and so on 1, that one hears a great deal about, after the CP is granted? Or~ can you 5 pl an*, reas,onably ~ beyond that point?
6 MR. HALUGANi It-Js been the implementation of 7 say the broad requirements~ and understanding of systems 8 separat101*~ seismic support for cable tray and c*ondui t, the 9 ., details of implementation which were not fully understood JO o:r: defined in everyones minds five years ago.
lI And so a great deal of --- and this gets back to --
- 12 13 14
.leads into something that we believe the approach that we're suggesting might help to solve~
One of the biggest problems that exists in the 15 completing of plan ts, to date, are those -- the wire and 16 cable,* the conduit 1, cabletray hangers, piping - a 11 largely 17 associated with the solution of .the pipe-break problem, 18 separation, seismic design. The method of design of a 11 19 these things depends on a lot of field-fit. But yet we're 20 taking the total system of duct supports, cable tray supports 21 and designing a very carerul criteria and degree.
22 The hangers. They have to be installed in 23 sequence. And as we got smarter and smarter~ and become 24 more -- say the regulatory requirements became much, much
- 25 tighter Q'\ how we do thi*s - - the tremendous interferences in
i341 ~O.J .43 45 jwb the field - productivity installing all the bulk reduced
- 2 3
4 significantly, because a great deal of backfit w_as required. -
to put all of this field-bulk material in place.
So, it/s *unlikely that you could ever complete a 5 standard design of a plant -- a specific*, implemented, 6 standard design to the degree that you could solve all 7 of that. The physical problems of getting all of these 8 little pieces associated -- and that's another reason why 9 we can't r_ea 11 y honestly give you a good *answer as to what 10 does it cost to go from ~2-G to ~ 33-~ Because the real cost ll I is in trying to fit 17,000 pipe hangers-, along with
- 12
,)3 14 27',000 cabletray hangers~ in an area. that needs to be laid out in extreme detail to avoid the congestion, just to get them in; and still permit some field changes.
115 DR. BER8'1SEN: I can't give you anything specific 16 on the effect of schedules\ but as a practical matter - to
,]7 give you sane example -- most of the projects we 're worrying 18 about today have CPs~- And yet the amount of time and 19 effort spent by licensing-oriented people in supporting 20 pr9jects~ trying to figure out how to solve new designs, 21 meet new requirements~ how new requirements apply to plants 22 With CPs and. not* OLs, is greater than ever before.
- 23 24 25 We have a larger number of people worrying more about these specific prob.lems -
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What does this do? Does
1341 .O I
- 44 46 jwb this slow you down in your. design? or do you -.-
- 2 3
4 DR. BERENSON' backfi tting, ancL redoing~
It creates uncertainty, and COMM! SSIONEFI GI UNSKYz --- end up redoi rq things 5 that you ve done already?
~ DR. BEFIENSONa Yes, all of these things --
7 depending upon how smart you are, and how far ahead you can 8 anticipate what the requirement might be when you bring the 9 final safety analysis report in, it could be anything from JO rubbing out a drawing, to ripping out an awful lot of J1 concrete and steel.
- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Now*, doesn't this argue il2 13 for having a final design, to the ex.:tent possible,.,before we
,14 ever get involved in this process? I think maybe that's what 15 Joe was saying _at the beginning.
16 MR. HALLIGAN: Well, let me ask a question. This
- )7 is really what we're trying to sort out, exactly the same 18 thing.
19 Will, in fact, a standard reference design which 20 cannot specify all the major components*- like the exact 21 manufacturer for the feedwater pump, an:i for the condensate 2!*~ pumps, and _the safety pumps, and all these things -- does 23 ttre*-perturbation caused by finally acquiring the actual 24 purnps,'S'nd systems, and components going in there, does the 25 perturbation.:'t-o that, as far as the "look-see" or the
341 .OJ ~45 47 Jwb re*view of the safety aspects "'O~ .:the plant*~ are those greater 2 than what we a re proposing in the -G~ff?
