ML24233A192
| ML24233A192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/09/2024 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-2936 | |
| Download: ML24233A192 (1) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards GEH BWRX-300 Subcommittee Open Session Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Tuesday, July 9, 2024 Work Order No.:
NRC-2936 Pages 1-86 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1
1 2
3 DISCLAIMER 4
5 6
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 7
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 8
9 10 The contents of this transcript of the 11 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 13 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions 14 recorded at the meeting.
15 16 This transcript has not been reviewed, 17 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 18 inaccuracies.
19 20 21 22 23
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
(ACRS) 5
+ + + + +
6 BWRX-300 SUBCOMMITTEE 7
+ + + + +
8 TUESDAY 9
JULY 9, 2024 10
+ + + + +
11 The Subcommittee met via Teleconference, 12 at 8:30 a.m. EDT, Walter L. Kirchner, Chair, 13 presiding.
14 15 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
16 WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Chair 17 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 18 VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 19 GREGORY H. HALNON, Member 20 CRAIG A. HARRINGTON, Member 21 ROBERT MARTIN, Member 22 DAVID A. PETTI, Member 23 THOMAS ROBERTS, Member 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
2 ACRS CONSULTANTS:
1 DENNIS BLEY 2
4 5
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIALS:
6 ZENA ABDULLAHI 7
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
3 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 1
PAGE 2
ACRS Subcommittee Chair Introductory Remarks 4
3 NRR Staff Opening Remarks............
7 4
GEH Staff Opening Remarks............
7 5
GEH Staff Presentation 9
6 NRR Staff Presentation
............. 52 7
Public Comment
................. 79 8
ACRS Subcommittee Member Comments........ 79 9
Meeting Adjourns
................ 86 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
4 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
8:31 a.m.
2 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Okay, we'll try again.
3 This meeting will now come to order. This is a 4
meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor 5
Safeguards; this is the GEH BWRX-300 Design Centered 6
Subcommittee meeting. I am Walt Kirchner, chairman of 7
the ACRS, and lead member for this meeting. Members 8
in attendance of the committee today are Ron 9
Ballinger, Greg Halnon, Craig Harrington, Robert 10 Martin, Dave Petti, Thomas Roberts, and Vesna, are you 11 out there?
12 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes, good morning.
13 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Good morning, Vesna. And 14 Vicki, are you there? Zena Abdullahi attending 15 virtually, and Hossein Nourbakhsh here in person are 16 the designated federal officers for this meeting. The 17 subcommittee will review the staff's evaluation of 18 GEH's licensing topical report NEDC33926P Revision 2 19 BWRX-300 steel plate composite containment vessel and 20 reactor building structural methodology.
21 GEH requested that NRC review the 22 acceptability of this BWRX-300 diaphragm plate steel 23 composite design approach and methodology in meeting 24 NRC regulations. The ACRS was established by statute, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
5 and is governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 1
FACA. The NRC implements FACA in accordance with its 2
regulations found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 3
Regulations Part 7.
4 The committee can only speak to its 5
published letter reviews. We hold meetings to gather 6
information and perform preparatory work that will 7
support our deliberations at a full committee meeting.
8 The rules for participation in all ACRS meetings were 9
announced in the Federal Register on June 13th, 2019.
10 The ACRS section of the USNRC public website provides 11 our charter, bylaws, agendas, letter reports, and full 12 transcripts of all full and subcommittee meetings, 13 including slides presented there.
14 The agenda for this meeting was posted 15 there. A portion of this meeting will be closed to 16 protected GEH proprietary and export controlled 17 information pursuant to 5 USC 552BC4. As stated in 18 the Federal Register notice, and in the public meeting 19 notice posted to the website, members of the public 20 who desire to provide written or oral input to the 21 subcommittee may do so, and should contact the 22 designated federal officer five days prior to the 23 meeting.
24 A communications channel has been opened 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
6 to allow members of the public to monitor the open 1
portions of this meeting. The ACRS is now inviting 2
members of the public to use the MS Teams link to view 3
slides and other discussion materials during these 4
open sessions. The MS Teams open session link 5
information was placed in the agenda on the ACRS 6
public website.
7 We have not received any requests to make 8
oral statements from members of the public regarding 9
today's session. Written comments may be forwarded to 10 Zena Abdullahi or Hossein Nourbakhsh, today's 11 designated federal officials. There will be an 12 opportunity for public comment, and we have set aside 13 ten minutes in the agenda for members of the public 14 listening to this meeting.
15 A transcript of the open portions of the 16 meeting is being kept, and it is requested that 17 speakers identify themselves, and speak with 18 sufficient clarity and volume so that they may be 19 readily heard. Additionally, participants should mute 20 themselves when not speaking, and also we ask that you 21 silence any cell phones. We'll now proceed with the 22 meeting, and I will call upon Michelle Hayes from the 23 NRC to make an opening statement on behalf of the 24 staff. Michelle?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
7 MS. HAYES: Good morning, I'm Michelle 1
- Hayes, chief of the Licensing and Regulatory 2
Infrastructure Branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 3
Regulation. I appreciate your providing us the 4
opportunity to discuss our review of GEH's topical 5
report on the BWRX-300 steel plate composite 6
structural design of the containment vessel and 7
reactor building.
8 This was a first of a kind construction 9
technique, so it was a complex review, and I want to 10 thank the staff for their thorough and thoughtful 11 efforts. As part of a memorandum of cooperation we 12 have with Canada, we collaborated with CNSC on this 13 review, but ultimately the NRC and the CNSC made their 14 own findings specific to their own regulations.
15 So the SER that you saw, that was ours.
16 Earlier this year the U.K. was added as a third party 17 to this memorandum of cooperation. They did not 18 participate on the review, but both CNSC and the U.K.
19 regulators are on the call today. Thank you, I'd like 20 to turn it over to Suzanne.
21 MS. KARKOUR: Good morning. My name is 22 Suzanne Karkour. I'm acting VP of the new plant and 23 product licensing with GE Vernova. First and foremost 24 I would like to thank the staff for their in depth 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
8 review, and their feedback on the BWRX-300 steel plate 1
composite containment vessel and reactor building 2
structural design licensing topical report.
3 This LTR was developed as the design basis 4
for the BWRX-300 containment and reactor building 5
structures using steel plate composite modules. It 6
specifies the requirements for the
- material, 7
fabrication, construction, inspection, examination, 8
and testing of the modules for the BWRX-300 9
containment vessel and reactor building structures.
10 This LTR demonstrates compliance with 11 safety and performance objectives of existing 12 regulatory requirements, codes, and standards for the 13 design of containment and nuclear structures using 14 steel plate composite modules. Finally, the use of 15 steel plate composite modules for the construction of 16 the containment and reactor building structures 17 optimizes the construction in support of the timely 18 deployment of the BWRX-300.
19 We appreciate the opportunity to be with 20 you today, and to answer any questions that you may 21 have. Thank you.
22 CHAIR KIRCHNER: With that, we turn to 23 Lamia, are you next? Please go ahead. Let me just 24 ask you, pull the microphone closer to you, because 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
9 they're very directed, has to be reasonably close to 1
you.
2 MS. CHOUHA: Good morning everyone. I am 3
Lamia Chouha, GEH's lead licensing engineer for the 4
licensing topical report --
5 (Simultaneous speaking.)
6 MS. CHOUHA: Okay, I'll start again. So 7
good morning everyone, I am Lamia Chouha, GEH's lead 8
licensing engineer for the licensing topical report 9
NEDC33926. The agenda for the open session today 10 includes a presentation of the purpose and scope of 11 the licensing topical report, along with an overview 12 of the BWRX-300 steel plate composite structures of 13 diaphragm plate steel plate composite modules used in 14 the construction that we refer to as DP-SC modules.
15 And of the NRIC demonstration project 16 prototype tests that support the design approaches 17 presented in Sections 5 and 6 of the LTR.
18 MEMBER HALNON: I'm sorry, Lamia, you're 19 going to have to get right up to it because you're 20 very soft spoken, and it's not just us in here, it's 21 online as well.
22 MS. CHOUHA: Okay, is this better?
23 MEMBER HALNON: Yes.
24 MS. CHOUHA: Okay. So we will also 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
10 briefly discuss the BWRX-300 overall structural 1
analysis and design approach for the integrated 2
containment and reactor building structures, and 3
demonstrate how the LTR meets applicable U.S.
4 regulations and regulatory guidance. And then we will 5
present some of the design requirements that GEH 6
developed specifically for the DP-SC containment 7
vessel that we refer to as SCCV.
8 And for the non-containment DP-SC 9
structures that consist of the reactor building 10 structure housing the
- SCCV, and the pedestal 11 supporting the reactor pressure vessel. During the 12 closed session we will present possible DP-SC 13 configurations considered for the integrated RB 14 structures, the methodology used to compute effective 15 stiffness of the steel plate composite elements, and 16 discuss the design of DP-SC floors and connections.
17 So GEH developed the LTR NEDC33926 like we 18 said, to serve as design basis for the BWRX DP-SC 19 containment and RB structures, since current design 20 codes do not address the use of steel plate composite 21 structural elements, including DP-SC elements for 22 containment structures, or for structures outside of 23 containment pressure boundary.
24 The LTR proposed design rules for the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
11 SCCV, and the non-containment DP-SC structures are 1
adapted from the 2021 editions of the ASME Section 3 2
Division 2 Code for Concrete Containment, and Appendix 3
N9 of ANSI/AISC N690, but because these codes are not 4
directly applicable to DP-SC structures, the code 5
requirements were modified, and supplemented to 6
address the DP-SC construction.
7 The NRC did a great job of reviewing the 8
LTR, and had some good observations on the technical 9
content during the audit that led to an improvement, 10 or to augmented DP-SC design requirements in Revision 11 2 of the LTR. The code jurisdictional boundary for 12 application of the LTR to the BWRX integrated RB 13 structures is shown in figure 4-1 of the report.
14 Through this LTR GEH asked for NRC's 15 approval for the use of DP-SC structural elements in 16 the construction of the seismic category one SCCV and 17 RB structures, and for the proposed requirements for 18 material fabrication, construction, inspection, 19 examination, and testing of DP-SC modules used in the 20 construction of these structures.
21 GEH also asked for NRC's design specific 22 approval for the use of criteria and requirements for 23 the SCCV that are adapted from Article CC1000 through 24 6000 of the 2021 Edition of ASME Section 3 Division 2 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
12 Code, and modified criteria and requirements to N690 1
Chapters NM, NN, and Appendix N9 for the non-2 containment DP-SC structural elements.
3 This request was supported by the 4
following information in the report. The regulatory 5
evaluation of compliance to applicable U.S.
6 regulations and regulatory guidance presented in 7
Section 2 of the LTR, a general description of the 8
integrated reactor building structures with a
9 technical justification for the use of DP-SC modules 10 for the integrated RB structures presented in Section 11 3.
12 A presentation of the integrated reactor 13 building overall structural and design approach 14 presented in Section 4. A technical evaluation of the 15 proposed design parameters and requirements for the 16 use of DP-SC for the non-containment structures 17 presented in Section 5, and for the SCCV presented in 18 section 6.
19 With Section 7 presenting a summary of the 20 NRIC demonstration program prototype test conclusions 21 that validate the design approaches presented in 22 Sections 5 and 6 of the report. And now I invite 23 Ossama Ali to present the BWRX steel plate composite 24 structures.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
13 MR. ALI: Hello, this is Ossama Ali, 1
manager of engineering civil structural team at GE 2
Hitachi. So this is our layout for the power block 3
structure, power block buildings, it's comprised the 4
turbine building, reactor building, radwaste building, 5
control building, and the service building.
6 The only deeply embedded part of that 7
layout is the reactor building, which is the 8
cylindrical shaped structure right in the middle, and 9
this is where we're planning to implement the DP-SC 10 construction method, or construction technology.
11 Because of the fact that this is deeply embedded, 12 there are some demands for loads in a certain 13 direction, and so it was our decision to tweak the SC 14 system, and evolve that system to a DP-SC system.
15 Which is similar to the conventional steel 16 composite systems, with the exception that we're 17 adding diaphragm plate to increase the outer flexural 18 capacities of those modules, especially for the deeply 19 embedded part. This is a section showing a cross 20 section going through the reactor building and the 21 SCCV.
22 And it shows the corridor has different 23 boundaries, the green part, the green outline here 24 outlines the SCCV, which is the pressure boundary.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
14 And the red outline here depicts the reactor building.
1 Again, this is the only deeply embedded part, and this 2
is the structure where we're planning to use DP-SC 3
modules, and this is where we're seeking approval from 4
NRC.
5 This is deeply embedded, goes into the 6
ground about 34 meters, the diameter of the structure 7
is about 32, 33 meters, and the whole structure for 8
the reactor building and the SCCV are built using DP-9 SC modules. The reason why we chose to use DP-SC over 10 conventional SC, again, is because of the design 11 requirements, because of the fact that it's deeply 12 embedded, there is high demands on the outer plane 13 shear capacities.
14 And the DP-SC system provides us with 15 these requirements, it has very high outer plane shear 16 requirements. We presented possible configuration of 17 the DP-SC modules, and this is reflected in LTR 18 figures 3 and 5. We spliced those modules to form a 19 continuous system, and hence it's a continuous load 20 path system throughout the full length of DP-SC, or 21 the full length of the structures.
22 And these splices can be spliced out of 23 curved modules or straight modules. We achieved the 24 composite actions between the concrete and the plates 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
15 through a stud system, and diaphragm plate systems, 1
hence there are no reinforcements. Unlike the 2
conventional RC system, the DP-SC will get the tension 3
traversal -- will get the reinforcement through the 4
plates, and to get this type of reinforcement we have 5
to achieve full composite action, and this is 6
comprised through the shear studs.
7 The shear studs serve two purposes, first 8
it develops the capacity of the plates, and it makes 9
sure that we don't have an interfacial shear slip 10 before we develop the outer plane shear capacity of 11 those modules. Diaphragm plates contributes to the 12 stiffness and the strength of the structure, as it 13 will be shown, it has much higher strength and 14 stiffness than conventional systems.
15 And we have performed several tests to 16 confirm our design
- approach, and confirm the 17 capacities through what we call the NRIC Test Program.
18 And that program will have done a complete performance 19 evaluation of the DP-SC system with the advised total 20 of 14 specimens with different loading configuration, 21 outer plane shear, and plane shear, bending, and other 22 loading, and biaxial bending just to develop the 23 capacities and confirm the equations that we are 24 proposing to NRC satisfy those capacities.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
16 We've used scale prototypes designed to be 1
a representative of the DP-SC, and that concludes the 2
mat foundation, the SCCV wall to mat connections, SCCV 3
wall, RB exterior wall, and to mat connections, and RB 4
exterior wall.
So we've devised several 5
configurations of the DP-SC systems. We've tested it, 6
we've developed the capacities, and these results will 7
be presented as part of this presentation in Section 8
7 of the LTR.
9 MEMBER PETTI: Just a question on the 10 scaling.
11 MR. ALI: Yes, sir.
12 MEMBER PETTI: It's scaled for anticipated 13 stresses?
14 MR. ALI: Yes.
15 MEMBER PETTI: Just not necessarily scaled 16 from a fabrication perspective?
17 MR. ALI: It is scaled from a fabrication 18 perspective.
19 MEMBER PETTI: So you could take the 20 results of these smaller specimens, and have high 21 confidence to extrapolate that you think that the 22 filling procedure, if you will, would be similar?
23 MR. ALI: That is correct. So basically 24 the scaling, I think it's advanced scaling, so when 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
17 you scale down the specimen, you scale down the loads, 1
and you calculate the capacities using certain 2
equations, and then whatever scale factors goes into 3
those specimens, it's applied to the equations. So 4
the capacity is calculated from those equations, and 5
will represent the scaling effect.
6 And then as far as from the 7
constructability standpoint, yes, it's also when we 8
pour the concrete, we check the concrete, that same 9
scaling factor will be applied once we scale it back 10 to original size.
11 CHAIR KIRCHNER: May I add on to that 12 question then? So one of the things that strikes me 13 about this approach where you're putting these 14 diaphragms in, it's like a double hull construction on 15 a super tanker, and I remember my days in shipping, 16 that one of the problems we had was we were putting 17 Bunker C into these double hulls, and Bunker C is hard 18 to pump.
19 You have to heat it, it's a low grade fuel 20 oil, and one has to heat it to pump it readily, and 21 get it to move from compartment to compartment, tank 22 to tank. So when you go in the field, how are you 23 going to deal with getting the concrete in and around 24 all these webbed structures, and diaphragms in a much 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
18 more complicated structure, your large cylindrical 1
structure, how are you going to ensure that you have 2
the concrete in place equivalent to what you have 3
tested with your specimens in your test program?
4 MR. ALI: Yeah, that's an excellent 5
question. As a matter of fact we're using a special 6
type of concrete, we call it self-consolidated 7
concrete. So that mix, that special mix allows the 8
flowability through the hull, and allows that we get 9
full contact between the diaphragm, studs, and the 10 concrete. And we don't pour the whole thing as one 11 unit, so we go in phases, like we built it in phases.
12 We pour the concrete, and then we go in 13 and test it. There are several test procedures that 14 allow us, lets us develop the confidence that we have 15 gained a full composite action between the concrete 16 and the diaphragm plate. And then we go in and erect 17 the second modules, and then pour it, and so on. But 18 it's in the mix design, and that mix design, we'll 19 call it self-consolidated concrete, or SCC.
20 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron Ballinger, 21 is this mix, can you adjust the compressive strength 22 in the mix?
23 MR. ALI: Yes, so the mix design allows 24 the workability and flowability. The strength --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
19 MEMBER BALLINGER: So to some extent you 1
can build in a safety factor by adjusting the mix?
