ML19274D254
| ML19274D254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/09/1979 |
| From: | Williams P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Boyd R, Harold Denton, Gammill W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| PROJECT-665A NUDOCS 7901160403 | |
| Download: ML19274D254 (12) | |
Text
.
[
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3'
'4 7
II*#
0 W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 Y
i
\\.'.
f Project No. 665 JAN 3 1979 APPLICANT:
Gas Cooled Reactor Associates (GCRA)
FACILITY:
Advanced HTGRs
SUBJECT:
REPORT OF INFORMATION MEETING ON ADVANCED HTGRs
SUMMARY
On December 6,1978, we met in Bethesda, Maryland with representatives of Gas Cooled Reactor Associates (GCRA), the General Atomic Company (GAC) and Department of Energy (DOE) for the purpose of discussing the pending redirection of the HTGR program to advanced systems (gas turbine and process heat applications) from the current 900 MW(e) HTGR-SC (Steam Cycle). A list of attendees is provided in Enclosure 1.
We were infonned that funding and redirection discussions with OMB were in progress that should be completed in about three weeks.
Confirmation of the redirection plan by the Congress is expected to take longer.
The plan proposed to DOE by GCRA on December 5,1978 was presented in brief to the NRC Staff. With regard to licensing activities GCRA proposed to continue its present plan of topical report submittals during a pre-application review period which would now extend to January 1982, the date scheduled for submittal of a PSAR for a 400 MW(e) domonstration plant for the HTGR-GT (Gas Turbine). The program would be coordinated with the on-going HHT (High Temperature Helium Turbine) project of the Federal Republic of Germany which envisions a demonstration plant of this type by 1989 using the " pebble bed" type reactor.
DETAILS AND DISCUSSION A.
Program Redirection On October 13,1978 00E announced its " proposed intent" to redirect its support of HTGR technology toward advanced systems and to phase out support of the 900 MW(c) HTGR-SC in early 1979.
The redirected program would develop both the HTGR-GT and process heat applications although early emphasis would be on the HTGR-GT. A single loop demonstration plant is scheduled for operation in 1992 which would contain prototype features of a commercial design that would become operational in the 1998-2000 time period.
790116018@3
2. M.'i W
On December 5,1978 GCRA proposed to DOE a preliminary plan of action which included a licensing plan similar to that proposed for the 900 MWe HTGR-SC.
The overall schedule is shown in Chart 1 of the enclosed set of charts provided in Enclosure 2.
Chart 2 shows in detail the proposed schedule for Phase I, the plan of action prior to submittal of the PSAR. Chart 3 indicates the licensing activities in Phase I.
Reference characteristics of the demonstration plant would be:
1 loop, 1000 MW (t) 400 MW(e), 60 H2 turbine Prismatic Core Dry Cooling Non-intercooled Conventional liner in core region Chart 4 lists the technical issues and action items that would be addressed early in the program. Chart 4 also indicates the " parallel feature" studies that would be investigated. One of these parallel features would be an option for a fossil demonstration facility which would utilize a closed cycle gas turbine driven by a fossil fired heat source that should yield test data useful to both nuclear and fossil fuel programs. The design for the reference gas turbine plant is similar to earlier designs in that the primary coolant is in direct contact with the gas turbine and compressor unit with machinery contained within the prestressed concrete reactor vessel. An alternative approach would provide for a gas-to-gas heat exchanger within the reactor vessel and the turbomachinery and other heat exchangers placed externally.
This approach, known as the indirect gas turbine cycle, is under current study with resolution expected shortly.
The GCRA proposed that during fiscal 1979 it would pursue the establishment of " meaningful exchange agreements" with the Federal Republic of Germany with regard to the FRG's on-going program in HTR technology. is an excerpt from the proposal which summarizes the status of the German program.
B.