3 COMM! SSIONER KENNEDY: What;'s -yrur answer?
4 MR~* HALLIGAN: We don't think sc~ *-Be-cause it 5 seems to us the most imper tant thing is to make sure vt"e 6 all agre*e on what the criteria is tor that pump~* So that 7 no matte.r whose pump we buy;, it wi 11 f.i t the safety-related 8* er iter ia'; but yet permit the comnie rcial forces to come into 9 pl.ay to adjust ..to different pipe sizes*~ different pipe 10 orienta-t.ions*~
- Because when you get to the seismic', again, tJ I the most important thing is to make sure tha*t piping system 12 wi 11 withstand the *-best .in a s*eismic environment*, not just 113 meet the criteria:
14 so; we would 11 ke to see a design evolution come il5 about where we would not. have to have all cf those very 16 cumbersome"; awkward~* almos.t impossible pipe supports in J7 there. And today;* if we sit down to design a standard 18 plant which would be* approved, it would in fact have to 19 include some of those things*, to .really respond to what 20 You are looking for, to avoid all this continu*ous re*view, 21 :specific review of some of the design, dimensicnal *details.
22 Because 11 dimensions, 11 that's on this whole -- I
- 23 24 25 keep referring back to the seismic*, because I thJ.nk we all perhaps have discussed Lt enough; we have a pretty good feel for why it is such a pain in the neck.'
341 ~OJ .46 48 jwb So, wouJd. the review, under the standard plant
- 2 3
4 design, reference design*., once you get a given feedwater pump, is that greater than what we are proposing----which is that you don't size* the line that comes out of that 5 pump, but we could agree on what the criteria is for that 6 pump -- for the pump, and also for sizing the line and 7 supporting the line.
.*s Because~ again, we would like the flexibility .
9 to .improve on that design, on incremental -- on a controlled 10 basis, in bOxes that fit within a hole 1, rather than having 11 to change the whole bit.
- 12 13 14 Another example: On the philosophy as we 1 ook at it -- and *we're re.ally sure it differs a 11 that much from yours, either - take the containment vessel again'. which is 15 something physical we can all recognize.
16 There are several major suppliers of the tendon 17 systems for pres.tressed post-tension systems. There's been 18 a great deal of thought and evolution that has gone into 119 what is the appropriate length, and different manufacturers, 20 for commercial reasons, have dif.ferent lengths', different 21 sizes, different end connec*tions.
22 There is a tendency right now that if in fact --
- 23 24 25 and we have been somewhat of a party to it -- in order to become more standardized on this, and to avoid as much discussion and pro longed review with NRC, .. to narrow dOwn
341 .01 ~47 49 jwb those requirements to the point where we've almost
- 2 3
4 eliminated any *cornpeti tion.
So, the criteria for the tendons, ~he m~thods for analysis, and the way in which the criteria for the 5 end connections would -- if that could be established, then 6 there are* several manufacturers that could come in and 7 respond to tha t.
8 But there will be a tendency, .we believe, as we 9 tend to - if Bechtel were to draw a ccntainment s ..tructure JO giving dimensions which would tend to fix the tendon length, 1l which would tend to fix the tendon diameter and the number.s
- 12 of it -- that all of a sudden we would.tend to push some of
! 13 the potential suppliers out of the way. Because it's too 14 risky a business for that size a company to enter into it 15 anyway. So that's one of the things we;ore trying to get.
16 MR~ STONE: I think it would be worthwhile if 17 you would allow me', just for a few momentsi, to use I think 18 the best example there is in the industry tOday--- the 19 advantage of the generic application*-- and that's SNUPPS; 20 that sprung from a generic design.
21 I. know two of the.Commissioners have been out to 22 visit to see what the project is about~ That sprung from
- 23 24 25 a generic design by Bechtel which was far less advanced at that stage than we are today in our generic designs.
It a,llowed the project to complete its filing,
341 .OJ .48 50 jwb from the time that the nuclear steam supply system was
- 2 3
4 selected, to the filing of the PSAR, was 9 months; and the CP was August '76. So that was 24 months.
Now*, there was some delay in the construction 5 permit time, but-the advantage there was that~ springing 6 from a generic design,' and bringing together the custom 7 requirements of 5 utilities~ was able to bBnefit the filing 8 of a Significant document and achieving the first consiruction 9 permit~ in view of that task of bringing together the people,
]0 within 24 months.