2 MR. ALI: Correct.
3 MEMBER BALLINGER:
The compressive 4
strength of the --
5 MR. ALI: The design compressive strength 6
is eight KSI, which is the maximum allowed by --
7 MEMBER BALLINGER: The maximum allowed.
8 MR. ALI: The maximum allowed. The new 9
code, because again, we've done lots of testing, and 10 we've developed confidence in this tech, now it 11 allows, the new version of N690 allows up to ten KSI, 12 but we are only utilizing up to eight KSI, but yes, 13 the mix design will -- and there's a whole suite of 14 test procedures that we take samples, and test it to 15 make sure that we pull the core test, the specimen 16 test, that we've got the required strength.
17 MEMBER BALLINGER: So you could go to ten?
18 MR. ALI: We can go to ten per new code, 19 but we're only seeking up to eight KSI, and this what 20 we're crediting for our design basis.
21 MEMBER BALLINGER: Thank you.
22 MR. ALI: Yes, sir.
23 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Now, how does the 24 variability of that once it sets affect the composite 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
20 structure, right? I'm going to ask a similar question 1
to the staff, because they put a limit on the 2
compressive strength of the concrete. So what is the 3
optimum? It appears to be a lower compressive 4
strength for the concrete.
5 MR. ALI: Well, concrete gains strength by 6
aging, so the minimum is eight KSI, as concrete ages 7
it gains strength, so that's in our interest. And at 8
the same time there is a variability in any property, 9
right? So concrete is not immune of variability, and 10 we capture this kind of variability in our analysis, 11 so we'll consider the cracked concrete, uncracked 12
- concrete, we developed the capacity for both 13 conditions, and we performed the analysis based on 14 these boundary conditions.
15 CHAIR KIRCHNER: And then with regards to 16 field direction and use, you'll vent the structures so 17 that you can ensure that the concrete actually fills 18 all the cavities, and such that the diaphragms create?
19 MR. ALI: That is correct, and we have 20 phase two of NRIC, and in phase two we're going to 21 build a prototype, five section prototype, its 22 construction, its constructability, to check the 23 constructability and flowability of the concrete, and 24 make sure that the construction sequence is actually 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
21 adequate.
1 And on top of that, we know when we go to 2
the actual site, actual construction, we're going to 3
create special mock ups for certain connection types 4
to make sure, again, the flowability and the full 5
composite action is achieved.
6 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Going back to the analogy 7
I was drawing, so for your base mats and such, you'll 8
vent those upper plates in some matter to ensure that 9
you get a complete pour into the structure?
10 MR. ALI: Yes, that is correct. And we're 11 going to have inspection ports, so basically we're 12 going to try to gain visual access to the concrete to 13 make sure that we've got full composite action, that 14 is correct.
15 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Thank you.
16 MEMBER PETTI: Are you going to specify 17 the aggregate?
18 MR. ALI: The aggregate is specified as 19 part of the mix, because we have to satisfy certain 20 requirements for the aggregate, and it's listed in 21 ASME Section 3-2, CC section. But we have to -- the 22 aggregate specification is part of our concrete spec, 23 that is correct.
24 MEMBER PETTI: Because typically the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
22 aggregate is taken from the local area, and you have 1
to be careful about that.
2 MR. ALI: That is correct because of ASR, 3
and those kind of -- yes, I hear you. There's a whole 4
suite of tests that will be performed of our 5
aggregate, and there is very specific requirements 6
that will be listed in our concrete specification, and 7
construction specification, but it's a good point, 8
thank you, sir.
9 MEMBER HALNON: And remind me, is this 10 just the walls, or is it also the mat?
11 MR. ALI: The whole structure, the walls, 12 the mat, the floors, and so the whole structure is 13 constructed out of DP-SC.
14 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, and the mat itself 15 is going to be thicker, or is it?
16 MR. ALI: The mat is four foot thick, the 17 walls are three foot thick.
18 MEMBER HALNON: So they're thicker for the 19 compressive loads on them.
20 MR. ALI: Yes, sir.
21 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, thank you.
22 MR. ALI: Anymore questions? Back to you, 23 Lamia. Okay, so I'm presenting also the overall 24 analysis and design approach. So from an overall 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
23 analysis and design approach, we used a one-step 1
method based on the approved LTR 33914. We have 2
created an integrated 3D finite element model as 3
presented in Subsection 5.1 of the already approved 4
5 The SCCV loads, and load combinations are 6
in compliance with ASME Section 3-2 supplemented by 7
Reg Guide 1.13. Loads and load combinations for 8
design of non-containment structure are in compliance 9
with load NRAD method of AISC N690 as supplemented by 10 Reg Guide 1.243, so we're in compliance with these 11 regulatory guides and code requirements.
12 Acceptance criteria for the SCCV is 13 discussed in the LTR Section 6.6, and the acceptance 14 criteria for the non-containment DP-SC will be 15 presented in compliance with AISC N690 Appendix N9 as 16 endorsed by Reg Guide 1.243, and as modified by the 17 LTR Section 5.0. Back to you.
18 MS. CHOUHA: Thank you, Ossama. So in the 19 next few slides we will demonstrate how the proposed 20 design approach and requirements for the SCCV and the 21 non-containment DP-SC structures comply with and do 22 not require any exemption from the regulatory 23 requirements. The design of the SCCV, and the non-24 containment DP-SC structures is based on current codes 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
24 and standards endorsed in Reg Guide 1.136, and Reg 1
Guide 1.243, meeting the regulatory safety goals 2
established by 10 CFR 50.55AB, and GDC1 of Appendix A 3
of 10 CFR 50.
4 The SCCV design rules, which are adapted 5
from the ASME Code Section 3 Division 2 provisions 6
comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34F3VA1.
7 The SCCV and reactor building structures are designed 8
for all applicable normal pre-operational testing, 9
severe, extreme environmental, and abnormal loading 10 conditions in compliance with GDC 2 and 4 of Appendix 11 A of 10 CFR 50.
12 And following the regulatory guidance of 13 SRPs 381 through 384. The structural integrity of the 14 containment under accident load conditions, including 15 the release of hydrogen generated from a 100 percent 16 fuel clad metal water reaction is evaluated as 17 described in Subsection 6232 of the LTR using an 18 approach that follows regulatory position five of Reg 19 Guide 1.7 in compliance with 10 CFR 50.44C5.
20 The BWRX containment, which is comprised 21 of the SCCV, the containment closure head, and 22 penetrations is designed to be leak tight in 23 compliance with GDC 16, with the inner steel face 24 plate of the SCCV DP-SC modules serving as the leak 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
25 barrier. The leak tightness evaluation of the 1
containment structure under beyond design basis 2
internal pressure loads will conform to the guidance 3
of Reg Guide 1.216 as discussed in Section 623 of the 4
report.
5 In compliance with GDC 50 the containment 6
structure, including access openings and penetrations, 7
is designed to withstand all postulated accidents with 8
sufficient margins, and to meet the four structural 9
performance criteria specified in SRP 19. The 10 containment is also designed to meet the ductility 11 detailing and design requirements for steel and SC 12 structures of N690 with the supplemental guidance of 13 Reg Guide 1.243 to ensure the structural ductility and 14 energy absorbing capacity under design basis transient 15 and accidents in compliance with GDC 51.
16 Finally, following the regulatory guidance 17 of Appendix S of 10 CFR 50, the seismic category one 18 integrated RB structures are designed to remain 19 functional under and following NSSC. Damping values 20 used in the seismic SSI analysis of the integrated RB 21 are for Reg Guide 1.61. As stated in Sections 518 and 22 622 of the LTR, an in service inspection and testing 23 program is established for the integrated RB DP-SC 24 structures in compliance with 10 CFR 50.65, and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
26 conforming to the regulatory guidance of Reg Guide 1
1.160.
2 The SCCV pre-service and in service 3
inspection requirements listed in Section 622 of the 4
LTR meet the requirements of the ASME Section 11 5
Division 1 in compliance with the requirements of 10 6
CFR 50.55AG4, and the SCCV including access of leaks 7
and penetrations will be tested for leak tightness at 8
periodic intervals following the guidance of Appendix 9
G of 10 CFR 50, and Reg Guide 1.163 in compliance with 10 the requirements of GDC 52 and 53 of Appendix A of 10 11 CFR 50.
12 The SCCV quality control and quality 13 assurance requirements discussed in LTR Section 6.2 14 and 6.15 comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50 15 Appendix B, and Reg Guide 1.28, while the quality 16 control and QA requirements for the non-containment 17 DP-SC structures listed in LTR Section 5.17 are in 18 accordance with N690 Sections NA5 and Chapter NN, and 19 Reg Guide 1.28.
20 The following are other regulatory 21 guidance followed for the DP-SC structures.
22 Conforming with regulatory guidance of SRP 353, the 23 BWRX design considers local and global effects of 24 impactive loads as discussed in Section 5.8 and 6.10 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
27 of the LTR. SRP 385 guidance is followed for the 1
integrated RB DP-SC common math foundation, and 2
corrosion protection of DP-SC modules will conform to 3
Reg Guide 1.54. And now I invite -- sorry, any 4
questions?
5 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Yes, I have a question.
6 I noticed you didn't include GDC number three, fire 7
protection, this is a containment, you're going to 8
inert this containment, aren't you? In the actual 9
application, so doesn't the fire protection aspects 10 come into play for your design?
11 MS. CHOUHA: Yes, it does, and we do have 12
-- sorry. It does come into effect, yes, and we will 13 have fire protection measures, or we do have 14 provisions for protecting the DP-SC modules against 15 fires, and I don't know if Ossama, you would like to 16 jump in?
17 MR. ALI: Yeah, we have done the fire 18 analysis, and obviously it depends on the fire 19 ratings, and the load bearing capacity of those walls.
20 Initial assessment was that these walls, the thinnest 21 section can go up to six hours of fire rating without 22 any protection. However, again, it's contingent on 23 the loading, so it depends to the applied load versus 24 the capacity of those walls.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
28 But our initial assessment that we can 1
achieve two to three hours with the thinnest wall very 2
easily without any protective measures.
3 MS. CHOUHA: Any other questions? Okay, 4
so now I invite Peter Ostrowski to present the next 5
few slides on DP-SC design requirements.
6 MR. OSTROWSKI: Thank you, Lamia. Peter 7
Ostrowski, senior structural engineer with GEH. I 8
will discuss the content of two early measure sections 9
in the LTR, Section 5 and Section 6. Here are the 10 design basis for non-containment DP-SC structures, 11 they were adopted from AISC N690 2018 edition, and 12 adjusted to address particular features of our DP-SC 13 construction.
14 Structural steel design is to AISC 360, 15 2016 edition. And both versions of N690 are utilized.
16 The fundamental code is 2018 edition, but where you 17 see exacts, that's referring to 2024 edition, which is 18 in draft, and we have access to it. We used it for 19 some exceptions, and for some technical decision 20 making.
21 The same goes for AISC 360, the latest 22 edition, 22. Our design is supported by our 23 confirmatory NRIC demonstration program phase one 24 prototype testing, and the following aspects of DP-SC 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
29 are addressed.
Composite
- action, stiffness 1
calculation, sectional capacities, and applicability 2
of the N690 modified rules to DP-SC horizontal 3
modules.
4 It's important to state that the LTR is 5
our code of construction. That's our constitution.
6 And N690 is only used to provide initial basis. But 7
all the details are formulated in LTR.
8 MEMBER HALNON: Peter, I think that 9
answered my question, you're not relying on the draft 10 codes for acceptability of this, you're just using 11 that as information to apply in the LTR itself?
12 MR. OSTROWSKI: That's correct.
13 MEMBER HALNON: Okay.
14 MR. OSTROWSKI: I mentioned sound decision 15 making, you can imagine that between 2018 edition and 16
'24 there was six years of intense research. Our 17 design is also supported directly by research at 18 Purdue University which resulted in a new design 19 aspect of the new code. There were fine additions, 20 and we've incorporated them in our design, nothing 21 major though.
22 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, thank you.
23 MR. OSTROWSKI: So here design parameters 24 expressed in Section 5.1 of the LTR, and materials in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
30 Section 5.2. Among the design parameters, we list 1
design equations that use the same thickness and yield 2
strength for base plates and diaphragm plates. DP-SC 3
modules meet the design requirements of N690 18 4
Appendix N9, and Section N9.1. Maximum reinforcement 5
ration for DP-SC modules is based on the latest 6
edition of N690.
7 Among the materials we are using self-8 consolidated concrete, and concrete compressive 9
strength up to eight KSI in our application. Concrete 10 temperature limitations are per Appendix E of ACI 349.
11 The assumption is that the construction will continue 12 through the summer and winter, we will have lots of 13 challenges related to temperature, and the rise in the 14 concrete reaction.
15 Concrete mechanical properties at elevated 16 temperatures per N690 Appendix N4, effective elevated 17 temperature and mechanical properties is per the same 18 code, Section NB3.3. Composite action and diaphragm 19 requirements, composite action, which is essential to 20 the DP-SC, is achieved through shear connectors 21 consisting of diaphragm plates, and steel headed stud 22 anchors.
23 Shear studs are sized to prevent local 24 buckling for the face plates. Typically our modules 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
31 are anywhere between two feet deep for the floors, 1
three feet for external walls, four feet deep for the 2
base mat, and the pedestal. So there are considerable 3
thicknesses to work with and prevent buckling.
4 Another reason is development of some 5
mentioned interfacial shear strength for the face 6
plates, and development of yield strength of the face 7
plate as well. Approach for composite action is 8
described in the LTR in Section 5.31. Diaphragm 9
requirements, we do vary the spacing of the 10 diaphragms, which is limited to panel thickness as per 11 N690 requirements.
12 Diaphragm plates requirements are per N690 13 Appendix N9 and Section N951. Here are the section 14 capacities of steel composite elements. Now, this is 15 a comprehensive list of sections. I'm not going to 16 elaborate on the content of any one of them, but there 17 are a few messages here. We do cover individual 18 actions such as simple tension, simple compression, 19 bending.
20 Shear is of particular significance, both 21 in plane and out of plane shear. Conservative 22 assumptions are made right along, but we do include 23 diaphragms in resisting out of plane shear. Now, 24 after considering all the individual actions, we also 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
32 combine them, either two three at a time, and those 1
refinements were presented in the latest edition of 2
the LTR, revision two.
3 The last revision is state of the art 4
document that we intend to take into construction.
5 Any questions?
6 MEMBER HALNON: Yeah, just real quick. I 7
assume all these sections in the stress reports and 8
all the different design attributes, and assume a 9
perfect -- I'm not going to say perfect, maybe not 10 pour of concrete pure without any organic materials 11 stuck in it. We've had in the past, in our 12 containments, steel lined containments, quality 13 problems in the pour where there was some organic 14 material, boards, gloves, whatever embedded in that 15 concrete.
16 So eventually it will gain exposit to the 17
-- to corrode through the liner. How dependent is 18 this on a perfectly pure pour? I mean, if there was 19 some quality problem where some organic material got 20 in there, inside the wall, how catastrophic would that 21 be 40 years down the road, or 10 years down the road?
22 MR. OSTROWSKI: I would say that we are 23 guarding against this, and every other quality issue.
24 Our concrete spec is 200 pages long, and that includes 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
33 QA of all the ingredients being cement, and filler, 1
and aggregate. Aggregate is designed in two different 2
ways. One for high shielding requirements for the 3
containment.
4 And there is one specific magnetite that's 5
specified, and it's not local supply. We do work with 6
experts in the field as well, that reviewed our specs, 7
and will provide ongoing support. We have a team 8
approach to this, and that means the fabricator, the 9
designer, and supplier, and the procurement. So I am 10 confident that we'll be able to do a quality work 11 without any -- well, it's unthinkable to be honest, to 12 even think about organic matters at this point.
13 MEMBER HALNON: It may be unthinkable, but 14 it's happened, so there's a probability of one.
15 MR. OSTROWSKI: It's good to OLPECs and 16 we'll take it --
17 MEMBER HALNON: So check out the Beaver 18 Valley containment during the license renewal.
19 MR. ALI: Let me add one thing here. So 20 one advantage to get out of the DP-SC system is its 21 redundancy. So in a typical conventional RC 22 containment, or if you have a PT system, the rebar is 23 unidirectional, it provides one direction only, right?
24 So if you lose rebar, pretty much your capacity is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
34 impacted. In a DP-SC system, it's not, so we have 1
redundancy in the fact that it's a two way effort.
2 That's one thing. On the other side, if 3
in the unlikely event we end up in a similar 4
situation, the repair mechanisms would be fairly 5
straightforward, and we are preparing a repair spec 6
throughout the construction process. So in that case 7
it's easy to cut a piece of the SCCV, get it out of 8
service, cut into the pour, and then put the plates 9
back, weld it in place, and then power grout concrete 10 to make sure that we get that section -- restore the 11 capacity of that section.
12 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, so if it reveals 13 itself, you have a repair method that's not involved 14 in some kind of craziness?
15 MR. ALI: Yes, we're not going to 16 untension the tendons and then go through that 17 process, no. And that's, again, one of the reasons we 18 have elected to go that route.
19 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, thank you, that 20 helps.
21 DR. BLEY: Can I follow up on that just a 22 little?
23 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Dennis, sorry, let me 24 just introduce, Dennis Bley is with us, former chair 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
35 and member of the committee, and I just wanted to 1
identify you for the court reporter. Go ahead, 2
Dennis.
3 DR. BLEY: Now I lost my train of thought.
4 The last little discussion you and Greg had, were we 5
talking about problems found during the construction 6
process, how you'd fix it, or something after it's all 7
been finished, and operating for a while?
8 MR. ALI: It can be applied in both ways.
9 DR. BLEY: Both ways?
10 MR. ALI: Yes. So during construction, 11 eventually we might run into some scenarios, and these 12 scenarios would be pre-determined, and construction 13 procedures, repair methods would be implemented, and 14 strategies would be implemented.
15 DR. BLEY: Okay, now going a little 16 further, I'm not an expert in concrete, but I've seen 17 enough things going on that the chemistry is 18 incredibly complex, and changes over time. It's never 19 completely
- cured, things are always going on 20 internally. We have seen cases of foreign materials 21 that couldn't be there being there.