Funding Status as of December 6,1978 After an initial OMB decision to provide no funds in fiscal 1980, DOE has appealed and expects a response in about three weeks. The GCRA reconmended a fiscal 1980 budget of $38M, or $43M if the budget for fiscal 1979 is
$33.5M rather than $38M. The GCRA also develooed a budget of $28.7M and
$25M for fiscal years 79 and 80, respecti.vely, but stated that at these levels the program would " suffer a serious negative import." One of the concerns expressed by GCRA is that its utility members could judge this funding level as too low to warrant their continued interest and support of the program.
The member utilities have accepted the redirection, although some with a stated reluctance.
The plans presented to DOE and the NRC are preliminary. The GCRA
F '
will present a detailed plan for fiscal 1980 at the end of January,1979 and a plan for fiscal 1981 and beyond by the end of March 1979. A detailed plan for the project through completion will be presented by the end of June 1979.
In addition to GCRA and GAC, Oak Ridge flational Laboratory and General Electric are also participants in the gas cooled thermal reactor program. The Oak Ridge program is generally complementry to the GAC program while the GE program has focused on materials development for a process heat reactor using the pebble bed reactor concept. The Oak Ridge and GE shares of the proposed
$38M budget for fiscal 80 would be about $4.1M and $3.7M respectively.
C.
Licensing plans The GCRA noted a fundamental change in the licensing plans. A custom application would be made for demonstration plant rather than an application for a preliminary design approval, which was sought for the 900MW(e) HTGR-SC.
The GCRA will act as a " surrogate" utility for the pre-application review phase.
It is anticipated that the demonstration plant would be located on a pre-selected site.
The pre-application review phase would extend through calendar 1981, with submittal of a PSAR in January 1982. The GCRA contemplates submittal under the topical report program documentation of both generic and specific application to the gas turbine plant. The generic reports would build on material developed for the 900MW(e) HTGR-SC and described at the meeting of August 2,1978 (e.g., seismic design methodology). Outlines for these reports would be submitted between January to August,1979.
Report submittals for the generic topics would initiate in May 1979 and be complete by October 1980. Topicals for the gas turbine design would be initiated with outline submittals beginning in early 1980 and completion of report submittals by April 1981. A " Technical Description Document" providing a conceptual description of the HTGR-GT would be available by mid-1980.
D.
Discussion In response to this plan we offered the following comments:
1.
Regardless of the subject matter it is unlikely that manpower will be available to review any of the topical reports in the immediate future; at least not until the uncertainty surrounding the future of the HTGR program is resolved and DOE's plans (approved by OMB) are communicated to ilRC.
2.
We repeated our statements of the August 2,1978 meeting regarding the suitability of certain subjects for topical review. We stated that the subjects of seismic design methodology and graphite design criteria were appropriate but that reports dealing with fuel performance, accident release models, siting criteria, and the on-going Accident Initiation and Progression Analysis were less suitable.
We again cited the existence of NUREG-0111. " Evaluation of High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor Fuel Particle Coating Failure Models and Data" as sufficient for meeting GCRA's needs in this area for the foreseeable future.
3.
We again raised our concern that GCRA's plans did not provide for documentation dealing with the topic of primary system integrity. We stated that we did not agree with GAC that the Summit and Fulton safety evaluation reports and their corresponding ACRS letters provide fully sufficient guidance in this area for current use.
4.
We stated that the planned " Technical Description Document" would be needed as a reference document if GCRA did not plan to submit a Preliminary Safety Infonnation Document (PSID). We suggested that this document be organized generally in accordance with the Standard Format in order to facilitate its usefulness.
5.
We cited the need for a document describing the research and development program in terms of objectives, tasks and related prior work. We stated that the report series used previously was not as suitable to a conceptual review as a single but extensive document. We cited the 1972 document describing the research plan for the gas cooled fast breeder reactor as a format more useful to our needs (Gulf-GA-A10788).
6.