11 l Then, the completion of the fir ..st unit," the first 12 fuel load~ was supposed to be toward the end of '81 *. We have 13 seen the effects o.f economics*, of slowed growth*,- have 14 stretched that out*~ But that *was looking at a period from the 15 time the PSAR was docketed*~ which was June ,74*, to the fuel
]6 loading of the first unit, was 7-1/2 years*. Now, if all of L7 those things had come off on time and had not been 18 affected by +/-inancing, and low growth~ that would have 19 been a significant improvement to the industry~
20 And I think the example of the utilities being 21 able to work together in small groups such as that with a 22 generic design', allows them the economic advantage that
- 23 24 25 Mr. Statton has talked about as one of their needs~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, it's certainly a reasonable way to do business, and is O"le of the
341 .0 I .49 51 jwb standardization options, I must sai, "'I think the staff is
- '2 3
4 in fact :rather fond of.
(
very satisfactory one; And from our standpoint, it is a But the essence of it*;* I th ink from the sta ff--'s 5 standpoint~ is .less that you are able to form the specific 6 application for X units* from your generic base that you have
] in hand; that, you know*, is not*; .I think~ a notable point 8 for the staff~*
9 What's of interest to the staff is: By George, 10 here's a specific application that says nhere's the design 11 l of the plant-~ and we're going to' build six of *these*; and 12 there are going to b.e a few minor differences for 13 .site-related matters as 'noted in each of the site--specific 14 a_pplications; but here"s the specific design in terms of the 15 basic safety-related plant design~ *Ana here are the 16 analyses that go with it: This applies to all these units. 11 1.7 And the staff looks at that and chews through thatl, and that 18 then stands .for all the individual units~
19 And I hope we are doing the same thing in the 20 OL stage~ to the maximum-possible degree.
21 Now~ it was an advantage to you to have the 22 BESSAR backup in-house, in terms of your putting this
- 23 24 25 application -
clients.
the joint application --- together .for your I guess there would be some incremental bene.fi t to you and to the staff if the staff had 1 wked. at BES SAR
341.01 .50 52 jwb and there were sections of that on which the staff had said
- 2 3
4 this is a reasonable approach, and so on. But I really wonder if that wou]d have made ve~y substantial differences in the work the staff would have felt it had to do when the 5 specific dssign came in.
6 And what I have a feeling is that, because of 7 their need to be able to speak in some detail to things 8 on the specific design, maybe not so muche Not nearly so 9 much advantage, I think*~ as a case where there has been a JO reference design -- a standard design which is pretty l1 specific -- which does settle down to the maximum possible
-12 degree on how big is this, you know, what have we~ got herei, 13 the whole thing, has been worked over.
14 And that's, you know, that's sort of a fundamental 15 comment I make to you about this concept.
- 16 DR. BERNSEN: I'm curious. How much specific 17 numerical information does the staff need, and what do they 18 do with it? What do they do with a 11 6-inch line size" or a 19 penetration that's 2 inches*, which is 3 inches*, and things 20 like this? What's governing in their review at the PSAR 21 stage, first of all?
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I think we ought to -
23 I haven't given the sta_ff a chance to comment, and let me 24 do that in a minute, and then they can .address this point, 2 among others.
i34 l ~ 01
- 51 53 jwb But I must say that what you propose, the sort
- 2 3
4 of thrust that you take with this generic modular sort of approach, it may be that it's workable in part at the construction-permit stage, but I think the staff will still 5 have to do more work on a specific application using it 6 than they would if they had a more specific*, approved, 7 standard design in hand; 8 What bothers me more is I don "t see any reasonable 9 way for your scheme to progress to the point we would like JO to get to, I think-~ And that is; not to have people coming ii 1 in referencing preliminary design approval standard designs 12 at construction permit time*,* but rather for us to get into a 13 shape where we can do a single major safety re*view and let 14 that stand~-
15 Wha.t th is re qui res is a design which is final, in 16 a safety sense. It needn't be a final --- now we"re going to 17 get all the ready proof for construction drawings and so 18 on, but in the terms of final safety analysis; 19 And, you know, we have a batch of preliminary 20 design approvals out now*, and are working hard on/sort of 21 the next phase of the standardization policy, to see where 22 we go from here.