22 It strikes me, and we don't have a lot of 23 experience with this in the nuclear business, or it's 24 growing everywhere I think, but most of the concrete 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
36 problems we know about, we found out when mother 1
nature kind of told us things were falling apart. It 2
strikes me that something akin to the AMPs, the aging 3
management programs we have when we look at life 4
extension ought to be very applicable here for this 5
new approach.
6 What kind of program is going to be put in 7
place at the plant to really track any potential 8
problems at your plant or elsewhere in the world where 9
problems are beginning to surface?
10 MR.
OSTROWSKI:
We address aging 11 management program in the LTR, and there is a very 12 unique challenge in front of us, actually in a 13 positive way. And the reason why I'm saying is we have 14 started an aging management program at the design 15 level. Many nuclear plants wait 20 to 40 years to 16 institute true aging management program --
17 DR. BLEY: We didn't know we needed them 18 early on.
19 MR. OSTROWSKI: Correct. And we often 20 think of AMP as an entry step into life extension.
21 Well, we've seen it, and we know that, so we will 22 start right at the design stage. We will position 23 additional sensors in concrete and throughout the 24 structures, we'll have seismic sensors as well, so we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
37 are learning from experience.
1 We are not going to wait another 20 or 40 2
years to think of AMP, but we'll start with having the 3
analysis, and go parallel to construction, and 4
commissioning throughout the operation always 5
remembering that AMP is part of it.
6 DR. BLEY: Thanks very much, appreciate 7
that.
8 MR. OSTROWSKI: And it's a challenge which 9
is exciting as well, and we are hoping to save by 10 doing this parallel, to other activities. Any other 11 questions?
12 MEMBER PETTI:
Of these different 13 capacities, which one is most limiting, is it out of 14 plane shear?
15 MR. OSTROWSKI: Yes, we found that in most 16 cases it's out of plane shear, or in combinations with 17 other actions. It depends on the location, and the 18 loading. So there will be situations that in plane 19 shear is critical, plus there will be attachments and 20 penetrations, there will be local conditions. Any 21 other questions?
22 MEMBER BALLINGER: Does the next version 23 of N690, which you actually have, allow for local 24 deviations, or augmentation of the construction in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
38 cases where you have to augment the load capability?
1 MR. OSTROWSKI: Well, the new 690 deals 2
with penetrations, and we are looking at this right 3
now, and there will be a few different conditions.
4 There will be large openings, there will be small 5
openings, and bank of small openings, large openings 6
will be incorporated directly into the model, as well 7
as banks of small openings. And we will use either 8
fixed or fully developed edge conditions for the 9
design, and fabrication.
10 MEMBER BALLINGER: Now, do you have to do 11 additional testing for these large openings?
12 MR. OSTROWSKI: We might go for a mock-up 13 testing, and our analyses are very accurate, and will 14 be checked against existing test results.
15 MEMBER BALLINGER: Thank you.
16 MR. OSTROWSKI: Very timely, because this 17 is currently being considered. Any other questions?
18 All right, next. So these are out of plane shear 19 tests. I wonder, Sharon, if you are online, and if you 20 could comment on this?
21 MS. CHIKOTA: Yes, Sharon Chikota, senior 22 civil structural engineer with GEH. I'll be 23 presenting some of the NRIC testing slide results. As 24 introduced, you can hear me all okay, is that all 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
39 right?
1 MR. OSTROWSKI: Yes.
2 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Yes, thank you.
3 MS. CHIKOTA: As introduced earlier in the 4
presentation, the NRIC phase one prototype testing 5
aimed to evaluate the performance of DP-SC modules for 6
various loading conditions, and provide confirmatory 7
test results for the design equations presented in the 8
LTRs just discussed by Peter. This slide shows 9
typical test specimens and test setup for the OOPV, or 10 the out of plane shear loading tests.
11 The tests aim to confirm that the out of 12 plane flexural strength for scaled DP-SC modules 13 representing the reactor building base mat for the two 14 diaphragm plate orientations illustrated. The 15 acceptance criteria were met, the specimens achieved 16 a maximum load exceeding the nominal flexural 17 capacity, confirming the equations in Section 5.73 of 18 the LTR.
19 The specimens developed flexural yielding 20 without undergoing shear failure, and the ductility 21 ratio exceeded three. I'll pass it back to Peter for 22 the next slide.
23 MR. OSTROWSKI: Thank you, Sharon. So 24 Section 5.8 is on design for impactive and impulsive 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
40 loads of any kind, and there will be many. That 1
includes pipe rupture, tornado, aircraft impact, and 2
other missiles. Design allowables include normal and 3
severe environmental conditions through elastic 4
design. Some of our analysis go into post elastic and 5
non-linear, but this is only to understand the mode of 6
failure, and then we are scaling back to elastic.
7 Abnormal and extreme environmental 8
conditions with permanent plastic deformations 9
allowed, and this is primarily for normal accident 10 conditions. Local effects will include the face plate 11 thickness designed to prevent perforation, at least 25 12 percent greater. And by local effects, we also mean 13 connections, so full capacity connections will be 25 14 percent stronger.
15 Explicit to dynamic inelastic analysis, 16 alternative rational methods modified three step 17 design method. Our global response will include 18 dynamic load factor impulse momentum and energy 19 balance, plus time history, and a number of other 20 methods, whatever is available, we will use it. And 21 Sharon, would you like to comment on the missile 22 impact test?
23 MS. CHIKOTA: Yes. So to provide 24 confirmatory test results for the DP-SC modules 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
41 subject to impactive loads, missile impact tests were 1
performed on five scaled specimens representing the 2
reactor building wall as part of the NRIC program.
3 This slide shows a typical specimen, and an 4
illustration of the stages of missile impact loading.
5 The tests aimed to confirm the 6
conservatism of the modified three step design method 7
presented in LTR Section 5.82 were designed to prevent 8
local failure of DP-SC modules. The impact test 9
specimens exhibited better impact resistance than the 10 design method by either stopping the projectile as 11 expected, or stopping the projectile when perforation 12 was expected. I'll toss it back to the presenters.
13 MR. OSTROWSKI: Thank you, Sharon. So the 14 next section is for SCCV, which is the internal 15 containment structure. And the section itself is not 16 as long as Section 5, because many design features are 17 repeated. Section 6 includes only relevant material 18 to containment structures, and DP-SC SCCV is 19 equivalent to ASME Section 3 Division 2 class CC 20 containment.
21 Requirements are adapted from Article 22 CC2000 to CC6000 of ASME Section 3 Division 2, 2021 23 edition. Containment pressure retaining boundary 24 includes inner and outer face plates. Leak tightness 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
42 requirements are applicable to inner face plate of DP-1 SC modules credited as a leak barrier. Design 2
parameters per LTR Section 5.1, same as for outer 3
structure.
4 And allowable stress design philosophy is 5
per ASME Section 3 Division 2. Materials, for that 6
SCCV structure, if you recall in the cross section it 7
was marked in green, are per ASME, again, Section 3 8
Division 2 Subsection CC. And the effective 9
stiffness, geometric material properties and damping 10 values LTR Section 5.5.
11 There is no change between containment and 12 no containment when it comes to stiffness and other 13 material properties. Impulsive and impactive design 14 per LTR Section 5.8, and connections are per Section 15 5.11. Any questions?
16 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Peter, could you just 17 summarize what the major changes were from the 18 existing code as you adapted per your TR? What were 19 the major things you had to consider there?
20 MR. OSTROWSKI: Well, first of all there 21 are no diaphragms.
22 CHAIR KIRCHNER:
- Right, so the 23 introduction of the diaphragm type design rather than 24 a rebar containment.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
43 MR. OSTROWSKI: That's correct. And the 1
LTR is -- sorry, the code N690 is applicable to SC 2
structures. So the ties are the major difference, and 3
that is improving shear resistance in plane, out of 4
plane, and it's making the structures a lot stiffer, 5
because now we are adding a lot of torsional 6
resistance.
7 So from qualitative and quantitative point 8
of view, it's a lot stronger, our face plates are 9
continuous. If you had a chance to see perhaps brick 10 structures early on, they were not continuous. There 11 is a lot less welding as well, so those are the main 12 features, but in every direction, in every subsection 13 of Sections 5 and 6 we see noticeable improvements, 14 and therefore our confidence is growing.
15 Now, this is not without challenges, 16 because we do expect fabrication challenges. We are 17 designing and building a very complex structure.
18 CHAIR KIRCHNER: My sense was that you'll 19 have a much stouter, more stiff structure using the 20 diaphragms versus ties that had been previously used 21 in the steel plate composite construction. So does 22 that -- it would appear to me that it would be a 23 stouter structure, it would be a much more resilient 24 structure, does that create any problems that we're 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
44 missing in any sense?
1 MR. ALI: No, actually we are engaging 2
fabricator every stage of the design, from a 3
fabricability standpoint, and they are engaged in some 4
of the decisions that were made throughout the design 5
process to ensure that we get the fabrication we're 6
looking for. We are also engaging constructability 7
reviews and modularization reviews.
8 So we've engaged several parties, so we're 9
not performing the design in isolation, meaning that 10 we've finalized the designs, issued the drawings, and 11 then go to the market and figure out we have a 12 constructability problem.
13 MEMBER BALLINGER: You've, I guess 14 partially answered the question I was about to ask, 15 but back on slide 28, can we go back to 28? When I 16 look at that, I put my house construction hat on, and 17 I look at that, and I say why are there not diagonals 18 between those frames? In other words in a regular 19 house where you have composite beams, there's always 20 crisscrossing diagonal stiffeners that you put to 21 prevent lateral --
22 MR. ALI: A bracing system.
23 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yeah.
24 MR. ALI: Yeah.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
45 MEMBER BALLINGER: And I look at that, and 1
I say why don't you have them. Though, I guess you 2
probably have answered my question, you probably can't 3
build it.
4 MR. ALI: Well, no, just from a building 5
standpoint, the diaphragm plate, the bracing in a 6
conventional structure, this is why we call it stick 7
beam structure, so you have beams and so on. So the 8
lateral capacity of the system is achieved through the 9
bracing system, here it's different, it's completely 10 different.
11 MEMBER BALLINGER: Okay. If the concrete 12 wasn't there you'd need the stiffeners?
13 MR. ALI: Yeah, exactly. So, again, it's 14 a stick beam, what we call -- back in the nuclear 15 turbine island, you'll see those diagonals.
16 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yeah, thanks.
17 MR. OSTROWSKI: Any other questions?
18 MEMBER HARRINGTON: In the issue of the 19 leak tightness, you have in some of the documents 20 three different possible designs of the modules. Some 21 have a lot more welds on the faces to assemble them, 22 do you have a preference from a leak tightness 23 standpoint to avoid, minimize the welds?
24 MR. ALI: All the face plates will have a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
46 complete unpenetration work, so it is going to stay 1
IPV+OOPV. So either from the inside, or the outside, 2
or the reactor building. The stiffened part is 3
usually around the connection zone, because we need to 4
develop 25 percent more capacity on those connections 5
to ensure that failure will never happen.
6 But both construction methodologies have 7
been vetted and reviewed with our fabricator, of 8
course. Thank you.
9 MR. OSTROWSKI: So we are now onto 10 Sections 16, 17, and 22. Subsection 16 deals with 11 construction testing and examination per ASME Section 12 3 Division 2, and Subsection CC per LTR Section 5.18.
13 Pre-service inspection and testing is per Subsection 14 CC Subarticle CC6600 as applicable. We will perform 15 mock up tests at the fabricator side, and that has 16 already started.
17 In service inspection and testing is per 18 ASME Section 11 Division 1, Subsection IWE and IWL as 19 applicable. Next please. Sharon, back to you on 20 biaxial tension tests.
21 MS. CHIKOTA: Yes. The NRIC prototype 22 testing program included confirmatory tests on DP-SC 23 components representing the SCCV, which is applicable 24 for the LTR Section 6. The biaxial tension tests were 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
47 performed to confirm that the SCCV DP-SC system with 1
splicing details can withstand accidental pressure and 2
thermal loading conditions with acceptable steel 3
strain limits.
4 This slide shows a typical specimen and 5
the test setup. The acceptance criteria were met, the 6
maximum tensile force exceeded the nominal strength.
7 Adequate ductility was demonstrated, and no tensile 8
fracture or well failure occurred.
9 Next slide. Also we had IPV, or in plane 10 shear tests were performed as part of the NRIC 11 program, which confirmed that the SCCV wall to mat 12 foundation connection, and the nearby SCCV wall to 13 wall splice can develop the in plane flexural capacity 14 of the SCCV wall.
15 This slide shows a typical specimen test 16 setup, and the illustration of the applied cyclic 17 loading simulating earthquake loading. The acceptance 18 criteria were met, the maximum loading exceeded the 19 wall in plane flexural capacity without any failure of 20 the connection, relating to LTR Section 5.11 for 21 connection design, and the governing failure mode was 22 in plane flexion. I'll pass it back to the 23 presenters.
24 MS. CHOUHA: So now we'd like to know if 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
48 you have any other questions or comments for us on the 1
presentation.
2 MEMBER BALLINGER: Are you going to get 3
into more detail on inspection in closed session?
4 MS. CHOUHA: Yes, we can go into more 5
detail if you --
6 MEMBER BALLINGER: Well, you were planning 7
on it, so I should just wait, or?
8 MR. OSTROWSKI: We can address your 9
questions right now, we were not planning to elaborate 10 substantially.
11 MEMBER BALLINGER: So there's an initial 12 inspection, I can understand as you're building it 13 that you'll be able to figure out how to do that. But 14 I got the sense that inspecting it once it's erected 15 could be difficult, A, because it's new. But can you 16 provide a little more information about what's going 17 to be required from an inspection perspective for the 18 structure?
19 MR. ALI: Well, there are several ways to 20 inspect it. Ossama Ali, manager of engineering, GE 21 Hitachi. So there are several ways to inspect it, 22 obviously we'll need to inspect the plate thicknesses, 23 and there are several techniques out there that can 24 help us to inspect the thicknesses. We will pre-25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
49 define certain locations throughout the structure 1
where we anticipate high stresses, and these areas 2
will get additional surveillance, such as acoustic 3
measuring or other methods to inspect thicknesses and 4
so on.
5 As far as the concrete, we have developed 6
several methods also through NRIC program, and again 7
UT method is one of them where we can actually send a 8
signal, and based on signal reflection, on those 9
signals we can determine if the concrete capacity has 10 been jeopardized, and so on. So there are techniques 11 for in service inspections, and these techniques is 12 applicable to DP-SC similar to conventional RC 13 systems, same thing.
14 Like how do you inspect the rebar, by DPR, 15 and so on. So these techniques are still applicable 16 to our system.
17 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Members, any further 18 questions?
19 MEMBER HARRINGTON: One quick question.
20 On the reactor building wall, the outside wall that's 21 against ground, groundwater, since you have steel 22 diaphragm plates on the outside now exposed to that 23 environment instead of just bare concrete, are you 24 doing anything different from a corrosion standpoint?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
50 MR. ALI: From a corrosion standpoint 1
we're planning to fill out the annulus on the outer 2
side with concrete, and that's going to improve the 3
alkalinity of the environment, and provide protection, 4
that's one issue. Similar to the concrete cover, so 5
in a conventional concrete system you have the rebar, 6
you increase the cover, and that way you protect the 7
rebar against corrosion, similar approach.
8 The other technique we're looking at is 9
either using impressed aquatic protection, or 10 painting, so again, there are several techniques out 11 there that we can protect the plates against 12 corrosion. And again, it's the same techniques, 13 conventional techniques applied to conventional RC 14 systems to enforce concrete.
15 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is very common.
16 MR. ALI: Yes, sir.
17 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yeah, it's very common.
18 MEMBER HARRINGTON: So it just won't be 19 back fill around the outside of the reactor building, 20 but other things?
21 MR. ALI: We are planning -- the outside 22 of the reactor building, so the way we're going to 23 build it, we're going to have C-compiles and then this 24 annulus space, and we're planning to fill out this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
51 annulus space with concrete. And by definition that's 1
going to provide the alkalinity environment to help 2
with corrosion mitigation. Thank you.
3 MEMBER BALLINGER: Three or four inches?
4 MR. ALI: No, I think it's one foot thick.
5 MEMBER BALLINGER: The concrete outside?
6 MR. ALI: Yes, I think so, yes.
7 MEMBER BALLINGER: Okay.
8 MR. ALI: It's a large gap, it's needed 9
for constructability. I think it might be more, I 10 don't have the exact.
11 MEMBER HARRINGTON: Outside welds and 12 other things on the outside --
13 (Simultaneous speaking.)
14 MR. ALI: Yeah, exactly.
15 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Okay, we've gone a little 16 bit over, but I think we're still in pretty good 17 shape. So we're going to now transition to the NRR 18 staff presentation, and we'll just take, let's see, 19 what time are we at? 9:44. Let's continue if we 20 could at this point, to the staff presentation. And 21 then we'll take a break after we hear from the staff, 22 and go into a closed session as needed.
23 Okay, we are going to turn to the staff.
24 Jordan, are you going to lead off for the staff?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
52 MR. GLISAN: Yes, that's correct.
1 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Okay, when you're ready, 2
go ahead.
3 MR. GLISAN: Thank you. Good morning 4
everybody in the room, and online. I'm Jordan Glisan 5
of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in the 6
Division of New and Renewed Licenses. I am the 7
project manager responsible for the review of the 8
subject LTR. This LTR comes after five approved LTRs, 9
which can be seen on the NRC BWRX-300 public website.
10 I'd like to thank the ACRS for this time 11 to allow the staff to present its review of the 12 subject LTR as reflected in the staff's draft safety 13 evaluation. I'd also like to thank GEH for their 14 presentation. So I'm joined by Dr. George Thomas and 15 Dr. Jose Pires, Jim Shea and I led the -- or managed 16 the review.
17 So we kind of touched on this earlier, but 18 the NRC jointly reviewed the topical report with the 19 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, as prescribed by 20 the September 2022 charter for collaboration on GEH's 21 BWRX-300 design. This charter for collaboration 22 supports the signed memorandum of cooperation between 23 the two agencies aimed at enhancing technical reviews 24 of advanced reactor and small reactor technologies.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
53 Each agency will independently pursue 1
completion of the deliverables for their respective 2
processes. To this date, the NRC and CNSC have 3
jointly engaged GEH in a regulatory audit, and will 4
issue a joint report to be developed tentatively later 5
this year. I will briefly go over the review time 6
line.