The GCRA proposed submittal of topical reports dealing with general design criteria, Regulatory Guides, and similar subjects. We agreed these would be desirable if these topicals could be used to address licensing cc..cerns not otherwise being formally dealt with in the pre-application review. Bases for the final development of licensing criteria specific to the HTGR-GT would not be expected to exist until the construction permit review is well in progress.
MM Peter M. Williams Advanced Reactors Branch Division of Project Management
EtlCLOSURE 1 6
< -ch La dd~brdAkk &
DM 6, /? ? V b
A/A c[4SS T
P, Spe13 it cLsbv
- f. D.
vejac J. R Gra u,
Sgc k.
nee /a/'RR6
^> R c 1.2m/c2.
4 R
ts. La.z ss 6h b '8 DsE[rJ P b d &c.Y RO T)
GA C.. o.
['e r ~,s o o GA Sb A9 D...
6b64
'D E-)A-Uts C, c n A.
R. f.
.'.L 2 E L AWD Wt c/DS.5
~
A J Hn/ tass qn 2>. d. CTArW g }
Gd; to. F. cron m*l MRcpo-som N G.C H R. W C4).,
G
- g -
e o
eq e
.e
,e e
w am a
ENCLOSURE 2 PilASE I PilASE II PilASE III FISCAL YEAR
' 79 i 80 8 81 8 82 83 8 84 85 8 86 8 87 8 88 ' 89 8 90 3 91 a 92 3 Y
m HILESTONES:
1.
Define loop and Plant Size 2.
Identify Major Features 3.
Complete Technical Description and Cost Report 4.
Select Pre-Reviewed Site FIGURE 3-C 5.
Complete Conceptual Design and Cost Report LONG TERH llTGR-GT 6.
Submit PSAR 7.
Order Long Lead Haterials DEMONSTRATION PLANT _
8.
Construction Permit 9.
Start PCRV Construction SCllEDULE
- 10. Submit FSAR
- 11. Operating License
- 12. Connercial Operation CHART 1 DECEMER 3,1978
1
/0 5
5 I
1 1
/
I 7
1 8
8 1
7 9
9 1
4 1
Y F
3 1
/
R i
E 1
-)
B M
E C
1
/
E 0
iI D
1 y
y 1
/
a 7
0 8
1 9
/
4
~
Y F
V W
~ -
1
/
i 1
~ -
~_ W
~ -
1
/0 I
~__W 1
W V
W V
W
~ -
1
~_
/
i
~ -
~ _.
7
'y V-V~ _ W n,
9 7
1 9
\\
X l/
1 V
4 Y
F V
V 1
i /
W 1
1
)
ii /0 1
RO T
S A
R N
R E
O LA E
G I
T I
N C
N N
T I
E A
C C
S R
M AL T
T G
li A
l E
A P
N A
C t
A M
RE RX L
0 M
R M
G L
S Ot OE A
e I
I Ti T
C T
O O
i A
C R
0 P
R CD CT l
R P
1 e
T L
T E
t A
A O
RU RE i
S L
L I
SI TT T l C
T C
VT i -
N i E
CN A
R i
t L
S R
A 0T OT T
0 YO N
f A_ E l
CI O
1 l
i 4
EL BE BE D
E T
I U
1 i
HA Uf UM A
D TP T
R D 0
t 4
l CO A
G E
l t
A--
O l
E 0
l R
C D
0 EE O
O L
tN E
f P
S L
RL RL S
iO RT R
N E
3 S.
S.