- 23 24 25 final -
But the thrust; *very clearly, is to encourage those people sup porting those designs to go forward to to a thing which we' 11 call a "final design
341 .OJ ~52 54 jwb approval," or a 11 standard design approval," or whatever,
- 2 3
4 in which we feel tha.t we know enough to speak pretty authoritatively.en a generic basis to ,the safety aspects, and not have to re tread at OL time.
5 What that leaves 1, then, the thing you brought up.
6 Now we have to confirm that what'.s actually built ind,eed 7 conforms to that design. 1he staff wi 11 have to look at 8 th~t. It will be, in part, an inspection function, and in 9 part a licensing review .function. But I wculd see it as 10 nowhere near approaching the present process, where there I11 is a whole new presentation, you know, a refurbish.ing of
- 12 13
.] 4 everything .in the application., for the final safety analysis report, and the whole staff review of thati, and so on.
COMMISSIONER GIL1 NSKY: What I understand the 15 Bechtel people to be saying - c.orrect me if I'm wrong ---
16 is that this kind of detailed final de sign somehow conflicts 17 with industrial reality. Is that in fact what your're 18 saying?
19 MR. HALLI GAN= We question that I, yes. That you're 20 going to get enough perturbation, through actual final 21 equipment in there, that there is little or no difference 22 .in the amount of time of review required by the staff to
- 23 24 25 confirm the fact that it does.fit the preapproved design, with the new specific equipment in it than cur approach where the criteria is preapproved, and we still buy the
341. 0 I
- 53 55 jwb specific equipment and put dimensions on i t which
- 2 3
4 requires a total staff review:
And the other -- I was thinking as you were talking about SNUPPS, Joe~ is there any difference~
5 really, in the approach-~ from the licensing standpoint',
6 considering the SNUPPS project*, to one of the generic 7 family, and it becomes, then; the same reference submitted 8 as a standard reference? It is a standard licensed 9 preapproved design~ and would enjoy~ or would require JO the same degree of changes to meet whatever license changes 11 came along-, and commercial equipment chan;,es came along, as
- -12 13 14 a standard reference plan submitted for a preapproved design.
The end product seems to me to be identical.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE= I think that/s righti, but I 1 15 would want to cover the ground again to make sure I 16 understood those things. I have been threatening to give jl7 the staff a chance to comment, and why don't I -- Ed?
18 Roger? Dick? Please do.
19 MR. MATTSON: From a broad perspective, as an 20 engineering matter, what the people are proposing today 21 makes good engineering sense~ That is\ the approach to 22 standardization which emphasizes performance objectives --
- 23 24 25 I didn't hear the words*, but I presume that underlying that is qualifications testing.
standards.
I did hear words about national That "s good, sol id eng inee ring sense, at least J
,341.. 0 l .54 56 jwb in my judgment. It is a good approach to standardization.
- 2 3
4 The problem comes in trying to _implement that, alon9 the µ3th that Bechtel is proposing today. One problem is a matter of trust -- trusting people to set performance
.5 objectives, not provide you any details about how they're 6 going to meet them', and then expect them to come back* a 7 few years later having met them.
8 I will give you two examples one having to do 9 with the 1 ine sizes that these people have dis cussed; and 10 the other having to do with something near and dear to your 11 1 he arts.
- 12 13 14 One could look at the question of environmental qualification of electrical connection 11 s 11 as a graphic example of setting performance objectives namely, "thou 15 shalt provide electrical equipment capable of performing 16 in the accident environment - as a good example of setting 17 a performance criteria, and then going about procuring
,18 equipment without a Lot of detailed analysis by the 19 regulatory staff, maybe even none; and then finding out 20 that you had a number of operating plants, ostensibly 21 constructed to have environmentally qualified electrical 22 connecticns that in fact it did not.
23 So there's a matter of trust in setting 24 performance object.ives and. then understanding that they will 25 be met, even when_ national standards exist'.