7 So GEH submitted its LTR on May 4th, 2023, 8
and was supplemented on July 31st, 2023 to support 9
acceptance. GEH submitted revision one on August 10
- 18th, 2023 to reclassify select proprietary 11 information as public. The NRC staff performed an 12 audit between September 13th, 2023, and January 17th, 13 2024, which was briefly reopened in April 2024.
14 Following the audit, the NRC issued 11 RAI 15 questions to GEH, and received responses from GEH both 16 30 and 60 days later. As a result of the audit and 17 RAIs GEH submitted revision two on April 18th, 2024.
18 Lastly, the staff made the draft safety evaluation 19 publicly available on June 26th, 2024 to support this 20 meeting. I will now turn over the staff's 21 presentation to lead reviewer, Dr. George Thomas.
22 MEMBER HALNON: Jordan, before you leave, 23 that seemed like a really long audit, was there 24 testing involved in that, and observing, and other 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
54 things going on during that time frame, or was it a 1
continuous audit?
2 MR. GLISAN: So it was a continuous audit.
3 I would say the majority of the time came to getting 4
access to reference material, as well as once 5
materials were received, there were a lot of 6
information needs that the staff identified in order 7
to carry on with the review.
8 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, a lot of going back 9
and forth getting documents and what not.
10 MR. GLISAN: Correct.
11 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, thanks.
12 MR. GLISAN: George Thomas, go ahead.
13 DR. THOMAS: Thank you, Jordan. My name 14 is George Thomas, I'm a senior structural engineer in 15 NRR Division of Engineering and External Hazards. And 16 along with Jose Pires, we were the primary reviewers 17 for this LTR. This slide gives an outline for my 18 presentation, it's generally in line with the content 19 structure of the LTR, and will focus basically on the 20 staff review of 30G and the limitations and 21 conditions.
22 Next slide. The purpose of the LTR is to 23 get NRC staff approval of the proposed structural 24 design and construction methodology for the use of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
55 steel plate composite modules with diaphragm plates or 1
DP-SC for the BWRX-300 steel plate composite 2
containment vessel, reactor pressure vessel pedestal, 3
and the reactor building structure, those are the 4
specific structural components that are going to be 5
built from DP-SC.
6 Compliance, conformance of proposed 7
methodology to regulations addressed in LTR as well as 8
AC Section 2.2. And the approved design specific 9
methodology, it will be used for design and 10 construction of the BWRX-300 DP-SC integrated reactor 11 building structures in future BWRX-300 licensing 12 applications like for a construction permit, or 13 operating license under 10 CFR Part 50.
14 This is the first proposed use of DP-SC 15 for any nuclear safety related structure, and the 16 first proposed use of SC for containment.
17 Next slide please. This slide shows the 18 two types of SC construction that can be performed.
19 The figure to the left illustrates the traditional SC 20 construction, which is currently addressed in AISC 21 N690-18 standard Appendix N9 for SC walls.
22 To the right is the SC diaphragm plates, 23 and you'll see both of them have face plates that are 24 connected by ties, and also include stud anchors. The 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
56 difference is essentially configuration of the ties.
1 In the case of traditional -- it's a discrete bar --
2 the bar -- there is the SC, the diaphragm plate holes.
3 Because in the SC, also concrete is poured in between.
4 Now, the ties that are provided in the 5
face plates prevent delamination, act as outer plane 6
shear reinforcement, and along with the headed studs, 7
initial composite action between concrete and steel as 8
one unit. So this LTR is focused on the DP-SC.
9 Next slide. This GEH has already shown, 10 this shows a sectional view of the reactor building, 11 and it's the sections that are here in red that are 12 reactor building structural components that are DP-SC.
13 The ones shaded green is the SCCV, and the 14 blue shaded area, that's the reactor pressure vessel 15 pedestal. All these components are made of DP-SC.
16 Next slide. Now, the staff review 17 strategy for this LTR focused on the requirements of 18 GDC 1 and the generally recognized codes and standards 19 they used, they shall be identified and evaluated by 20 applicability, adequacy and sufficiency, and shall be 21 supplemented or modified as necessary to ensure a 22 quality product in keeping with the required safety 23 function.
24 Now, the reason the staff chose this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
57 approach is quite evident because the proposed 1
structural design construction methodology using DP-SC 2
modules is based on adapting, supplementing and 3
modifying existing NRC endorsed codes and standards.
4 Namely for the SCCV, the ASME Section 3 Division 2 5
2021 edition code for concrete containers.
6 The staff has endorsed the 2019 edition in 7
Reg Guide 1.136 Revision 4. And the standard is 8
applied to the extent applicable to DP-SC without 9
traditional reinforcing steel tendons. Also ASME 10 Section 11 Subsection IWE was adapted for in service 11 inspection. The non-containment structures, reactor 12 building structures standard was adapted for ASCI 13 N690-18 Appendix N9 specifically the steel plate 14 composite walls, and that standard is endorsed in Reg 15 Guide 1.243.
16 The staff reviewed and verified adequacy 17 of the supporting technical basis that was provided to 18 justify the proposed approach of adapting, modifying, 19 and supplementing the NRC endorsed existing standards 20 referenced in the pervious -- the supporting technical 21 basis that was provided included, you know, cognizant 22 published technical literature, both experimental and 23 analytical, that's applicable to DP-SC.
24 The draft proposed next revision of AISC 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
58 N690 that was issued for public comment and confirm 1
that we -- prototype testing that confirmed the 2
adequacy and conservatism of the design integration 3
that are being proposed for DP-SC, and that's 4
summarized in LTR Section 7. The quality assurance 5
and control based on the adapted standards and 6
guidance in Reg Guide 1.28.
7 Next slide please. So with regard to the 8
overall analysis and design approach presented in LTR 9
Section 4, the staff found the design loads and load 10 combinations in the acceptance criteria acceptable, 11 because for SCCV it's consistent with Subarticle 12 CC3230 of the ASME Code Section 3.2 as recommended by 13 Reg Guide 1.136.
14 And the design philosophy used in the code 15 is the allowable stress design. For the non-16 containment structures, the load combination and 17 acceptance criteria are consistent with Section NV2.5 18 that provides provisions for the load and reactor 19 design of ASCI N690 as supplemented by Reg Guide 20 1.243.
21 The structure analysis and modeling 22 approach was -- the one step analysis approach of 23 ASCE 416. The use of structure analysis of integrated 24 reactor building and the static and dynamic loads, and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
59 that's based on a 3D finite element model of the 1
integrated reactor building. And this approach is 2
consistent with the NRC-approved methodology in LTR 3
33914.
4 The finite element model is generally 5
based on thick shell elements with equal end 6
thickness, material, and mass properties that are 7
calibrated for DP-SC, and damping values are in 8
accordance with guidance in Reg Guide 1.61.
9 Next slide. Now, the LTR Section 5.2 10 discusses modified design tools for non-containment 11 DP-SC structures, and some are produced even for 12 containment.
13 The current N690-18 is for SC walls based 14 on traditional phosphate modules. So there were three 15 items that required modification, the first one being 16 the effects of curvature on DP-SC walls, and I'll 17 discuss that in more detail on the next slide. The 18 second was modified design equations to determine the 19 DP-SC sectional capacities accounting for contribution 20 of the diaphragm plates.
21 And the last item was the applicability of 22 the N690 Appendix N9 modified rules for horizontal 23 modules. The second and third items there are all 24 proprietary information, we will discuss that in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
60 closed session.
1 Next slide please. Now, with regard to 2
effects of curvature and components in wall curvature 3
the design in detail needs to be evaluated for effects 4
of curvature.
5 The staff found the evaluation acceptable 6
because firstly, the effect of curvature on structural 7
demands is accounted for explicitly in the 3D finite 8
element model. Secondly, the various panel thickness 9
will be greater than 2.0 based on studies by Wang et 10 al., which is LTR reference 9.74 on the flexural 11 behavior of flat and curved walls under compressive 12 load and cyclic lateral force.
13 Fabrication and welding of curved elements 14 will be performed to the adapted codes and standards, 15 and the staff imposed the limitation and condition, 16 which is that any residual stresses and strains 17 resulting from rolling up the place shall be evaluated 18 and incorporated into the
- design, and that's 19 limitation condition 8.11.
20 The residual stresses and strains, they 21 may not be significant if the R over T ratios are 22 large, but could be significant for lower R over T 23 ratios. Next slide.
24 CHAIR KIRCHNER: George, on that second 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
61 bullet, the radius to curvature that you're referring 1
-- thickness, yeah, radius to thickness, you're 2
talking about thickness of the entire section, like 3
say for the concrete we're on the order of two feet I 4
believe --
5 DR. THOMAS: Correct, it's the panel 6
thickness.
7 CHAIR KIRCHNER: For the reactor building, 8
that actually in this case it's much, much greater 9
than 2.0.
10 DR. THOMAS: Yeah, in most cases it's 11 greater than -- I mean it's greater than 2.0, but the 12 LTR includes radius to thickness up to 2.0.
13 CHAIR KIRCHNER: We're talking about a 14 containment diameter that's on the order, I'm trying 15 to remember at least ten meters, if not on that order, 16 right? So the radius to thickness is pretty much 17 larger than two here, in terms of the curvature.
18 DR. THOMAS: Right. It could be more 19 significant for the reactor pressure vessel to last --
20 21 CHAIR KIRCHNER: For the containment 22 valves, yes.
23 DR. THOMAS: -- and maybe the containment 24 vessel. I think the dimensions apply to information, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
62 so we could discuss that in the closed session.
1 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Okay, thank you.
2 DR. THOMAS: Next slide please. This 3
slide covers the design for impactive and impulsive 4
loads, which are addressed in LTR 5.8. The staff 5
found --
6 PARTICIPANT:
Please turn on your 7
microphone.
8 DR. THOMAS: Sorry. The staff found the 9
allowable vessel, and deformation limits, and other 10 acceptance criteria as less than the design approach 11 acceptable about global and local effects. They were 12 generally based on the dynamic increase factors, 13 allowable deformation limits, support rotation, and 14 ductility, and controlling steel and concrete stains, 15 they're based generally on regulatory guidance 16 standards endorsed by the NRC, or the IAES safety 17 reports.
18 Designed for global response for the 19 analysis and approaches in ANSI N690-18, and the 20 design prevents local failure. Two approaches are 21 proposed, one explicit dynamic and elastic analysis 22 that follows the approach in NEI 07-13 endorsed in Reg 23 Guide 1.217 which is for aircraft impact assistance 24 and augmented to address DP-SC modules.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
63 The second alternate vessel method which 1
was what was represented in the NRIC testing was also 2
proposed using empirical equations that are based on 3
test data, and mechanistic considerations. This 4
approach is primarily based on LTR reference 9-69, 5
which is a PhD thesis by Kim and was also verified in 6
the NRIC testing. And these equations have also now 7
been incorporated into the next revision of AISC N690-8 XX, the draft.
9 Next slide please. So since the face 10 plates are exposed either to an internal or external 11 environment, corrosion could be expected to be a 12 potential degradation mechanism. For the LTR proposed 13 corrosion protection measures, which will be met by 14 one or more of the approaches below, and will conform 15 to Reg Guide 1.54, which applies to service level one, 16 two, three protective coatings.
17 The approaches proposed are adding a 18 sacrificial thickness to the face plate thickness as 19 a corrosion allowance, use of a protective paint 20 system, use of a membrane coating system, or use of 21 impressed current cathodic protection. The staff 22 finds these approaches to be acceptable with a 23 limitation and condition that the license application 24 shall specify the specific details, and justify the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
64 accuracy of the select corrosion measure or 1
combination thereof that will be implemented for the 2
plant.
3 Next slide. With regard to in service 4
inspection and testing addressed in LTR Section 5.8, 5
the staff found proposed program acceptable similar to 6
the approach in the GALL-SLR AMP, XI.S6 for 7
structures monitoring, and will consist of periodic 8
visual inspections of accessible areas, and where 9
necessary there is options to perform UT thickness 10 measurements for the accessible face plates.
11 GEH is also evaluating NDE examination and 12 testing methods that may be evaluated and deployed for 13 inaccessible components, and some of these methods are 14 ultrasonic guided wave phased array method that we use 15 for face plate defects, high energy X-ray for voids in 16 concrete, and low frequency ultrasound to evaluate 17 face plate concrete contact.
18 The staff finds the ISI and the NDE and DT 19 approaches reasonable with a limitation condition that 20 the license application provide a planned specific 21 program that would include the NDE and DT methods that 22 will be implemented at the plant.
23 Next slide please. So now we're moving 24 into the SCCV portion, the design and analysis part of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
65 DP-SC will be discussed in closed session.
1 With regard to fabrication, construction 2
examination, and reservice testing, the fabrication 3
and construction requirements are adapted from Article 4
CC4000 for liners in the ASME Code Section 3, and 5
supplemented the construction testing method and 6
examination method for SCCV materials noting that only 7
the inner face plate is credited for leak tightness 8
are reasonable because they also adapted and modified 9
from Article CC5000 of ASME Section 3 Division 2.
10 And the preservice testing of the SCCV is 11 acceptable because the structural integrity tests that 12 will be performed at 1.15 times design pressure in 13 accordance with Article CC6000 with displacement and 14 strain measurements made and compared with analytical 15 predictions will provide an adequate verification and 16 validation of the structural performance and quality 17 of construction of the as constructed DP-SC container.
18 The integrated leak rate test that would 19 follow also preservice will provide an adequate 20 verification of the leak tight integrity of the as 21 constructed DP-SC container. And representative mock 22 up test during construction based on Article CC6000 23 and 4000 would provide demonstration of adequate 24 placement and consolidation of concrete.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
66 CHAIR KIRCHNER: George, that last bullet, 1
I didn't find the logic of that compelling. I know 2
they've done these very interesting, and good tests up 3
in Idaho, but a mock up is not the same as filling 4
concrete at a site at a much larger scale of 5
structure, and a lot more concrete. So I'm presuming 6
that some of the previous in service inspection 7
techniques would be used at the construction site to 8
demonstrate adequate concrete in fill, is that 9
correct?
10 DR. THOMAS: Yes, that's one route they're 11 exploring, the NDE NDT efforts to provide a 12 verification. But the mock ups would also be 13 constructed at the site, and representative of site 14 conditions.
15 CHAIR KIRCHNER: So they'll do mock up 16 tests at the site before they actually pour for the 17 actual final --
18 DR. THOMAS: Yes, the draft would be 19 trained on the mock ups.
20 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Okay, so the construction 21 crew so to speak will be trained with the mock ups 22 before they actually do the final installation?
23 DR. THOMAS: Correct.
24 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Thank you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
67 DR. PIRES: And I think they will be full 1
scale.
2 DR. THOMAS: Yes, the mock ups would also 3
be at full scale of portions of the structure.
4 CHAIR KIRCHNER: I misunderstood, I 5
thought the mock up referred to the Idaho test, okay, 6
thank you.
7 DR. THOMAS: Next slide please. With 8
regard to in service inspection of containment, the 9
approach used is based on adapting ASME Section 11 10 Subsection IWE conserving the DP-SC components as 11 equivalent to Class MC pressure retaining boundary 12 components, and there would be a provision of 13 evaluation of inaccessible areas based on conditions 14 found in accessible areas.
15 Other considerations for, next, the fill 16
-- concrete infill are being evaluated by GEH, and 17 they include acoustic monitoring, the NDE, NDT methods 18 that -- those are described in previous slides, as 19 well as the mock up specimen that could be left in 20 place, and could be tested in the future if necessary.
21 The staff finds this approach reasonable 22 to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55AG with a 23 limitation condition that the license application 24 shall provide a plant specific program with specific 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
68 considerations and NDE methods that will be 1
implemented at the plant.
2 DR. SCHULTZ: This is Steve Schultz, I've 3
got a question here. With regard to the areas of 4
corrosion protection, non-destructive examinations 5
that we talked about earlier, and then here with the 6
in service inspections, the indication is that the 7
elements that have been provided in the report are 8
acceptable.
9 But as you're providing these conditions 10 that the license application needs to be providing 11 specific programs, is the staff providing enough 12 specific information in their review that will allow 13 the applicant to provide a plant specific program that 14 will be acceptable? In other words are all of the 15 elements that have been proposed in the technical 16 report acceptable to the staff, and what you're asking 17 for is just to find out what the specific applicant 18 will provide in their application?
19 Or is the applicant going to need to 20 provide a lot of information that the staff will then 21 review and -- in other words is it going to get very 22 complicated when the specific applications come in 23 later?
24 DR. THOMAS: Yes, so it's the latter, the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
69 staff finds the methods that have been proposed 1
acceptable, but the condition is just make sure staff 2
gets to take a look at what methods would be actually 3
implemented at the plant.
4 DR. SCHULTZ: And is that also -- I didn't 5
see anything in the limitations and conditions that 6
addressed what we talked about earlier in terms of the 7
long term application of aging management with regard 8
to the inspection techniques and approaches. Is that 9
also something that is going to be conditioned by the 10 staff going forward with applicants in the future?
11 DR. THOMAS: Yeah, that was also included 12 in the previous limitation condition for non-13 containment structures. In addition to following the 14 approach in the GALL structure monitoring program, 15 which is primarily visual inspection, what are the 16 other methods that will be implemented when necessary?
17 DR. SCHULTZ: Good, thank you, appreciate 18 that. Thank you for the response.
19 DR. THOMAS: Thank you. Next slide. This 20 slide is on the confirmatory structural testing that 21 was performed part of NRIC phase one. And as GEH has 22 pointed out, there were 14 specimens, prototype 23 specimens that were designed, constructed, load tested 24 to be representative of integrated reactor building 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
70 components.