T I
I P I
R E
U U
G l
)
)
U R
S a
b G
G A
I T
(
(
F I
P 1
2 3
4 4
5 6
7 8
l i
I
IITGR-GAS TURBINE PREAPPLICATION SCllEDULE
(
PilASE 1 - PROGRAM DEFlfilT10fl FY '79 FY '80 FY '81 10/1/78 1/1 4/1 7/1 10/1/79 1/1 4/1 7/1 10/1/80 1/1 4/1 7/1 10/1/80 10, 20, 30, 40, 10, 20, 30, 40, 10, 20, 30, 40, i
COMPLETE REVIEW 0F GENERIC LTR'S GT LTR'S LTR OUTLINES V
V O--
O C0flPLETE SUBillTTAL GEtlERIC LTR'S o
C0fiPLETE SUBMITTAL GT LTR'S o
[lQIE:
PSAR FOR DEfl0 PLANT SUBillTTAL - 1/82 CilART 3
3-8 Table 3-D TECHNICAL ISSUES / ACTION ITEMS GCRA LEAD (Definition of Utility Functional Requircments) e On-Site vs. Off-Site Maintenance Facility a Contact vs. Remote Maintenance e Generator Location - Inside vs. Outside Containment e Site Conditions to Envelope Design Requirements TECHNICAL ISSUES e Turbomachinery Installation and Removal e Turoomachinery Missile Protection e Maintenarice and Source Term Trade-Off Studies e Lower Plenum and Hot Gas Duct e Containment Penetration Design / Seal / Rotating Shaft e Turbomachinery Shaft /PCRV Plug and Seal Design e Hydrogen vs. Water-Cooled Generator e PCL Control / Bypass Valve Design e Development of an Acceptable Liner and Thermal Barrier a Determination of Design Limiting Conditions e Plant Control System - Normal / Upset Operating Conditions
- Bypass Flow Control
- Bypass Flow Control plus Helium Inventory Control
- Single-Loop St artup
- Stability of Parallel Multi-Loop Operation
- Reverse Coolant Flcw - One Loop Shutdown CHART 4
3-9 TABLE 3-0, Continued e Materials Development Define High Temperature Material Requirements Identify Materials Which Should be Included in ASME Section III Define Material Development Program for ASME Code Qualification ASME Section III - Div. 2 - Revision to Extend Current Temperature Limits Table 3-E PARALLEL FEATURE STUDIES e Warm Liner vs. Cold Liner Split Shaf t vs. Single Shaf t Turbine a
o Intercooled vs. Non-Intercooled Cycle e Primary System Parameter Study Direct Cycle vs. Indirect Cycle Study (see Section 3.2.7) e Pebble Bed vs. Prismatic Core Study (see Section 3.2.3) e
ENCLOSURE 3 EXCERPT FROM GCRA PROPOSAL TO DOE DECEMBER 5,1978 INFORMATION ON HIGH TEMPERATURE REACTOR PROGRAMS IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC 0F GERMANY
_ Status of HTGR Program in FRG GCRA has met with FRG utility, industry and go,crnment representatives in order to better understand the current status of the FRG HTGR programs and how they might be used to provide cost reductions and risk aversion for the U.S.
HIGR Program.
As introductory background material, a summary status of the HTGR Program in the FRG is given to call attention to their planned schedule and level of activities.
With increased emphasis on cooperation with the FRG, this information will provide a baseline for corparing the applicability of the preliminary program plans for effecting neaningful cooperation with the FRG.
The Program in the FRG is directed at two projects for the application of HTGR systems:
the HHT-600 and PNP-500.
The HHT-600 will be a 600 MWe single loop HTGR-Gas Turbine Demonstration Plant. The PNP-500 will be a 500 MWt Process Heat (PH) Demonstration Plant which will be a prototype for coal gasification. The present schedule calls for HHT construction to start in
- 983 and be operational by 1989.
The PNP plant is planned to start con-struction in 1985 and be operational by 1991.
Beyond these two projects, a
- 200 MWe comercial HTGR-GT plant is scheduled to be operational by 1993 and a 3000 MWt coal gasification plant by 1998.
Germany has cooperative agreements with the U.S., France and Switzer-and that have been evolving for several years.
They have also reached egreement with Austria on component and materials development.
Japan has Mso recently initialed ar. agreement with FRG for cooperation is ce!ected HTGR areas.