341 .01 .55 57 jwb COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Excuse me\ Reger. I--'m
- 2 3
4 not sure how that situation obtains any differently in the proposal that they're making from any other, including a custom design. As a matter of 5 MR. MATTSON= There's n01e, sir; I agree~
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDYi It does not. So that 7 applies anywhere?
8 MR~ MAT1SON: Yes, sir.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Okay*.
JO MR. MATTSON: The question as tc how much detail 11 is required in something like containment design, it is
.12 probably safe to say that the mass and energy capability of 13 the containment to withstand a blowdown --- I don't need 14 detailed dimensions of the containment:
15 The problem is that the requirement is to assure 16 the safety of the containment, given a loss-of-coolant 17 accident. And that's more than just the mass and energy 18 absorption capability.
19 It might be, for example*, asymetric loads on 20 the vessel. Does the breaking of a pipe blow the vessel 21 open? For that, one has to look at subcompartment loads*,
22 at a syme tr ic discharges.-, at their pipe size*, or even
- 23 24 25 break opening time could have quite a lot cf difference on the engineering outcome of the technical outcome of the analysis-~
341 .01.56 58 jwb It is possible, in principle~ to set performance
- 2 3
4 objectives for all of those kinds of safety considerations 1, and to approve standard methods and procedures for coming at those pro bl ems. It hasn't been done yet. It's 5 conceivable, and we're moving in that direction. It*'s 6 conceivable that we could achieve that.
] This would certainly gi've us impetus in that 8 direction.
9 One other comment that's probably a nit on this 10 scale of things~ 1he "topical reports:." We have to be 11 1 a little bit careful of how we use topical reports with 12 standardized plans~ If we're talking about 15 topicals, 13 that's a manageable number~ I* have a standard plan in my 14 division right now under review that has 120 topical 15 re ports re.ferenced.
16 So, 50 of them are unapproved. Some of them are 17 unsubmitted. Now that's sort of counter tc standardization 18 in the way that topical reports can get reviewed sometimes.,
19 They can get put aside for a number of years before the staff 20 will reach a conclusion on this.
21 If that eventual review on a topical report leads 22 to a design change 1, then I've circumvented standardization.
23 So a 11 I would say is "13" is a manageble number. If you 24 keep it manageable!, it's consistent with standardization.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes?
) 34 1 ~* 01
- 5 7 59
~ jwb DR~ BERNSEN: In an effort to present sDmething
- 2 3
4 in a general sense in a half-hour period, it is impossible to get into details. I think we are fully aware of the kinds of things that have been mentioned, and recognize that 5 the arrangement of the reactor vessel and the biological 6 shield in the cavity*, and the treatment of this, and the 7 methods as well as*, perhaps if necessary, limiting loads 8 as some demonstration that you achieve these', and how, 9 would have to be included in this design, as well, probably 10 in the same degree of detail that you provide now.
11 l I think the real question is: What do they do 12 with the specific numerics, at any point in time, when the 13 real issue is the results: Have you --- for example, are 14 you qualifying the penetrations to the pressure, and how 15 do you get the pressure? What range of breaks do you 16 consider? And where? And-how? And so on~ What 17 conditions are they qualified for, and what limiting 18 conditions are they qualified tor?
.]9 Tnese are the things*~ it seems to me,*- that 20 everybody is concerned with-, and not the *specific number.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Aren't there an awful lot of 22 those things in a design where itJs easier for you -- God
- 23 24 25 knows it"s probably easier for us - to say", instead of trying to construct this enormous~ all-encompassing package of how we 're going to do it and gear the cri teriai, and so on, to
341 .O I .58 60 jwb say: Here's how we're going to do it; It's a piece of
- 2 3
4 cold roll this big, and here's the dimensi you want a stress analysis?
we can look at that and say:
01 on it; and there it is. And By God, that piece of ironwork 5 is okay. And it may be enormously simpler, from an 6 engineering standpoint, to deal with a great number of the 7 features of the plant design.