1 The staff finds the test results provide 2
reasonable confirmation that the design equations are 3
conservative, because the scale prototype specimens 4
were of sufficient size to be representative of DP-SC 5
components, they're connected to an adequate quality 6
program. We observed behavior of the specimens were 7
generally ductile, there were no sudden failures, and 8
the acceptance criteria were met with margins for all 9
the tests.
10 Which is the experimental strength to the 11 nominal strength calculated using the proposed 12 equations, they're greater than one, and the range 13 1.24 to 1.74. And so the missile tests, the missile 14 was stopped in four of the five impact tests, and a 15 leak was predicted to stop in two of the five. So the 16 tests confirm the impact resistance and conservatism 17 of the equations used.
18 MEMBER HALNON: George what was the extent 19 of the staff's involvement in the testing?
20 Observations, did you put your eyes on the specimens, 21 did you see the test results, or was it just a paper 22 review?
23 DR. THOMAS: As part of the pre-24 application activities, staff did get an opportunity 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
71 to observe the tests at Purdue University.
1 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, so probably not 100 2
percent of the tests, but you observed enough of them 3
to understand that the test methods were good, and I'm 4
putting words in your mouth, but is that true?
5 DR. THOMAS: Yes. In fact we observed 6
one, myself and my colleague Artash (phonetic) we 7
witnessed one test, which was in plane shear, and 8
combined in plane and out of plane shear tests. And 9
NRC's regional folks from Region II Construction 10 Inspection Division, they witnessed another test on a 11 different day.
12 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, are these all 13 encompassed in the audit portion of the review, in the 14 audit reports?
15 DR. THOMAS: It was connected as a pre-16 application activity.
17 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, pre-application to 18 the TR?
19 DR. THOMAS: Yeah.
20 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, thanks.
21 DR. THOMAS: And of course we did get to 22 observe the failed tested specimens that were 23 previously tested also, they were available at the 24 lab.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
72 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, I just wanted to 1
make sure it wasn't just paper review, where you're 2
just looking at that. Did you all do any confirmatory 3
calculations on these, or were they just test results 4
for the test results?
5 DR. THOMAS: No, we did not do any 6
confirmatory calculations.
7 MEMBER HALNON: okay.
8 DR. PIRES: If I may say --
9 MEMBER HALNON: could you say your name 10 for the reporter please?
11 DR. PIRES: Yes, my name is Jose Pires 12 from the Office of Research, and I'm a senior 13 technical advisor for civil structural engineering.
14 You asked about the audit, during the audit process we 15 did obtain all the detailed testing reports that were 16 conducted, so we have that information.
17 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, and that's where you 18 integrated all the thought process of --
19 DR. PIRES: All the details of the tests, 20 all the reports, all that.
21 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, thank you.
22 DR. THOMAS: Yeah, actually the report of 23 the testing, the detailed report was submitted on the 24 docket along with the application --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
73 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, we've got that part 1
on public record.
2 DR. THOMAS: Yes. Well, it's proprietary, 3
but it's partially public.
4 MEMBER HALNON: Partially, got it, thank 5
you.
6 DR. THOMAS: Next slide. Now, this 7
section covers the limitation conditions, and I'm 8
going to discuss only those that were not previously 9
discussed. There were a total of 15 limitation 10 conditions. The first one was just to explicitly 11 identify aspects of the topical report that are 12 outside the scope. The second, 8.2, the numbers are 13 based on the section in the SC where these limitation 14 conditions are listed.
15 So the second one is, again, related to 16 the design parameters. So the staff review, and 17 approval of the LTR is based on situations provided in 18 Sections 5 and 6, and consistent with the confirmatory 19 NRIC testing. And the equations were based on the 20 face plate, and the diaphragm plate thickness and 21 thickness material being the same.
22 And there's a footnote that includes that 23 allows for use of different plate thickness and 24 material between face plates and diaphragm plates.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
74 However the modified equations, they were not provided 1
in the LTR, and this condition requests a fused, 2
modified equation and that evaluation be submitted to 3
staff to review as part of a future license 4
application.
5 And also even it used the equation 6
thickness and material strength of the two face plates 7
should be the same, because that has been the 8
provisions in the codes and standards, as well as in 9
the NRIC testing. Item 8.3 relates -- limits the 10 section thickness of DP-SC modules to less than or 11 equal to 16, just consistent with what's currently 12 allowed in N690, and endorsed in Reg Guide 1.243.
13 Next slide please. Section 8.4 is related 14 to material again, it limits the upper bound 15 compressive strength of concrete in fill to eight KSI 16 instead of ten KSI provided in the LTR, and this is 17 because there's an equation that provides relationship 18 between concrete strength to be used versus the steel 19 reinforcement ratio and steel strength.
20 The LTR limits the steel strength in the 21 50 to 65 KSI range. Corresponding to that, if the 65 22 KSI is plugged into that equation, and the maximum 23 reinforcement ratio is used, that limits the concrete 24 compressive strain to eight KSI and not ten KSI.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
75 CHAIR KIRCHNER: So, George, could you 1
explain this limitation a little bit more? Is this to 2
retain the steel concrete composite flexural and such 3
that you don't got to a higher 70 megapascal concrete?
4 DR. THOMAS: Yeah, so the equation is in 5
the draft N690-XX, it's primarily meant to make sure 6
that the concrete strength commensurates with the 7
steel strength that they use. And the draft standard 8
allows higher, up to 80 KSI. And that ten KSI would 9
correspond to 80 KSI steel strength.
10 DR. PIRES: If I may add some -- again, my 11 name is Jose Pires, senior technical advisor in the 12 Office of Research. In reinforced concrete, and also 13 on these steel plate composites we wanted the steel to 14 yield before the concrete crushes, when you have 15 flexion and part of the concrete in compression you 16 don't want it to crush before the steel yields, so you 17 have a ductile failure model.
18 So that's how that limitation came about.
19 So because if you make -- so it's balanced, you've got 20 the balanced cross section.
21 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Thank you.
22 DR. THOMAS: Condition 8.5, the staff has 23 allowed the use of the draft AISC N690-XX on a limited 24 basis in this LTR based on staff participation in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
76 codes and standards. In fact Jose is an NRC member on 1
the AISC N690 committee, and this is just to indicate 2
that it should not be construed as NRC endorsement of 3
the draft standard until after formal staff 4
endorsement of the next published revision.
5 Next slide. The limitation condition 8.7, 6
it's related to impact and impulsive load, there are 7
three parts to it, and this condition is just to make 8
sure that provisions are consistent with the 9
referenced document or standard. For example, the 10 alpha part of it is allowable ductility ratio for in 11 plane shear, the condition limits to 1.5 instead of 12 3.0 as stated in the LTR.
13 Which is consistent with table 14 of the 14 referenced IAEA safety report. Likewise, the 15 condition bravo, it clarifies the tables in stating 16 that the nominal and severe environmental load 17 categories, the allowable limits for ductility, 18 support rotation, and strain shall not exceed those 19 for superficial damage indicated in LTR tables 5-2 and 20 3.
21 And likewise for normal and extreme 22 environment load categories, they shall not exceed 23 those for limited damage in the LTR tables. And the 24 third, again providing more clarity for flexural 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
77 controlled DP-SC components, the criteria in terms of 1
support rotations, in terms of ductility, and in terms 2
of strength are provided in LTR tables 5-2 and 3 shall 3
all be met in total damage. It's not meeting one 4
(audio interference).
5 Next slide. Condition 8.8 will be 6
discussed in the closed session. Conditions 8.9 and 7
8.10 they're both related to connections, detail 8
design of connection will be available only at the 9
license application
- stage, and therefore the 10 connections could be a weak link in the design, and 11 therefore these conditions are just to make sure that 12 the detailed design of the connections are made 13 available during -- as part of the review in a future 14 licensing application.
15 Limitation conditions 8.11 through 14 was 16 previously discussed as I went through the different 17 slides. And the final condition, 8.15 will be 18 discussed in the closed session. So based on staff's 19 review, and subject to the limitations conditions 20 imposed, the staff concludes that the proposed design 21 specific methodology and materials design 22 construction, fabrication, examination, and testing of 23 the BWRX-300 SCCV and the non-containment integrated 24 reactor building structures using DP-SC is reasonable 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
78 and adequate as an acceptable way of meeting the 1
applicable regulations. Any questions please?
2 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Thank you, George. Let 3
me ask you a question. The applicant used a term of 4
art, they referred, I think it was Peter in his 5
presentation, referred to their report as a code of 6
construction, so based on your conclusion, can we 7
assume that you, the staff in your review, accept this 8
topical report as a quote unquote code of construction 9
when they go in the field to implement it?
10 DR. THOMAS: I wouldn't call it a code of 11 construction, I would characterize it as equivalent to 12 regulatory guidance as one way of meeting the 13 regulations.
14 CHAIR KIRCHNER: I should have added 15 subject also to your limitations and conditions. So 16 you conclude that this is an acceptable approach, in 17 particular what's unique here is obviously this type 18 of construction for the containment vessel, but 19 basically from your conclusion, we can presume that 20 you find that this is an acceptable approach for this 21 type of containment vessel construction?
22 DR. THOMAS: Yes, yeah.
23 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Okay.
24 DR. THOMAS: Because it's based on 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
79 recognized codes and standards modified as necessary 1
for the DP-SC construction.
2 CHAIR KIRCHNER:
- Members, further 3
questions? We're a little behind, we have a closed 4
session scheduled. Let me take the opportunity at 5
this point to ask if there are any members of the 6
public present here or online who wish to make a 7
comment. If you do, just please unmute yourself, 8
state your name, and affiliation if appropriate, and 9
make your comment. Hearing none, we will conclude 10 this session.
11 We'll take a break here, and then go into 12 closed session. So we'll return for the closed 13 session at five minutes of the hour, at 10:55. So we 14 are in recess for the moment. Thank you.
15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 16 off the record at 10:40 a.m. and resumed at 11:56 17 a.m.)
18 CHAIR KIRCHNER: I'll put it on the table, 19 is there any sense on writing a letter report on this 20 particular topical report?
21 DR. BLEY: I don't see a need. I think a 22 summary, paragraph in the summary of the minutes could 23 be sufficient.
24 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Tom, go ahead.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
80 MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah, the question I 1
still is that the topical report takes as a given that 2
the loading from an uncontrolled hydrogen combustion 3
event is addressed by a different topical report, and 4
not within the scope of what would be considered one 5
of the loads. And at least from the little bit of 6
discussion we had here, it's not clear that we 7
reviewed that, or that the staff has reviewed the 8
scenarios that led to that loading being included in 9
the reg guide.
10 It would seem like any containment design 11 that uses inerting would be exempted from including 12 that, I don't believe that's the case, although maybe 13 I'm wrong, that inerting would take the potentially 14 higher load from a hydrogen combustion event off the 15 table. But at least I didn't hear enough today to say 16 why that's the case.
17 It also doesn't really affect the 18 limitation condition in the topical report other than 19 tacitly accepting that these loads don't need to be 20 included. I'm just not sure where to go with that.
21 MEMBER HALNON: If you've eliminated the 22 condition from the realm of possibility, then it 23 wouldn't need to be included, and that's what you're 24 saying, have we or have we not determined whether or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
81 not that's the realm of possibility?
1 MEMBER ROBERTS: Right, especially given 2
real world value, you see the loss of inerting was 3
enabled the hydrogen events at Fukushima. So having 4
seen that happen, it seems like you need to have some 5
sort of more defined story as to why that's not a part 6
7 MEMBER HALNON: Some trigger that says 8
either you have it determined that it's not going to 9
happen, or you determine that the loads are okay.
10 MEMBER ROBERTS: Right, exactly.
11 MEMBER HALNON: Okay.
12 CHAIR KIRCHNER: I guess the other aspect 13 of that is whether we're in the design basis or we're 14 in beyond design basis. My sense would be that within 15 the design basis, that's a justifiable assumption, 16 that you're inerted, you wouldn't get a hydrogen 17 detonation. Now, for beyond design basis, I'd have to 18 admit I don't know the reg guide, the rules 19 interpretation, I think we'll have to look into that.
20 MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah, the reg guide 21 defines page 82, pressure resulting from uncontrolled 22 hydrogen burning for an accident that is accompanied 23 by hydrogen burning. That's kind of all you get.
24 CHAIR KIRCHNER: But is that a beyond 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
82 design basis event?
1 MEMBER ROBERTS: It seems like it is by 2
its very nature, because you don't get 100 percent 3
hydrogen generation unless you've had a beyond design 4
basis event.
5 MEMBER MARTIN: I don't think this 6
strategy is first of the kind for this plant. I know 7
in my experience with other plant designs, we've 8
certainly considered an inert containment as an option 9
based on other precedents. Again, I can't put my 10 finger on it, but I think we dig into that, and you'll 11 find it, there is precedent for accepting that in this 12 context.
13 A long way of saying we don't have enough 14 information right here, right now, but I think my 15 intuition here is that there's plenty of precedent to 16 support that.
17 MEMBER PETTI: And again, this is a 18 methodology topical.
19 MEMBER MARTIN: Yeah, we're not talking 20 about -- we're talking about a different topical 21 report.
22 MEMBER PETTI: In the end they have to 23 consider it, they have to consider it, it'll just be 24 another load.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
83 MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah, and the methodology 1
would still work.
2 MEMBER PETTI: Hopefully.
3 MEMBER ROBERTS: As long as the strength 4
supports whatever the load ends up being.
5 MEMBER BALLINGER: Just the description of 6
the application of codes and standards to the design.
7 If we were to disagree with one of the exceptions, to 8
N7, or whatever the number, now I'm drawing the blank, 9
exceptions to the standard, then we would probably 10 have to say something. But unless we disagree with 11 the staff's assessment of those deviations if you 12 will, I don't know, exceptions, which probably are in 13 the new draft '23, year '23 rule.
14 I don't know that we need to write 15 anything at all. I mean, it's just here are the codes 16 and standards, we're applying them, we've got 17 exceptions, we're done.
18 CHAIR KIRCHNER: Well, we'll certainly get 19 an opportunity with the actual application of this 20 methodology to the design, to review the ASME 21 analyses, and that would include beyond design basis 22 as well. So that loading consideration could then be 23 considered at that point. But I -- to first order, I 24 agree with Ron's assessment, that from a methodology 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
84 standpoint, it appears fairly straight forward, and I 1
don't know that we would add a lot of value by writing 2
a letter report.
3 MEMBER PETTI: That was my -- I didn't see 4
a lot of value to it, because I thought they did a 5
good job.
6 MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah, I think the meeting 7
summary can simply observe this as not part of the 8
methodology, but it's an open question from the 9
standpoint of we didn't see a clear tie between the 10 statement that you don't have to include that load and 11 the reference documents to purposefully provide that 12 justification and I'm okay with that.
13 MEMBER MARTIN: And I just wanted to 14 clarify from Dennis, I guess this sort of methodology 15 was presented before with AP1000? Was that one of 16 your earlier questions to Jose?
17 DR. BLEY: We would almost have to go back 18 to the staff. The staff developed their own approach, 19 because there were no standards at the time, and they 20 brought the analysis here. As I recall, one member of 21 the staff had file a BPO, or some objection, and then 22 we heard the presentation of the reasons why, so it 23 was kind of rom scratch analysis.
24 MEMBER BALLINGER: But there's a later 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
85 version, we reviewed 1.243.
1 DR. BLEY: Yeah.
2 MEMBER BALLINGER: Which endorsed the 3
steel plate, you have the AISC, so that's a later 4
version.
5 DR. BLEY: That's later, yeah.
6 MEMBER MARTIN: Surely nothing really new.
7 DR. BLEY: I mean, that was follow on, I 8
knew we were going to get there eventually.
9 MEMBER HALNON: Just for the record, Walt 10 had to take off, I think go to a meeting, so I'm now 11 your boss. I love it. So it sounds like, Vesna, you 12 haven't weighed in, are you out there?
13 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes, I am, I am out 14 here. I do agree with this discussion, I don't feel 15 the report, writing the letter is necessary at this 16 time, all right?
17 MEMBER HALNON: Thank you. It sounds like 18 we're headed towards this short paragraph in the 19 summary. This is a piece of the puzzle, the puzzle's 20 really got to be completed, so none of the pieces fit 21 until you get it all put together and see what the 22 picture is. So we're going to have continued 23 discussions about the different accident analyses 24 beyond design basis, and that sort of thing.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
86 Is there any other comments or questions 1
that we need to raise up as a committee? Okay, I've 2
been a little slow. We thank you, the applicant, 3
staff, we thank you very much for good presentations, 4
appreciate you all traveling there, it's always in our 5
minds better to be here in person, so we appreciate 6
you coming, and providing the presentations in person 7
as well. Those who are online, greatly appreciate it.
8 With that I'm going to adjourn this 9
meeting, and then we will be back for our afternoon 10 session at 1:00 o'clock, thank you.
11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 12 off the record at 12:04 p.m.)
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
ENCLOSURE 2 M240128 ACRS Subcommittee Presentation Slides for NEDC-33926P, Rev. 2, BWRX-300 Steel-Plate Composite (SC) Containment Vessel (SCCV) and Reactor Building Structural Design Licensing Topical Report Non-Proprietary Information IMPORTANT NOTICE This is a non-proprietary version of Enclosure 1, from which the proprietary information has been removed. The header of each page in this enclosure carries the notation Non-Proprietary Information. Portions of the enclosure that have been removed are indicated by an open and closed bracket as shown here (( )).
