ML20035G559
| ML20035G559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/14/1993 |
| From: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T, Jeanne Johnston HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS, SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304280084 | |
| Download: ML20035G559 (7) | |
Text
E h c( I g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION nam nuaron.o.c.rosss c
April 14, 1993 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 l
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Senate Appropriations Report 102-80 requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to submit an annual report to Congress describing the agency's progress in the certification of standardized advanced light water reactor designs, plans for current and subsequent fiscal years, and the resources necessary to maintain the established schedules.
The annual report for 1993 is enclosed.
The NRC schedule for conducting reviews of advanced reactor designs was first transmitted by my letter dated July 30, 1991.
Since that time, the NRC and the industry have completed a number of significant milestones, including on-schedule complation of the NRC safety evaluation report (SER) on the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Utility Requirements Document (URD) for Evolutionary Designs and the draft SER on the EPRI URD for Passive Designs.
In addition, the draft-final SER on the General Electric (GE) Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and the draft SER on the Combustion Engineering System 80+
designs were issued during 1992. Westinghouse and GE submitted applications for design approval cf passive designs.
Despite significant interaction between the NRC staff and the industry, we continue to face a number of significant factors that could affect the design review and certification schedules.
For example, the development of the first inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) has required significantly more time and resources than anticipated in our original review schedules.
These difficulties are discussed in more detail in the enclosed report.
The NRC staff will continue to aggressively pursue certification of standard-ized advanced light water reactor designs.
l l
Sincerely, Akk i
Ivan Selin
Enclosure:
1993 Annual Report l
cc:
Rep. John T. Myers 9304280084 930414 PDR COMMS NRCC t
CORRESPONDENCE PDR g
\\
r-a
,(fa arcoq[0, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
- c g
.l W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 April 14, 1993 CHAIRMAN The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Senate Appropriations Report 102-80 requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to submit an annual report to Congress describing the agency's progress in the certification of stand'rdized advanced light water reactor designs, plans for current and subsequent /iscal years, and the resources necessary to maintain the established schedules. The annual report for 1993 is enclosed.
The NRC schedule for conducting reviews of advanced reactor designs was first transmitted by my letter dated July 30, 1991.
Since that time, the NRC and the industry have completed a number of significant milestones, including on-schedule completion of the NRC safety evaluation report (SER) on the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Utility Requirements Document (URD) for Evolutionary Designs and the draft SER on the EPRI URD for Passive Designs.
In addition, the draft-final SER on the General Electric (GE) Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and the draft SER on the Combustion Engineering System 80+
designs were issued during 1992. Westinghouse and GE submitted applications for design approval of passive designs.
Despite significant interaction between the NRC staff and the industry, we continue to face a number of significant factors that could affect the design review and certification schedules.
For example, the development of the first inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) has required significantly more time and resources than anticipated in our original review schedules.
These difficulties are discussed in more detail in the enclosed report.
The NRC staff will continue to aggressively pursue certification of standard-4 ized advanced light water reactor designs.
I Sincerely, rn Ivan Selin
Enclosure:
1993 Annual Report cc:
Senator Mark 0. Hatfield
I I.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This report provides the status of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC's) design certification reviews of advanced reactors. The NRC has received the following four applications for standard design approval l
under Part 52 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations:
the l
General Electric Nuclear Energy (GE) Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) design, the Asea Brown Boveri/ Combustion Engineering (ABB-CE)
System 80+ design, the Westinghouse Electric Corporation Advanced Passive 600 megawatt electric AP600 design, and the GE Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (SBWR) design.
In addition, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) requested the NRC to review the Utility Requirements Document (URD) for evolutionary and passive light water reactors.
The NRC staff submitted to the Comission its first schedules for conducting reviews of advanced reactor designs in SECY-91-161,
" Schedules for the Advanced Reactor Reviews and Regulatory Guidance Revisions," dated May 31, 1991. Since that time, the NRC and the industry have completed a number of significant milestones, including on-schedule completion of the NRC safety evaluation report (SER) on the EPRI URD for evolutionary designs and the draft SER on the EPRI URD for passive designs.
In addition, the draft-final SER on the GE ABWR and the draft SER on the ABB-CE System 80+ designs ware issued during 1992.
Westinghouse and GE submitted applications for design approval of passive designs.
Despite significant interaction between the NRC staff and the industry, we continue to face a number of significant factors that could affect the design review and certification schedules.