8 And-;* ye ah, maybe if you rea 11 y cu stem did every 9 piece of every plant you ever did, that piece of ironwork 10 would look different on this one over here!, and th.is one
,J 1 over here. But, for God's sake~ it's sort of weighed down 12 in the noise, and if you're going to be on a basis where I
13 you can deal efficiently with these designs~ we could be 14 on a basis where we can review efficiently~ it would make a 15 lot more sense to say "that's the gubber we"re going to iJ 6 use there," .an.d never mind a lot of fancy descriptionso 17 MR. HALLIGAN= I would -like to meet our desires',
18 our intent. We would want to answer that problem in our 19 generic design. That's the kind of thing that we want to 20 put to bed in::--house. So that we don't have a flock of 21 structural engineers sitting around dreaming up new 22 analytical methods to find more reasons for rebar *. But that 23 is exactly the kind of thing that we want to put to bed in 24 our generic, and you can do that for each NSSS supplier.
25 Because we would make the basic piping layouts so we would
>341.01.59 61 jwb be able to d~fine that.
- 2 3
4 Those are the kinds of things that bog down the engineering design --- deci siOn-illaking :and design processes,- between us, the client, and you'.
5 MR~ MATTSON= I wasn"t claiming it was impossible.
6 I say that it is difficult~
7 MR. HALLI GAN= It "s difficult, but if i t can'*t 8 be done-, that would be a very fundamental cbjective of our 9 design -- it would be to tie down that type of thing~
- 10 MR~ MAT1SON: If I could *follow up with one more l1 comment, Dr. Hedrie-, I think you mentioned!, the question 12 of flexibility can,.become a very difficult question. You
,t 3 can end up doing more review at the CP stage', perhaps, than 14 you would w1 th a custom plan.
115 If the J:ermutations and combinations of different 16 accident conditions, and different seismic conditions, and l7 different torn ado conditions, and different flood conditions, 18 can so complicate at that .the PDA review-, that you don't 19 know how to sort through them all for a specific cycle.
20 If we're reasonable on that flexibility ----- that isl, we don't 21 have seven different design le*vels for _earthquakes; we..,d .have 22 a couple; and we dcn't have 18 different tornadoes 1, we have a
- 23 24 25 couple ---- then i t"s manageable.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
being manageable.
It at least gets closer to
341 .01 .60 62 jwb Well', I was going to - I'm afraid we're catching
- 4 2
3 up to time --- I was going to comment.
We all recognize that, even in a so-called "..final re.ference design" in which we're able to fee.l we have a 5 final safety analysis to deal with and can make judgment on 6 it and stand with it, we recognize that there are certain J variabilities that end up there - for the antitrust reasons, 8 among others.
9 - Now, you recogn.:ize these things' 9 tooo It may be 10 that the place that you end up and the place that the sort 11 I of thing I've been talking about ends up are not that far
_, 12 13 apart. But I start from a place where I say: Let's have a specific design in every possible nut-and-bolt detail that 14 it can be managed; and then come down saying, all right, 15 you've got meo I've got to allow flexibility to take any 16 one of four pump vendors, so I have to come down off that 17 absolutely fully detailed_ specific design, okay?
18 And here's another place where -- and that, in 19 turn, maybe means that I can't fully define the piping 20 hookup, so now there's another little flexibility, and so 21 on. And, right, here's a - It-'s a balance of plant design, 22 and I have to take a~count of the fact that just the
- 23 24 25 primary inventories are substantially different between one SSS system and another, so I've got to do scmething about a swing in containment volume. And we decided', I th.ink in one
I ~'OL'~-61 63 jwb scheme', why*~ you know*;* the containment's either that high*,
2 or that high;* but it's the same diameter, *and the 3 arrangement is the same; it's a way o:f getting a volume 4 'Variable term in *to fit it*, and so on. So* I've had to 5 come down some m*ore .*
i> Your approach starts sort of down here*~ and says:
7 W&-'d like to; you* know~ be able to fit the customer, in 8 terms ot his specific seismic requirements', so we've got a 9 Whole :series*,of variations on that*, from a seismic standpoint,
- Jo plant layoutg *we've got the module units*, but*, you know, in 11 some plants we want the turbine. bu.ilding over herei, and some 112 over there*, and so on*~- and so *on:
13 And as you -- tor your own purposes*, and for 14 licensiQg µ..rrp6ses 1, fine; it's be*tter to *reduce the number 15 of these options~ and so on~ You sort of work up_ -toward
- 16 . a specific design~
17 I'm coming sort of down, and yc;,u're coming up.
18 It may be that in fact we end_ VP not very far apart, but
!19 I sort of continue to feel that from the standpoint of 20 effective licensing and so on~ I ccntinue to .sort of want 21 to start up here, and then back off if I have to,. rather 22 than start out .with you and see how far we can encourage 23 you to c.lose down th.e number of options so tha*t it is 24 manageable.