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE PRESENTATION GE HITACHI (GEH) LICENSING TOPICAL REPORT (LTR) NEDC-33926P BWRX-300 STEEL-PLATE COMPOSITE (SC) CONTAINMENT VESSEL (SCCV) AND REACTOR BUILDING STRUCTURAL DESIGN July 9, 2024 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
AGENDA Open Session
- Licensing Topical Report Purpose and Scope
- Overview of BWRX-300 Steel-plate Composite (SC) structures, Diaphragm Plate Steel-plate Composite (DP-SC) and National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) Prototype Testing
- BWRX-300 Overall Analysis and Design Approach
- Regulatory Evaluation
- Modified Design Rules for Non-Containment Steel-Plate Composite Structures
- Proposed Design Approach for BWRX-300 Steel-Plate Composite Containment Vessel (SCCV) 2 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
AGENDA Closed Session
- DP-SC Configurations
- Methodology used to compute effective Stiffness of Steel-Plate Composite Elements
- Design of DP-SC floors
- Design of Connections 3
Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
NEDC-33926P PURPOSE AND SCOPE (LTR Section 1.0) 4 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
5 Licensing Topical Report Purpose The LTR provides approach and requirements for design of the BWRX-300 DP-SC containment and non-containment structures:
Provisions of Articles CC-1000 to CC-6000 of ASME III-2, including Div. 2 Appendices, adapted for the DP-SC SCCV ANSI/AISC N690 Appendix N9 provisions, modified to address particularities of DP-SC construction for DP-SC SCCV and non-containment structures Code applicability shown in LTR Figure 4-1 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
6 Licensing Topical Report Purpose GEH is seeking NRC approval for:
Design approach and methodology for DP-SC for Seismic Category I SCCV and Reactor Building (RB) structures Requirements for material, fabrication, construction, inspection, examination and testing of DP-SC modules for SCCV and RB structures (LTR Sections 5.0 and 6.0)
GEH is seeking NRC design-specific approval for use of:
Proposed criteria and requirements for SCCV materials, design, fabrication, construction, inspection, examination, and testing adapted from Articles CC-1000 through CC-6000 of the 2021 Edition of ASME III-2 code.
Modified criteria and requirements to ANSI/AISC N690-18, Chapters NM, NN, and Appendix N9 for material, design, analysis, fabrication, construction, inspection, examination, and testing of DP-SC non-containment structures Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
7 Licensing Topical Report Scope This request was supported by the following information in the LTR:
- Regulatory evaluation of compliance to applicable U.S. regulations and regulatory guidance (LTR Section 2.0)
- General Description of integrated RB structures, of SC structural elements and technical justification for the proposed use of DP-SC modules for integrated RB structures (LTR Section 3.0)
- Technical evaluation of proposed design parameters and requirements for use of DP-SC for the non-containment SC structures (LTR Section 5.0)
- Technical evaluation of proposed design parameters and requirements for use of DP-SC for the SCCV (LTR Section 6.0)
- Summary of the NRIC Demonstration Program Prototype test conclusions (LTR Section 7.0)
Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
OVERVIEW OF BWRX-300 STEEL-PLATE COMPOSITE STRUCTURES, DP-SC MODULES AND NRIC PROTOTYPE TESTING (LTR Sections 3.0 and 7.0) 8 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
9 BWRX-300 Power Block Turbine Building Reactor Building Service Building Radwaste Building Control Building Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
10 BWRX-300 Integrated RB Section View Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
11 Diaphragm Plate Steel-Plate Composite (DP-SC) Modules
- Why DP-SC instead of traditional Steel-Plate Composite (SC) modules with ties?
- Possible configurations of DP-SC modules presented in LTR Figure 3-5
- DP-SC modules are spliced to form straight and curved walls and floors
- Diaphragm plates and shear studs contribute to the composite action of modules
- Diaphragm plates contribute to stiffness and strength of modules
- NRIC confirmatory test results are applicable to all DP-SC modules configurations illustrated in LTR Figures 3-5 and 3-6 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
12 Overview of NRIC Prototype Testing
- Evaluate performance of DP-SC modules for various loading conditions applicable for containment and non-containment applications
- A total of 14 scaled prototype specimens (5 loading configurations) constructed and tested
- Scaled prototypes designed to be representative of the following DP-SC components:
- Mat foundation
- SCCV wall-to-mat foundation connection
- SCCV wall
- RB exterior wall-to-mat foundation connection
- RB exterior wall
- Acceptance criteria based on nominal capacities calculated based on specific minimum steel and concrete material strengths Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
BWRX-300 OVERALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN APPROACH (LTR Section 4.0) 13 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
14 BWRX-300 Overall Analysis and Design Approach
- Analysis performed using the One-Step Approach per Section 5.1 of NRC approved NEDO-33914-A
- The integrated RB 3D FE model developed per Subsection 5.1.1 of NRC approved NEDO-33914-A
- SCCV loads and load combinations in accordance with Subsubarticle CC-3230 of ASME III-2, supplemented by RG 1.136
- Loads and load combinations for design of non-containment structures in accordance with Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) provisions of ANSI/AISC N690-18, supplemented by RG 1.243
- Acceptance criteria for design of SCCV as discussed in LTR Section 6.6
- Acceptance criteria for design of non-containment DP-SC structures in accordance with ANSI/AISC N690, Appendix N9, as endorsed by RG 1.243, and modified design rules in LTR Section 5.0 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
REGULATORY EVALUATION (LTR Section 2.0) 15 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
16 Regulatory Evaluation - Summary
- LTR proposed design approach and requirements for integrated RB DP-SC structures comply with applicable regulatory requirements and guidance
- The approach described in the LTR does not require an exemption from any regulatory requirements
- LTR methodology ensures safe operation of the BWRX-300 for the life of the plant Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
17 Regulatory Compliance - Design Codes and Standards Design codes for the SCCV and Seismic Category I non-containment DP-SC structures comply with:
10 CFR 50.55a(b) - SCCV design rules (LTR Section 6.0) adapted from ASME III-2 requirements 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, GDC 1 - DP-SC design rules (LTR Sections 5.0 and 6.0) adapted from ASME III-2 and ANSI/AISC N690 codes RG 1.136, Materials, Construction, and Testing of Concrete Containments RG 1.243, Safety-Related Steel Structures and Steel-Plate Composite Walls for Other Than Reactor Vessels and Containments Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
18 Regulatory Compliance - Design Requirements Design requirements for the SCCV and Seismic Category I non-containment DP-SC structures comply with:
10 CFR 50.34(f)(3)(v)(A)(1) - SCCV design rules (LTR Section 6.0) adapted from ASME III-2 and ensure SCCV structural integrity 10 CFR 50.44 (c)(5) - Met by following RG 1.7 in LTR Subsection 6.23.2 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, GDC 2 - Met by following SRP 3.8.1, SRP 3.8.2, SRP 3.8.3 and SRP 3.8.4 for integrated RB design basis loads discussed in LTR Section 4.3 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, GDC 4 - Met by following SRP 3.8.1, SRP 3.8.2, SRP 3.8.3 and SRP 3.8.4 for integrated RB design basis loads discussed in LTR Section 4.3 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
19 Regulatory Compliance - Design Requirements 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, GDC 16 - BWRX-300 containment designed to be leak-tight. Inner steel faceplate of SCCV DP-SC modules serve as leak barrier 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, GDC 50 - BWRX-300 containment designed to withstand calculated pressure and temperature conditions resulting from LOCA with sufficient margin 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, GDC 51 - BWRX-300 containment possesses ductility and energy absorbing capacity which permits inelastic deformation without failure under design basis transients and accidents 10 CFR 50 Appendix S - Integrated RB structures designed for Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) analysis performed using one-step approach per NRC approved NEDO-33914-A. Seismic damping per RG 1.61 SRP 19, Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Severe Accident Evaluation for Reactors RG 1.216, Containment Structural Integrity Evaluation for Internal Pressure Loadings Above Design-Basis Pressure Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
20 Regulatory Compliance - Testing, Inspection and Monitoring Testing, inspection and monitoring of SCCV and non-containment DP-SC structures comply with:
10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) - Met by SCCV inservice inspection and testing requirements in LTR Section 6.22 10 CFR 50.65 - Met by following RG 1.160 for integrated RB inservice inspection and maintenance program described in LTR Sections 5.18 and 6.22 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, GDC 52 - Periodic integrated leakage rate testing are conducted at containment design pressure 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, GDC 53 - Individual leakage rate tests are conducted on applicable penetrations 10 CFR 50 Appendix J, Primary reactor containment leakage testing for water-cooled power reactors RG 1.163, Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
21 Regulatory Compliance - Quality Control and Quality Assurance The SCCV quality control and Quality Assurance requirements (LTR Sections 6.2 and 6.15) comply with:
- 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Quality assurance criteria for nuclear power plants and fuel reprocessing plants
- RG 1.28, Quality Assurance Program Criteria (Design and Construction)
The quality control and QA requirements for Seismic Category I non-containment DP-SC structures (LTR Section 5.17) comply with:
- ANSI/AISC N690, Chapter NN and Section NA5
- RG 1.28, Quality Assurance Program Criteria (Design and Construction)
Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
22 Other Regulatory Guidance Followed
- Corrosion Protection (LTR Sections 5.15 and 6.19): RG 1.54, Service Level I, II, III and In-Scope License Renewal Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Power Plants Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
MODIFIED DESIGN RULES FOR NON-CONTAINMENT STEEL-PLATE COMPOSITE STRUCTURES (LTR Section 5.0) 23 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
24 Design Bases for Non-Containment DP-SC Structures
- Adapted from ANSI/AISC N690-18 and adjusted to address the particularities of DP-SC construction
- Structural steel design to ANSI/AISC 360-16
- ANSI/AISC N690-XX and ANSI/AISC 360-22 used for minor updates
- Supported by the confirmatory NRIC Demonstration Program Phase 1 Prototype Testing
- Address following particulars of DP-SC modules:
Composite Action
Stiffness calculation
Sectional capacities
Applicability of ANSI/AISC N690-18 modified rules to DP-SC horizontal modules Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
25 5.1 Design Parameters & 5.2 Materials
- 5.1 Design Parameters
- Design equations use the same thickness and yield strength for faceplates and diaphragm plates
- DP-SC modules meet the design requirements of ANSI/AISC N690-18 Appendix N9, Section N9.1
- Maximum reinforcement ratio for DP-SC modules based on draft ANSI/AISC N690-XX
- 5.2 Materials
- Self-consolidating concrete is used
- Concrete compressive strength per draft ANSI/AISC N690-XX
- Concrete temperature limitations per Appendix E of ACI 349
- Concrete mechanical properties at elevated temperature per ANSI/AISC N690-18 Appendix N4
- Effect of elevated temperature on mechanical properties of steel per ANSI/AISC N690-18 Section NB3.3 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
26 5.3 Composite Action & 5.4 Diaphragm Requirements
- 5.3 Composite action
- Achieved through shear connectors consisting of diaphragm plates and steel headed stud anchors
- Shear studs are sized to the following:
Prevent local buckling of the faceplate Development of interfacial shear strength of the faceplate Development of yield strength of the faceplate
- Approach described in LTR Section 5.3.1
- 5.4 Diaphragm Requirements
- Maximum spacing limited to panel thickness as per ANSI/AISC N690 requirements
- Diaphragm plates requirements per ANSI/AISC N690-XX Appendix N9, Section N9.5.1 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
27 5.7 Section Capacities of Steel-Plate Composite Elements 5.7.1 Uniaxial Tensile Strength Equation 5.7.2 Compressive Strength Equations 5.7.3 Out-of-Plane Flexural Strength
- 5.7.3.1 Perpendicular to Diaphragm Span Equation
- 5.7.3.2 Parallel to Diaphragm Span Equation 5.7.4 In-Plane Shear Strength 5.7.5 Out-of-Plane Shear Strength
- 5.7.5.1 Perpendicular to Diaphragm Span Equation
- 5.7.5.2 Parallel to Diaphragm Span Equation
- 5.7.5.3 Two-Way Punching Shear 5.7.6 Out-of-Plane Shear Force Interaction 5.7.7 In-Plane Membrane & Out-of-Plane Moments Interaction Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
28 Test Objectives & Acceptance Criteria Confirm that the out-of-plane strength of DP-SC can be calculated conservatively using ANSI/AISC N690 or ACI 349-06M code provisions before undergoing failure due to out-of-plane shear / bending loading Confirm yielding of tension faceplate occurs prior to shear failure Achieve minimum ductility ratio of 3.0 Specimens represent Reactor Building Basemat (1:2 scale)
Results Acceptance criteria were met Specimens achieved maximum load that exceeded the calculated nominal flexural capacity thus confirming:
Out-Of-Plane Shear (OOPV)-1 LTR Section 5.7.3.1 OOPV-2 LTR Section 5.7.3.2 Specimens developed flexural yielding without undergoing any shear failure or fracture failure OOPV Tests OOPV-1 DP oriented parallel to the loading OOPV-2 DP oriented perpendicular to the loading Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
29 5.8 Design for Impactive and Impulsive Loads Includes pipe rupture, tornado, aircraft impact, other missiles Design allowable Normal and severe environmental - elastic Abnormal and extreme environmental - permanent plastic deformation allowed Local effects Faceplate thickness designed to prevent perforation (at least 25% greater)
Explicit dynamic inelastic analysis Alternative rational methods - Modified 3-step design method Global response Methods include dynamic load factor, impulse, momentum and energy balance, time-history dynamic Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
30 Test Objectives & Acceptance Criteria Experimentally evaluate the impact resistance of DP-SC Confirm the conservatism of the Modified 3-step Design Method for SC walls subjected to missile impact loading as applied to DP-SC Specimens represent Reactor Building wall (1:6 scale)
Results Acceptance criteria were met Missile stopped in 4 of the 5 tests in a bulging damage mode Results confirm the impact resistance of DP-SC modules and demonstrate that the Modified Design Method (LTR Section 5.8.2.2.1) is conservative Missile Impact Tests Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
PROPOSED DESIGN APPROACH FOR BWRX-300 STEEL-PLATE COMPOSITE CONTAINMENT VESSEL (SCCV)
(LTR Section 6.0) 31 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
32 6.0 Design Bases for SCCV
- 6.1 Introduction
- Requirements adapted from Article CC-2000 to CC-6000 of ASME III-2, 2021 edition
- Containment pressure-retaining boundary includes inner & outer faceplates
- Leak-tightness requirements applicable to inner faceplate of DP-SC modules credited as leak barrier
- Design parameters per LTR Section 5.1
- Allowable stress design philosophy of ASME III-2
- 6.3 & 6.4 DP-SC effective stiffness, geometric, material properties & damping values per LTR Section 5.5
- 6.10 Impulsive & impactive design per LTR Section 5.8
- 6.14 Connections per LTR Section 5.11 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
33 6.16, 6.17 & 6.22 SCCV Inspection & Testing Requirements 6.16 Construction Testing & Examination Per ASME III-2, Subsection CC, Article CC-5000, as applicable Concrete is exempted from visual inspection requirements and therefore can be inspected using non-destructive testing techniques per LTR Section 5.18 6.17 Pre-service Inspection & Testing Per ASME III-2, Subsection CC, Subarticle CC-6600, as applicable Mock-up tests are performed 6.22 Inservice Inspection & Testing Per ASME XI-1, Subsections IWE and IWL, as applicable Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
34 Test Objectives & Acceptance Criteria Confirm that SCCV DP-SC system with splicing details can withstand accidental pressure & thermal loading conditions with acceptable steel strain limits Specimens represent SCCV wall (1:3 scale)
Ambient temperature & elevated temperature Results Acceptance criteria were met Maximum tensile force exceeded nominal strength Demonstrated adequate ductility no Tensile fracture or weld failure Bi-Axial Tension Tests Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
35 Test Objectives & Acceptance Criteria Confirm SCCV-to-mat foundation connection and the nearby SCCV wall-to-wall splice can develop the in-plane flexural capacity of the SCCV wall Cyclic loading simulating earthquake 2 specimens (1:3 scale):
1 ambient temperature 1 elevated temperature Results Acceptance criteria were met Maximum load exceeded the wall in-plane flexural capacity without any failure of connection, LTR Section 5.11 Governing failure mode was in-plane flexure IPV Tests Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS 36 Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
SLIDES FOR CLOSED SESSION 37 Non-Proprietary Information
38 Figure 3-7 DP-SC Module System
))
((
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Non-Proprietary Information
39 5.5 Effective Stiffness of Steel-Plate Composite Elements
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
((
))
Non-Proprietary Information
40 5.9 Design of Steel-Plate Composite Floors
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
((
))
Non-Proprietary Information
41 5.11 Design of Steel-Plate Composite Connections
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
((
))
Non-Proprietary Information
© 2024 GE Vernova and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS 42 Non-Proprietary Information
Presentation to the ACRS Subcommittee Staff Review of GEH Topical Report NEDO-33926/NEDC-33926P, Revision 2, BWRX-300 Steel-Plate Composite Containment Vessel and Reactor Building Structural Design July 9, 2024 (Open Session)
Non-Proprietary 1
NRC Staff Review Team 2
Non-Proprietary Technical Reviewers George Thomas, PhD, PE, Senior Civil Engineer (Structural),
(NRR/DEX/ESEB)
Jose Pires, PhD, PE (Senior Technical Advisor (Civil/Structural Engineering), (RES/DE)
Project Managers Jordan Glisan, TR PM (NRR/DNRL/NLIB)
Jim Shea, Lead PM (NRR/DNRL/NLIB)
Joint Review with Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
As prescribed by the September 2022, Charter - Collaboration on GEHs BWRX-300 Design, (ML22284A024), the NRC and CNSC are collaborating on the review of this topical report.
Collaboration includes discussing processes and approaches, considering supplemental information provided by GEH, identifying areas for collaborative verification, sharing expertise, and leveraging analysis.
Each agency will independently pursue completion of the deliverables for their respective processes (safety evaluation for NRC and technical report memo to licensing for CNSC).
To this date, the NRC and CNSC have jointly engaged GEH in an audit and will issue a joint report to be developed tentatively later in the calendar year.
3 Non-Proprietary
Staff Review Timeline
GEH submitted its Licensing Topical Report (LTR) NEDO-33926/NEDC-33926P, Revision 0, on May 4, 2023 (ML23124A408), which was supplemented by package ML23212B126 on July 31, 2023, to support acceptance.
GEH submitted Revision 1 on August 18, 2023, to reclassify select proprietary information as public.
Staff performed an audit between September 13, 2023, and January 17, 2024, which was briefly reopened in April 2024 (ML24103A005).
Following the audit, Staff issued 11 RAI questions (ML24033A206) to GEH and received responses from GEH 30 (ML24044A256) and 60 (ML24094A295) days later.
As a result of the audit and RAIs, GEH submitted Revision 2 (ML24110A134) on April 18, 2024.
