ML20006D368
| ML20006D368 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/06/1990 |
| From: | Williams P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Joshua Wilson NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-672A, PROJECT-674A NUDOCS 9002130100 | |
| Download: ML20006D368 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
M,
[(fno u
UNITED STATES
,og g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 k.....,/
FEB - 6 1990 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Jerry fl. Wilson, Acting Chief, Advanced Reactors and Generic i
Issues Branch, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
Peter M. Williams, Project Manager, Advanced Reactors and Generic Issues Branch, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH MHB TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES y
On January 30, 1990 we met with MHB Technical Associates in response to a request to discuss the draft SERs on the MHTGR and PRISM.
Richard Hubbard and Greg Minor were present from MHB. Also present was Brent Sadeuskas from Bechtel-Gaithersburg, representing the MHTGR community.
I was in attendance for the full meeting and Tom King, John Flack, and Ralph Landry attended part-time.
MHB is doing u study for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) on selected advanced reactors; namely the MHTGR, PRISM, and the AP600. The report is expected to be made public by the UCS. Many of NHB's questions were concerned with PRA including its relationship to the safety goal and how interactions o
between multiple units were treated. We explained that " bottom line" PRA was not too significant in decisionmaking for advanced reactors because of the lack of data and experience, and that PRA techniques for passive systems were not well developed.
John Flack noted that the IPE study will be treating interactions of multiple units on single sites and such information might be useful for modular plant studies. We said that the main use of PRA for conceptual designs was for defense-in-depth insights and for illustrating the frequency of challenges to the passive safety systems. At Greg Minor's reouest we w111 send them a copy of J. Minarick's report, " Review of the Standard NHTGR Probabilistic Risk Assessment."
Other discussions delt with confinning statements in the SERs on equipment classification, prototype testing, and technology development. We stated that the final SER was to be issued in flovember 1990 and would address containment adequacy. Specific MHTGR discussions included graphite fires, water ingress, h
O 9002/3 o100 7coacs A
PD R A9 c x ppe Q
Rrh5 God,4 CS%
l
'h ger 21an +elcon t v a e merms+ u
g
,f,4 ] g ). 6 g,$
.9..
U
(
2-i r
i reactor physics and-the importance of fuel manufacturing quality.-- For PRISM,-
the discussion centered on the margins to prevent sodium voiding and sodium fires. We -also stated that_ the next step in the PRISM review would be to look at on-site reprocessing.
yn. wh Peter M. Williams, Project Manager Advanced Reactors and Generic Issues Branch Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
'cc:
W.M. Morris G. Minor, MHB T.L. King R. Hubbard, MHB R.R. Landry B. Sadauskas, Bechtel J.H. Flack N. Grossnan (DOE-NE45)
S.J. Ball, ORNL (INSOC57?: Project 672and674 P.G. Kroeger,- BNL PDR-I l-
-