25 MR. STATION: We certainly respect that 1, and we
5341 ~*01 :62 64 jwb are also influence ct*; to a degree*, by having had what we
- 2 3
4 think is the Bechtel* standard in the SNUPPS Program~
we did an awful lot of work~ Joa; to But ohi, we took bids tor any equipment components -- to make sure that the 5 manufacturer could handle the load and also stay in business~
6- Be.cause it was obvious tha*t he couldn't dedicate his whole 7 shop to do us for five or six year~:
8 And as a consequence, some of the procurements 9 that we've made have been in trouble;* or we've found that 10 our assessment of the guy's. ability to handle as much as,
,J l say, five units would put on him; has impaired his ability 12 to deli'ver~
~_",ii ,.13 So~ I think you have to have the margin that 14 :. *. wi Jl a 1low you to proceed 'under almost -- as many 15 cfr;eum*stan ces that appear to be reasonable *tor the schedule 16 we 're tr.yi*ng to achieve:*
17 So- we.. appreciate your comments: I .think they are 1)8 very per:tinent; they're the very thing we were looking for.
19 We didn't really come to seJl you this; we come to test the 20 water*~ because our examination te.lls us that this has been 21 a fairly successfuJ approach within Bechteli, we've bounced 22 it off a ntnllber of our clients~- They~ frankly~- are quite
- 23 24 25 concerned about the standards program, as to the advantages that they can see for themselves.
We're not here to relate any concern of theirs
,341 .01 .63 65 jwb whatsoever*~ I think we're trying to see how we can best
- 2 3
4 serve the industry~ from the generic point of view.
So your comments, I think, were frankly very good for our purposes.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, that's very useful to us 6 to hear your points of view. You have a lot of experience 7 with these plants, and it's very important that we try to 8 understand the reasons that lead you to the sort of approach 9 you'd like to take.
l I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE= I think it ould be useful,
.J 2 you know, as time goes on a little bit and you see more
~ 13 clearly where you want to go -- we would encourage you to 14 be in contact with the staff officers who work on these 15 standardization sorts of things, and to keep them informed; 16 that a dialogue be maintained so that we could --
17 MR. STATION= We are quite interested in knowing 18 just what is the value of the licensing e+/-fort', depending on 19 the kind of submittal we would propose;, and of course we 20 don't have that depth of the detail but we could iron that 21 out with the staff~
22 So I think we are going to try and pursue some
- 23' 24 25 evaluation in our terms, and perhaps yours;, where that is.
It may be that most of the review occurs after the CP, or maybe most of it would occur.before CP. We're finding that,
5 341. 0 l
- 64 66 jwb in some cases - particularly on SNUPPS - that we had
- 3 2
4 predictable *licensing success on the thingi, and we really could have enjoyed more engineering time, to get more completed before we went in the field.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There*, you see, there are -
6 MR. STA ITON: There are some 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There are disadvantages to 8 speedy licensing~
9 (Laughter .* )
10 MR. STA ITON: But in all good respect, we-'ve 11 1 tried to point this out to Victor~ that for what we're
-* 12 13 14 attempting to do, if we're really going to get all the time, all the slack out of it-, we've got to work on not only licensing, we've got to work on constructicn time, the 115 techniques 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE= That's exact Jy right*.
17 MR. STATION: -- and the amount of commitment that 18 we have to make in the field~ And that is being done, and
,19 it has been very helpful~
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And you need to know what we're 21 up to, too~* If we a 11 of a sudden turned around and started 22 doing 9-month reviews*, why ---
- 23 24 25
( Laughter~)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Thank you very much.
(Whereupon at 11:25 a.m.~ the hearing was adjourned.)