Staff issued the Draft Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on June 26, 2024 (ML24178A426).
4 Non-Proprietary
Presentation Outline Purpose of LTR Overview: Diaphragm Plate Steel-Plate Composite (DP-SC) &
BWRX-300 Integrated Reactor Building Structures Regulatory Bases Staff Review Strategy Overall Design and Analysis Approach (LTR 4.0)
Modified Design Rules for Non-Containment DP-SC (LTR 5.0)
Proposed Design Approach for BWRX-300 DP-SCCV (LTR 6.0)
Confirmatory NRIC Phase 1 Structural Testing Results (LTR 7.0)
Limitations and Conditions Staff Conclusions 5
Non-Proprietary
Purpose of the LTR
To obtain NRC staff approval of the proposed structural design and construction methodology for the use of Steel-Plate Composite (SC) modules with Diaphragm Plates (DP-SC modules) for the BWRX-300 Integrated Reactor Building (IRB) structures, specifically, the containment vessel (SCCV), the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) pedestal, and the Reactor Building (RB) structural elements.
Compliance or conformance of the proposed methodology BWRX-300 DP-SC IRB structures is addressed in LTR Section 2.0.
The approved design-specific methodology will be used to design and construct the BWRX-300 DP-SC Integrated Reactor Building Structures (including SCCV, RPV Pedestal, RB) in future BWRX-300 SMR licensing applications for a CP and OL under 10 CFR Part 50.
This is the first proposed use of DP-SC modules for any nuclear safety-related structure, and the first proposed use of any SC, including DP-SC, for containment.
6 Non-Proprietary
Traditional SC vs DP-SC 7
Non-Proprietary Diaphragm plates Headed steel studs Traditional or Conventional SC (N690-18, App N9)
SC with Diaphragm Plates (DP-SC)
Integrated Reactor Building - Section View (LTR Figure 3-4) 8 Non-Proprietary Reactor Building (RB)
Steel-Plate Composite Containment Vessel (SCCV)
Containment Equipment and Piping Support Structure (CEPSS)
RPV Pedestal Bioshield Level -34.0
-34000 Level -29.0
-29000 Level -21.0
-21000 Level -14.5
-14500 Level -8.5
-8500 Level 0 0
Level 5.9 5900 Level 15.0 15000 Roof 32.7 32715 Grade
-150
Regulatory Bases
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria (GDC) for Nuclear Power Plants (NPP) :
o GDC 1, Quality standards and records, GDC 2, Design bases for protection against natural phenomena, and GDC 4, Environmental and dynamic effects design bases o Further for SCCV only: GDC 16, Containment design, GDC 50, Containment design basis, GDC 51, Fracture prevention of containment pressure boundary, GDC 52, Capability for containment leakage rate testing, and GDC 53, Provisions for containment testing and inspection.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Quality assurance criteria for NPPs
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Primary reactor containment leakage testing for water-cooled power reactors
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix S, Earthquake engineering criteria for NPPs 9
Non-Proprietary
Regulatory Bases
10 CFR 50.44, Combustible gas control for nuclear power reactors and
§50.34(f)(v)(A)(1) require demonstration of containment integrity
10 CFR 50.55a Codes and Standards, specifically inservice inspection (ISI) requirements in §50.55a(g)(4)
10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants
10 CFR 50.150, Aircraft impact assessment - Specific explicit dynamic analyses methods not in the LTR scope
LTR/SE Sections 2.2 and 2.3 identifies the NUREG-0800 Standard Review Plan (SRP) Sections and NRC Regulatory Guides that are applicable, at least in part, for the review or compliance with applicable regulations for DP-SC.
10 Non-Proprietary
Staff Review Strategy
The staffs review strategy was based on GDC 1, Quality Standards and Records, which requires, in part: where generally recognized codes and standards are used, they shall be identified and evaluated for applicability, adequacy, and sufficiency and shall be supplemented or modified as necessary to assure a quality product in keeping with the required safety function.
LTR proposed structural design/construction methodology using DP-SC modules is based on adapting, supplementing, and modifying existing NRC-endorsed codes and standards, namely:
- For containment (SCCV): ASME Section III, Division 2 (2021 ed) Code for Concrete Containments, 2019 edition endorsed in RG 1.136, Revision 4, to the extent applicable to DP-SC, and ASME Section XI - IWE for ISI
- For non-containment IRB structures: ANSI/AISC N690-18, Specification for Safety-Related Steel Structures for Nuclear Facilities, (Appendix N9 - Steel-plate Composite Walls) endorsed in RG 1.243, Revision 0 11 Non-Proprietary
Staff Review Strategy
Staff reviewed and verified adequacy of the supporting technical bases to justify the proposed approach of adapting, modifying, and supplementing the two NRC-endorsed existing codes and standards referenced above.
Supporting Technical Bases included:
- Cognizant current published technical literature (experimental and analytical) applicable to DP-SC
- Draft proposed next revision/edition of ANSI/AISC N690-XX standard issued for public comment,
- Confirmatory NRIC Demonstration Program Phase 1 Prototype Testing (NRIC Prototype Testing) summarized in LTR Section 7.0
Quality assurance and control are based on the adapted standards and RG 1.28.
12 Non-Proprietary
Overall Analysis and Design Approach (LTR Section 4.0)
Design Loads and Load Combinations and Acceptance Criteria: Acceptable because For SCCV: Consistent with Sub-article CC-3230 of ASME III-2, as supplemented by RG 1.136, based on Allowable Stress Design philosophy For other IRB structures (non-containment): Consistent with Section NB2.5 Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) provisions of ANSI/AISC N690-18, as supplemented by RG 1.243
Structural Analysis and Modeling Approach: Acceptable because One-Step Analysis Approach of ASCE 4-16 is used for structural analysis of the IRB under static and dynamic loads based on a 3D Finite Element (FE) model of IRB, which is consistent with NRC-approved methodology in LTR NEDO-33914-A.
FE model is generally based on thick shell elements with equivalent thickness, material and mass properties, and using damping values per RG 1.61.
13 Non-Proprietary
Modified Design Rules for Non-Containment DP-SC (LTR Section 5.0)
Modified design rules adapted from LRFD provisions of N690-18 and adjusted to address the following DP-SC particulars not addressed in the standard:
- Effects of curvature on DP-SC walls
- Modified Appendix N9 design equations to compute DP-SC sectional capacities accounting for contribution of diaphragm plates (Closed Session)
- Applicability of ANSI/AISC N690, Appendix N9, modified rules to DP-SC horizontal modules (e.g., basemat, floors) (Closed Session) 14 Non-Proprietary
Modified Design Rules for Non-Containment DP-SC:
Effect of Curvature (LTR 5.12)
Effects of Curvature on detailing and design was evaluated, and found acceptable because:
- Effect of curvature on structural demands are accounted for explicitly in 3D FE structural analysis model
- Radius-to-panel thickness will be greater than 2.0 based on studies by Wang et al (2021; LTR Reference 9-74) on flexural behavior of flat and curved walls under compressive load and cyclic in-plane and out-of-plane loading
- Fabrication and welding of curved elements performed to the adapted codes and standards
- Staff-imposed limitation and condition (L&C) that any residual stresses and strains resulting from rolling of curved plates shall be evaluated and incorporated in detailed design [L&C 8.11]
15 Non-Proprietary
Design for Impactive and Impulsive Loads (LTR 5.8)
Allowable stresses and deformation limits as well as design approach for global response and for local effects were reviewed and found acceptable with L&C 8.7:
Dynamic increase factors for allowable stresses for concrete follow ANSI/AISC N690-18 as endorsed in RG 1.243 and those for steel follow NEI 07-13 as endorsed in RG 1.217 Allowable deformation limits for support rotations and ductility ratios follow those in ANSI/AISC N690-18 with the exceptions and additions in RG 1.243 or, in a few cases, limits in IAEA Safety Report Series No. 87 (IAEA SR 87)
Controlling steel and concrete strains for moderate damage follow NEI 17-03 as endorsed by RG 1.217 as well as RG 1.243 (for steel) while those for superficial damage follow the allowable strain limits in IAEA SR 87 Design for global response follow analysis approaches in Section N9.1.6c of ANSI/AISC N690-18 in conjunction with the allowable deformation limits and regulatory position 11.1.8.3 in RG 1.243 for the evaluation of shear capacity at the supports Design to prevent local failure from missile impact uses two approaches (1) explicit dynamic inelastic analysis that follows the approach in NEI 07-13 endorsed in RG 1.217 and augmented to address DP-SC modules; and (2) alternative rational method using empirical equations based on test data and mechanical-physical considerations (This approach has been verified by testing summarized in LTR Section 7.3.5 and use equations in public review Draft ANSI/AISC N690-XX) 16 Non-Proprietary
Corrosion Protection (LTR 5.15)
Corrosion protection for DP-SC modules will be met by one or more of the approaches below, and conforms to RG 1.54 guidance:
- Add sacrificial thickness to faceplate thickness as corrosion tolerance
- Use of a Protective Paint System
- Use of a Membrane Coating System
- Use of an Impressed Current Cathodic Protection
Staff finds approaches acceptable with a L&C that the license application shall specify details of and justify adequacy of the selected combination of corrosion measures that will be implemented for the plant. [L&C 8.12]
17 Non-Proprietary
Inservice Inspection (ISI) and Testing (LTR 5.18)
Approach for establishing an ISI program is similar to GALL-SLR AMP XI.S6 Structures Monitoring consisting of
- Periodic visual inspection of accessible areas by qualified personnel and following industry guidance (e.g., ACI 349.3R, ASCE 11)
- Option to use ultrasonic pulse-echo thickness measurement for accessible faceplates
- Nondestructive examination (NDE)/nondestructive testing (NDT) methods may be evaluated and deployed for inaccessible components (such as Ultrasonic guided wave phased-array for faceplate defects, High-energy X-ray for voids in concrete, Low-frequency ultrasound to evaluate faceplate-concrete contact)
Staff finds ISI and NDE/NDT approaches reasonable with a L&C that the license application shall provide a plant-specific program including NDE/NDT methods that will be implemented for the plant.[L&C 8.13]
18 Non-Proprietary
Fabrication, Construction Examination and Preservice Testing for DP-SCCV (LTR 6.15-6.17)
Fabrication and construction requirements adapted from CC-4000 requirements for liners and supplemented are acceptable.
Construction testing and examination methods of SCCV materials (steel, concrete infill, welds), noting only inner faceplate is credited for leak-tightness, are reasonable because they are adequately adapted and modified from CC-5000.
Preservice testing of the SCCV is acceptable because:
The Structural Integrity Test (SIT) performed at 1.15 times the design pressure per Article CC-6000 (as applicable) with displacement and strain measurements and comparison with analytical predictions provides an adequate verification and validation of the structural performance and quality of construction of the as-constructed DP-SC containment The Integrated Leak Rate Test will provide an adequate verification of leak-tight integrity of the as-constructed DP-SC containment Representative mockup tests based on CC-6000/CC-4000 provides demonstration of adequate placement/consolidation of the concrete infill 19 Non-Proprietary
Inservice Inspection (ISI) for SCCV (LTR 6.22)
Approach for establishing ISI program for SCCV pressure-retaining boundary components consists of:
- Adapting the provisions of ASME Section XI, Subsection IWE considering the DP-SC metallic components similar to Class MC pressure-retaining boundary components and their integral attachments; and evaluation of inaccessible areas based on conditions in accessible areas
- Other considerations for inaccessible concrete infill (e.g., acoustic monitoring, NDE/NDT methods in LTR 5.18, mockup specimens) may be evaluated and deployed for inaccessible components
Staff finds approach reasonable to meet 10 CFR 50.55a(g) with a L&C that the license application shall provide a plant-specific program that includes specific considerations and NDE methods that will be implemented at the plant. [L&C 8.14]
20 Non-Proprietary
Confirmatory NRIC Phase 1 Structural Testing (LTR Section 7.0)
LTR Section 7.0 summarizes results of a total of 14 Steel BricksTM geometrically-scaled (1:2 to 1:6) prototype specimens designed, constructed, and load-tested to be representative of DP-SC integrated RB components:
Out-Of-Plane Shear/Flexure, OOPV (Mat foundation);
Bi-Axial Tension, BAT (SCCV wall);
In-Plane Shear, IPV (SCCV wall-to-mat foundation connection);
In-Plane Shear + Out-Of-Plane Shear, IPV+OOPV (RB exterior wall-to-mat foundation connection; and Missile Impact, IMP (RB wall)
Staff finding The test results provide a reasonable confirmation that design equations are conservative because scaled prototype test specimens were of sufficient size to be representative of IRB DP-SC components, were conducted to an adequate quality program, observed behavior was ductile, and acceptance criteria were met with margin (Rexp/Rn_nom 1; range 1.24 - 1.74)
Missile stopped in 4 of 5 impact tests - confirms of impact resistance 21 Non-Proprietary
Limitations and Conditions (L&C)
(Total 15 L&Cs; below are those not discussed previously)
8.1 Outside-of-scope Items
8.2 The Staff review of the LTR is based on equations presented in the LTR Sections 5.0 and 6.0, and consistent with the confirmatory National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) Prototype Testing. If the equations are modified per footnote (1) in LTR Section 5.1 for use of different plate thickness or material yield strength between faceplates and diaphragm plates, the modified equations and supporting derivation shall be submitted for Staff review as part of a future application referencing the LTR. Further, if the equations are modified, the thickness and material yield strength of the inner faceplate and the outer faceplate shall remain the same.
8.3 Design Parameter DP-SC Section thickness or depth (tsc) greater than 60 inches is not permitted consistent with AISC N690-18, Appendix N9, endorsed in RG 1.243.
22 Non-Proprietary
Limitations and Conditions
8.4 Materials
The upper bound (maximum) compressive strength (fc) for concrete infill based on the LTR equation [5-1] adapted from Draft ANSI/AISC N690-XX shall be limited to 8 ksi (55 MPa) and not 10 ksi (70 MPa). This is consistent with the bounds for steel yield strength (Fy) specified in the LTR.
8.5 The use of public review draft of the next edition of ANSI/AISC N690-XX on a limited basis in the LTR shall not in any way be construed as NRC endorsement of Draft AISC N690-XX until after formal staffs endorsement of the next published edition.
8.6
[CLOSED SESSION]
23 Non-Proprietary
Limitations and Conditions
8.7 - (a) In LTR Section 5.8.1.3, Table 5-2, the allowable ductility ratio for in-plane shear (shear walls) shall be limited to 1.5 (and not 3.0) consistent with Table 14 of the referenced IAEA SR No.87;
- (b) The statement in the second bullet of LTR Section 5.8.1.3 for DP-SC containment under design-basis accidents is further clarified that: For normal and severe environmental load categories, the allowable limits for ductility, support rotation, and strain shall not exceed those for superficial damage in LTR Tables 5-2 and 5-3; and, for abnormal, extreme environmental, and abnormal and extreme environmental load categories, the allowable limits for ductility, support rotation, and strain shall not exceed those for limited damage in LTR Tables 5-2 and 5-3;
- (c) For flexure-controlled DP-SC components, in accordance with Footnote (2) to LTR Table 5-2, and regulatory position C 11.1.4 in RG 1.243, the criteria in terms of support rotations from Table 5-2, in terms of ductility from LTR Table 5-2 and in terms of strains from LTR Table 5-3 shall all be met to control damage.
24 Non-Proprietary
Limitations and Conditions
8.8
[CLOSED SESSION]
8.9 Regarding LTR Section 5.11, transfer of forces and moments (for e.g.,
horizontal reaction) from the DP-SC RB roof to the DP-SC RB cylindrical wall and related connections, which are not addressed in the LTR, shall be addressed in detailed design, and made available for NRC staff review as part of a future application referencing the LTR.
8.10 Regarding LTR Section 5.11, design implementation of connections between DP-SC slabs (including basemat) and DP-SC walls, DP-SC wall-to-wall, and splices and ventholes of DP-SC modules shall be addressed in detailed design and made available for NRC staff review as part of a future application referencing the LTR.
8.11-8.14 discussed in earlier slides and 8.15 [CLOSED SESSION]
25 Non-Proprietary
Staff SE Conclusion
Based on its review, the staff concludes that the proposed design-specific methodology/approach for materials, design, fabrication, construction, examination and testing of the BWRX-300 DP-SC Containment (SCCV) and non-containment Integrated Reactor Building (IRB) structures is reasonable and adequate as an acceptable way of meeting the applicable regulations, subject to the 15 limitations and conditions.
26 Non-Proprietary
Questions/comments from members of the public before the closed session starts?