,HHT Project Status Dryanization - Thirteen German utilities (approximately 80-90%
of total utility industry in FRG) have indicated interest in the HTGR
( nncept and are considering forming a utility project group.
The utilities are seeking assurances from their government on generic nuclear issues such as fuel recycle, fuel storage, and licensing requirements as a precondition for initiating formal group activities on the HHT Project.
An industrial group has been in existence that vill be responsible for the overall plant design, manuf acturing and construction. A Consortium HTR, comprised of the two nuclear systems vendors in the FRG, has recently been formed to develop and design the nuclear heat system for the HHT and PNP Projects.
A development organization has been agreed to in principle between the participat-ing industrial and laboratory participants to serve as the R&D crganization for both the HHT and PNP Projects.
Eudget_ - Through 1978, the FRG has spent 565 million DM on design studies and R&D for the HHT project and approximately 60.million DM is-budgeted for 1979.
In addition, FRG has budgeted approximately 135 million DM for the-continuing-construction of the THTR-300 project in 1979.
Technical Developments - The top priority in the FRG HIGR Program is the completion and start-up of the THTR-300. This plant will be a 300 MWe steam cycle pebble bed HTGR that is scheduled to start operation in 1982.
The Germans have spent 935 million DM on this project through 1978 and they feel that THTR must be made operational before construction can begin on the HHT-600.
All ongoing R&D and design is based on the pebble bed core design concept with appjication towards the more demanding PNP plant require-ments, i.e., 950 C core outlet temperature.
FRG's HHV f acility (hot helium test loop) will be back in operation shortly.
It will be used to test turbomachinery blades, sealing systems, operational behavior and dynamic behavior.
It will also be used for hot duct tests on thermal stability of insulation, sonic vibrations and for valve design.
PNP Project Status Organization - A process heat users group comprised of coal companies has been formed.
This group will provide specifications for the coal gasification applications of the HTGR. Parallel to the HHT industrial partners, an industrial organization will exist for the PNP Project.
The remainder of,the PNP Project organization is common with the HHT Project.
Budget - Through 1978, Germany has spent approximately 300 million DM on design studies and R&D for process heat application.
The budget for this work in 1979 is approximately 85 million DM for reactor design work and R&D and approximately 25 million DM for coal gasification technology applicable to the PNP Project.
Technical Developments - Reactor and materials R&D for this project is being accomplished in conjunction with the work being done on the HHT Project. A separate program is being pursued to develop the coal gasification technology.
The PNP plant will use a combination of hydrogasification and steam gasification for hard coal and will use the hydrogasification process for lignite.
One type of coal will be processed by each of the two PNP loops.
A main component of the hydrogasi fication plant is the methane st e am-r efo rme r.
To demon-strate the feasibility of this component, the EVA I loop has been in operation since 1972.
Also under construction is the ADAM I loop which will test the feasibility of transporting the energy of the nuclear reactor as latent chemical energy.
5 MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION Docket File Z. Resztoczy NRC PDR' M R. E. Ireland Local PDR V. Benaroya TIC W. R. Butler AR Reading R. Satterfield NRR Reading F. Rosa H. R. Denton R. C. DeYoung*
E. G. Case R. Vollmer R. S. Boyd V. A. Moore
- D. Ross M. L. Ernst*
W. P. Gammill R. P. Denise*
D. Vassallo*
V. Stello D. Skovholt*
D. G. Eisenhut T. P. Speis D. Bunch C. Hel temes, Jr.
R. Clark L. Crocker W. Haass H. Berkow P. Williams Attorney, ELD R. Schamberger H. Gearin G. Kuzmycz R. J. Mattson H. Ornstein F. Schroeder M. Tokar R. Tedescc R. Meyer J. Knight F. Litton S. Hanauer C. P. Tan S. Pawlicki H. Cobb R. Bosnak NRC Attendees K. Kniel ACRS (16)
T. Novak IE (3) cc: Applicant and Service List
- Only if someone within the purview of that office was an attendee