27 Non-Proprietary
Name Duration Email Participant ID (UPN)
Role Zena Abdullahi 3h 8m 47sZena.Abdullahi@nrc.gov ZXA@NRC.GOV Organizer Thomas Dashiell 3h 23m 35sThomas.Dashiell@nrc.gov TFD1@NRC.GOV Presenter Tammy Skov 3h 29m 52sTamara.Skov@nrc.gov TDS1@nrc.gov Presenter Larry Burkhart 2h 46m 46sLawrence.Burkhart@nrc.gov LJB3@NRC.GOV Presenter James Cordes - Court Reporter (Guest) (Unverified) 2h 42m 19s Presenter Carolyn Lauron 7m 44s Carolyn.Lauron@nrc.gov CLL@NRC.GOV Presenter Hossein Nourbakhsh 2h 26m 30sHossein.Nourbakhsh@nrc.govHPN@NRC.GOV Presenter Derek Widmayer 2h 25m 55sDerek.Widmayer@nrc.gov DAW@NRC.GOV Presenter Chouha, Lamia (GE Vernova) 2h 37m 40sLamia.Chouha1@ge.com 223128750@ge.com Presenter Chikota, Sharon (GE Vernova) 2h 29m 46sSharon.Chikota@ge.com 223083611@ge.com Presenter Bergman, Jana 2h 23m 19sjbergman@curtisswright.com jbergman@curtisswright.com Presenter Jordan Glisan 2h 48m 6sJordan.Glisan@nrc.gov JDG5@nrc.gov Presenter Bennett, Bruce (GE Vernova) 3h 49m 35sBruce.Bennett1@ge.com 223074780@ge.com Presenter Karkour, Suzanne (GE Vernova) 2h 14m 8sSUZANNE.KARKOUR@ge.com223024871@ge.com Presenter Hinojosa, Luis (GE Vernova) 2h 22m 3sLuis.Hinojosa@ge.com 223073936@ge.com Presenter Richard Fowler 2h 38m 26sRichard.Fowler@onr.gov.uk Richard.Fowler@onr.gov.uk Presenter Dolan, Bradley Wicker 2h 18m 26sbwdolan@tva.gov bwdolan@tva.gov Presenter Ron Ballinger 2h 18m 32sRonald.Ballinger@nrc.gov RGB3@NRC.GOV Presenter Stephen Schultz 2h 28m 4sStephen.Schultz@nrc.gov SPS4@NRC.GOV Presenter Joseph A. Zwetolitz 36m 28s jazwetolitz@energysolutions.com jazwetolitz@energysolutions.com Presenter Ostrowski, Peter (GE Vernova) 2h 17m 51sPeter.Ostrowski@ge.com 223112913@ge.com Presenter Tyesha Bush 2h 14m 21sTyesha.Bush@nrc.gov TYB1@nrc.gov Presenter Moorrees, Michele Yvette 2h 38m 19smymoorrees@tva.gov mymoorrees@tva.gov Presenter Deanna Mendolia 2h 14m 19sdeanna.mendolia@csagroup.org Deanna.Mendolia@csagroup.org Presenter Alexander, Raymond Keith 2h 21m 10srkalexander@tva.gov rkalexander@tva.gov Presenter Hunt, Mark 2h 24m 49sMark.Hunt@duke-energy.com Mark.Hunt@duke-energy.com Presenter Petrarca, Dennis Allen 2h 13m 34sdapetrarca@tva.gov dapetrarca@tva.gov Presenter Vesna B Dimitrijevic (Unverified) 2h 14m 34s Presenter Richard Sobotka 2h 14m 18sRSobotka@terrestrialenergy.com RSobotka@terrestrialenergy.com Presenter Nolan, Chris 2h 12m 38sChris.Nolan@duke-energy.comChris.Nolan@duke-energy.com Presenter Matsumoto, Jun 2h 22m 15sJun.Matsumoto@hal.hitachi.com jun.matsumoto@hal.hitachi.com Presenter Michelle Hayes 2h 12m 47sMichelle.Hayes@nrc.gov MWH2@nrc.gov Presenter Ali, Ossama (GE Vernova) 2h 15m 12sOssama.Ali@ge.com 223029747@ge.com Presenter Scott, Owen 2h 27m 36soscott0@tva.gov oscott0@tva.gov Presenter Huber, Justin Tyler 2h 12m 24sjthuber@tva.gov jthuber@tva.gov Presenter ALY Nasser -ENTENG 2h 14m 46snasser.aly@opg.com nasser.aly@opg.com Presenter Huddleston, Dakota Michael 4h 52m 41sdmhuddleston@tva.gov dmhuddleston@tva.gov Presenter Schiele, Raymond Joseph 2h 19m 57srjschiele@tva.gov rjschiele@tva.gov Presenter Average attendance time: 2h 6m 38s Participants Summary Meeting title: OPEN Session: NEDO-33926, Revision 1, BWRX-300 Steel-Plate Composite Attended participants: 82 Start time: 7/09/24, 7:27:31 AM End time: 7/09/24, 2:32:41 PM Meeting duration: 7h 5m 10s
Gilligan, Bernard 2h 20m 16sBernard.Gilligan@hal.hitachi.com bernard.gilligan@hal.hitachi.com Presenter Grzeck, Lee 1h 35m 13sLee.Grzeck@duke-energy.comLee.Grzeck@duke-energy.com Presenter Dewhurst, Andrew Peter 2h 19m 17sapdewhurst@tva.gov apdewhurst@tva.gov Presenter Yacoub, Chantal (GE Vernova) 2h 11m 13sCHANTAL.YACOUB@ge.com 223064591@ge.com Presenter Flores, Angel 2h 26m 11sAngel.Flores@duke-energy.comAngel.Flores@duke-energy.com Presenter Kimura, Stephen 2h 10m 55sskimura@tva.gov skimura@tva.gov Presenter MCMEEKIN Kenton -CNO 2h 10m 41skenton.mcmeekin@opg.com kenton.mcmeekin@opg.com Presenter Hornof, Monica 2h 11m 21sMonica.Hornof@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca monica.hornof@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca Presenter CHOY David -ENTENG 2h 10m 31sdavid.choy@opg.com david.choy@opg.com Presenter Thornton, James Robert 2h 20m 9sjrthornton3@tva.gov jrthornton3@tva.gov Presenter Kusali Palihawadana 2h 11m 9skusali.palihawadana@csagroup.org kusali.palihawadana@csagroup.org Presenter Michael Snodderly 17m 28s Michael.Snodderly@nrc.gov MRS1@NRC.GOV Presenter Montgomery, Richard (GE 18m 55s Richard.Montgomery@ge.com223131370@ge.com Presenter BALAKRISHNAN Ramkumar -
26m 51s ramkumar.balakrishnan@opg.com ramkumar.balakrishnan@opg.com Presenter Christina Antonescu 3h 29m 49sChristina.Antonescu@nrc.gov CEA1@nrc.gov Presenter Androuet, Cedric 2h 11m 19scedric.androuet@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca cedric.androuet@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca Presenter Stoyanov, George 2h 9m 51sGeorge.Stoyanov@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca george.stoyanov@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca Presenter RUYTENBEEK Geoff -ENTENG 2h 36m 28sgeoff.ruytenbeek@opg.com geoff.ruytenbeek@opg.com Presenter Lentz, Tony Fraley 2h 8m 45stflentz@tva.gov tflentz@tva.gov Presenter Frank H. Eppler III 2h 8m 9s fheppler@energysolutions.comfheppler@energysolutions.com Presenter Sean Gallagher 15m 49s Sean.Gallagher@nrc.gov SPG@nrc.gov Presenter Gregory Halnon 5m 6s Gregory.Halnon@nrc.gov GHH1@nrc.gov Presenter Billy Gleaves 1h 29m 20sBill.Gleaves@nrc.gov BCG@nrc.gov Presenter TYNDALL David -ENTENG 2h 8m 30sdavid.tyndall@opg.com david.tyndall@opg.com Presenter FABIAN Paul -ENTENG 2h 7m 44spaul.fabian@opg.com paul.fabian@opg.com Presenter Dominik Muszynski (Unverified) 1h 8m 2s Presenter Robert Martin (He/Him) 2h 22m 32sRobert.Martin@nrc.gov RPM4@nrc.gov Presenter O11: Huddle Room Rectangle 103 2h 6m 11sO11-001-103@opgonline.com O11-001-103@opgonline.com Presenter Kyles, Veronica Pierce 2h 3m 50svpkyles@tva.gov vpkyles@tva.gov Presenter Rob Krsek (He/Him) 2h 57m 41sRobert.Krsek@nrc.gov RGK@NRC.GOV Presenter Hietpas, Gregory Phillip 2h 18m 21sgphietpas@tva.gov gphietpas@tva.gov Presenter Smith, Jennifer Desimone 2h 8m 17sjdsmith58@tva.gov jdsmith58@tva.gov Presenter Sherif, Mohtady (GE Vernova) 2h 15m 17sMohtady.Sherif@ge.com 223072452@ge.com Presenter Sagals, Genadijs 1h 58m 47sGenadijs.Sagals@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca genadijs.sagals@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca Presenter Saudy, Ayman (GE Vernova) 3h 15m 43sAyman.Saudy@ge.com 223136354@ge.com Presenter Steven Pope 1h 43m 19sspope@islinc.com spope@islinc.com Presenter Ming Han 1h 42m 13smhan@nwmo.ca mhan@nwmo.ca Presenter Sandra Walker 3h 37m 52sSandra.Walker@nrc.gov SDW2@NRC.GOV Presenter Celina Skrzypek 58m 10878579u@1027.pl 10878579u@1027.pl Presenter Nader Aly [Design Engineering 17m 3s Nader.Aly@brucepower.com nader.aly@brucepower.com Presenter Weidong Wang 1h 4m 18sWeidong.Wang@nrc.gov WXW1@NRC.GOV Presenter Andrea Torres 50m 13s Andrea.Torres@nrc.gov ALT1@nrc.gov Presenter Laurel Bauer 28m 15s Laurel.Bauer@nrc.gov LMB1@NRC.GOV Presenter Vesna B Dimitrijevic (Unverified) 7m 25s Presenter Name Duration Email Role Zena Abdullahi 3h 6m 42sZena.Abdullahi@nrc.gov Organizer Zena Abdullahi 2m 5s Zena.Abdullahi@nrc.gov Organizer In-Meeting Activities
Thomas Dashiell 3h 12m 54sThomas.Dashiell@nrc.gov Presenter Thomas Dashiell 10m 41s Thomas.Dashiell@nrc.gov Presenter Tammy Skov 1m 29s Tamara.Skov@nrc.gov Presenter Tammy Skov 37m 41s Tamara.Skov@nrc.gov Presenter Tammy Skov 2h 50m 42sTamara.Skov@nrc.gov Presenter Larry Burkhart 2h 36m 19sLawrence.Burkhart@nrc.gov Presenter Larry Burkhart 10m 27s Lawrence.Burkhart@nrc.gov Presenter James Cordes - Court Reporter (Guest) (Unverified) 2h 29m 38s Presenter James Cordes - Court Reporter (Guest) (Unverified) 12m 41s Presenter Carolyn Lauron 7m 44s Carolyn.Lauron@nrc.gov Presenter Hossein Nourbakhsh 2h 26m 30sHossein.Nourbakhsh@nrc.govPresenter Derek Widmayer 2h 25m 55sDerek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Presenter Chouha, Lamia (GE Vernova) 2h 37m 40sLamia.Chouha1@ge.com Presenter Chikota, Sharon (GE Vernova) 2h 25m 2sSharon.Chikota@ge.com Presenter Chikota, Sharon (GE Vernova) 4m 44s Sharon.Chikota@ge.com Presenter Bergman, Jana 2h 23m 19sjbergman@curtisswright.com Presenter Jordan Glisan 2h 39m 4sJordan.Glisan@nrc.gov Presenter Jordan Glisan 9m 2s Jordan.Glisan@nrc.gov Presenter Bennett, Bruce (GE Vernova) 3h 49m 35sBruce.Bennett1@ge.com Presenter Karkour, Suzanne (GE Vernova) 1h 28m SUZANNE.KARKOUR@ge.comPresenter Karkour, Suzanne (GE Vernova) 46m 8s SUZANNE.KARKOUR@ge.comPresenter Hinojosa, Luis (GE Vernova) 2h 22m 3sLuis.Hinojosa@ge.com Presenter Richard Fowler 2h 38m 26sRichard.Fowler@onr.gov.uk Presenter Dolan, Bradley Wicker 2h 18m 26sbwdolan@tva.gov Presenter Ron Ballinger 2h 18m 32sRonald.Ballinger@nrc.gov Presenter Stephen Schultz 2h 18m 34sStephen.Schultz@nrc.gov Presenter Stephen Schultz 9m 30s Stephen.Schultz@nrc.gov Presenter Joseph A. Zwetolitz 36m 28s jazwetolitz@energysolutions.com Presenter Ostrowski, Peter (GE Vernova) 2h 17m 51sPeter.Ostrowski@ge.com Presenter Tyesha Bush 2h 14m 21sTyesha.Bush@nrc.gov Presenter Moorrees, Michele Yvette 2h 29m 28smymoorrees@tva.gov Presenter Moorrees, Michele Yvette 8m 51s mymoorrees@tva.gov Presenter Deanna Mendolia 2h 14m 19sdeanna.mendolia@csagroup.org Presenter Alexander, Raymond Keith 2h 13m 18srkalexander@tva.gov Presenter Alexander, Raymond Keith 7m 52s rkalexander@tva.gov Presenter Hunt, Mark 2h 15m 11sMark.Hunt@duke-energy.com Presenter Hunt, Mark 9m 38s Mark.Hunt@duke-energy.com Presenter Petrarca, Dennis Allen 2h 13m 34sdapetrarca@tva.gov Presenter Vesna B Dimitrijevic (Unverified) 2h 14m 34s Presenter Richard Sobotka 2h 14m 18sRSobotka@terrestrialenergy.com Presenter Nolan, Chris 2h 12m 38sChris.Nolan@duke-energy.comPresenter Matsumoto, Jun 2h 13m 34sJun.Matsumoto@hal.hitachi.com Presenter Matsumoto, Jun 8m 41s Jun.Matsumoto@hal.hitachi.com Presenter Michelle Hayes 2h 12m 47sMichelle.Hayes@nrc.gov Presenter Ali, Ossama (GE Vernova) 2h 15m 12sOssama.Ali@ge.com Presenter Scott, Owen 2h 27m 36soscott0@tva.gov Presenter Huber, Justin Tyler 2h 12m 24sjthuber@tva.gov Presenter
ALY Nasser -ENTENG 2h 14m 46snasser.aly@opg.com Presenter Huddleston, Dakota Michael 2h 15m 26sdmhuddleston@tva.gov Presenter Huddleston, Dakota Michael 2h 37m 15sdmhuddleston@tva.gov Presenter Schiele, Raymond Joseph 2h 12m 15srjschiele@tva.gov Presenter Schiele, Raymond Joseph 7m 42s rjschiele@tva.gov Presenter Gilligan, Bernard 2h 12m 4sBernard.Gilligan@hal.hitachi.com Presenter Gilligan, Bernard 8m 12s Bernard.Gilligan@hal.hitachi.com Presenter Grzeck, Lee 1h 35m 13sLee.Grzeck@duke-energy.comPresenter Dewhurst, Andrew Peter 2h 11m 23sapdewhurst@tva.gov Presenter Dewhurst, Andrew Peter 7m 54s apdewhurst@tva.gov Presenter Yacoub, Chantal (GE Vernova) 2h 11m 13sCHANTAL.YACOUB@ge.com Presenter Flores, Angel 2h 26m 11sAngel.Flores@duke-energy.comPresenter Kimura, Stephen 2h 10m 55sskimura@tva.gov Presenter MCMEEKIN Kenton -CNO 2h 10m 41skenton.mcmeekin@opg.com Presenter Hornof, Monica 2h 11m 21sMonica.Hornof@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca Presenter CHOY David -ENTENG 2h 10m 31sdavid.choy@opg.com Presenter Thornton, James Robert 2h 11m 10sjrthornton3@tva.gov Presenter Thornton, James Robert 8m 59s jrthornton3@tva.gov Presenter Kusali Palihawadana 2h 11m 9skusali.palihawadana@csagroup.org Presenter Michael Snodderly 17m 28s Michael.Snodderly@nrc.gov Presenter Montgomery, Richard (GE 18m 55s Richard.Montgomery@ge.comPresenter BALAKRISHNAN Ramkumar -
26m 51s ramkumar.balakrishnan@opg.com Presenter Christina Antonescu 3h 29m 49sChristina.Antonescu@nrc.gov Presenter Androuet, Cedric 2h 11m 19scedric.androuet@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca Presenter Stoyanov, George 2h 9m 51sGeorge.Stoyanov@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca Presenter RUYTENBEEK Geoff -ENTENG 2h 28m 45sgeoff.ruytenbeek@opg.com Presenter RUYTENBEEK Geoff -ENTENG 7m 43s geoff.ruytenbeek@opg.com Presenter Lentz, Tony Fraley 2h 8m 45stflentz@tva.gov Presenter Frank H. Eppler III 2h 8m 9s fheppler@energysolutions.comPresenter Sean Gallagher 15m 49s Sean.Gallagher@nrc.gov Presenter Gregory Halnon 1m 3s Gregory.Halnon@nrc.gov Presenter Gregory Halnon 4m 3s Gregory.Halnon@nrc.gov Presenter Billy Gleaves 1h 29m 20sBill.Gleaves@nrc.gov Presenter TYNDALL David -ENTENG 2h 8m 30sdavid.tyndall@opg.com Presenter FABIAN Paul -ENTENG 2h 7m 44spaul.fabian@opg.com Presenter Dominik Muszynski (Unverified) 1h 8m 2s Presenter Robert Martin (He/Him) 2h 22m 25sRobert.Martin@nrc.gov Presenter Robert Martin (He/Him) 7s Robert.Martin@nrc.gov Presenter O11: Huddle Room Rectangle 103 2h 6m 11sO11-001-103@opgonline.com Presenter Kyles, Veronica Pierce 2h 3m 50svpkyles@tva.gov Presenter Rob Krsek (He/Him) 2h 57m 41sRobert.Krsek@nrc.gov Presenter Hietpas, Gregory Phillip 2h 11m 29sgphietpas@tva.gov Presenter Hietpas, Gregory Phillip 6m 52s gphietpas@tva.gov Presenter Smith, Jennifer Desimone 2h 8m 17sjdsmith58@tva.gov Presenter Sherif, Mohtady (GE Vernova) 2h 15m 17sMohtady.Sherif@ge.com Presenter Sagals, Genadijs 1h 58m 47sGenadijs.Sagals@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca Presenter Saudy, Ayman (GE Vernova) 3h 15m 43sAyman.Saudy@ge.com Presenter Steven Pope 1h 43m 19sspope@islinc.com Presenter Ming Han 1h 42m 13smhan@nwmo.ca Presenter
Sandra Walker 3h 37m 52sSandra.Walker@nrc.gov Presenter Celina Skrzypek 58m 10878579u@1027.pl Presenter Nader Aly [Design Engineering 17m 3s Nader.Aly@brucepower.com Presenter Weidong Wang 1h 4m 18sWeidong.Wang@nrc.gov Presenter Andrea Torres 50m 13s Andrea.Torres@nrc.gov Presenter Laurel Bauer 28m 15s Laurel.Bauer@nrc.gov Presenter Vesna B Dimitrijevic (Unverified) 7m 25s Presenter