For example, the development of the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) has required significantly more time and resources than antici-pated in our original review schedules.
l II.
BACKGROUND The Comission has long sought to encourage the industry to develop standard designs to improve safety and simplify the licensing process.
Standardization would also enable the NRC and the industry to resolve design issues before construction. The Comission has also sought to improve the licensing environment for future nuclear power reactors by minimizing the uncertainty in the regulatory process.
To achieve this, the Comission has promulgated 10 CFR Part 52 (54 FR 15372; April 18, 1989) whict, sets out new procedures for licensing, including certifi-cation of standardized designs. The Comission published a final rule amending Part 52 (57 FR 60975; December 23,1992) which conforms the regulation to the provisions of Title XXVII of Public Law 102-486, the
" Energy Policy Act of 1992", signed into law on October 24, 1992.
Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 52 establishes the requirements and procedure:
that govern the process by which the Comission will issue rules granting standard design certifications for nuclear power plant designs separate from an application for a construction permit or combined license for such a facility.
Enclosure
l Applicants for design certification under 10 CFR Part 52 must submit information that has traditionally been required under 10 CFR Part 50.
In addition, they must provide information required under 10 CFR Part 52, such as the resolution of unresolved and generic safety issues, a design-specific probabilistic risk assessment, proposed ITAAC, and requirements related to the interface between the certified design and I
the site-specific design features. The applicant may exclude from the j
scope of the design certification those portions of the design that are j
either specific to the site or structures and systems that do not affect l
the safe operation of the facility.
l III. TECHNICAL AND POLICY ISSUES THAT COULD AFFECT REVIEW SCHEDULES The staff has identified a number of significant factors that could affect the design review and certification schedules. This s:ction provides a sumary of these issues and the effect they could have on schedules.
Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives In SECY-91-161, the staff stated th~t the resolution of the National Environmental Policy Act/ Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alterna-tives (NEPA/SAMDA) issue may delay the projected review schedules.
This issue results from the U.S. Court of Appeals decision (Limerick Ecoloov Action v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719, 3d Cir. 1989) that effectively required the NRC to include consideration of certain SAMDAs in the environmental impact review performed as part of the operating license application for the Limerick Generating Station. The issue, as it relates to the 10 CFR Part 52 licensing process, is how to most efficiently and effectively consider NEPA/SAMDAs as part of the design certification review.
On July 31, 1991, the staff submitted l
to the Commission SECY-91-229, " Severe Accident Mitigation Design i
Alternatives for Certified Standard Designs," which proposed to j
resolve this issue by considering all SAMDAs, including those i
required by NEPA, as part of the design certification rulemaking for a given design.
In a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY-91-229, issued on October 25, 1991, the Commission approved the staff's recommendations.
ITAAC In SECY-91-161, the staff stated that ITAAC issues may delay the projected review schedules.
Section 52.47 to 10 CFR Part 52 speci-fies that an application for design certification must include the
inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) which are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that, if met, the plant referencing the design certificaticn is built and will operate in accordance with the design certification. The NRC has developed preliminary policy positions on aspects of ITAAC, including the form and content of ITAAC and whether a final design approval must contain ITAAC. The staff has also reviewed and discussed with GE, the industry's lead on ITAAC, their ITAAC submittals which the staff found insufficient.
In a letter of Octo-ber 3,1991, the staff notified GE that a complete draft ITAAC with sufficient detail had to be submitted by the end of 1991, or the review schedule would be affected. The schedule for the GE ABWR design certification is being delayed primarily because ITAAC submittals are significantly delayed or incomplete. The staff is conducting a number of meetings with GE, involving senior managers from both GE and NRC, to reconcile this issue.
IV.
EVOLUTIONARY LWR PROJECT STATUS GE ABWR In September 1987, GE submitted to the NRC its initial application for certification of the ABWR design. GE has amended the standard safety analysis report (SAR) for the ABWR 23 times. The staff issued requests for additional information (RAIs) from February 1988 through December 1990. GE completed its response to the RAls in July 1991.
The staff issued the draft safety evaluation report (DSER), which identified over 300 open items, in a series of six reports between May and October 1991. GE responded to the identified open items during a series of intensive meetings and provided a large number of submittals, including proposed ITAAC for the design. Many of the DSER items were resolved. The staff issued its draft-final safety evaluation report (DFSER) in October of 1992.
This document identi-fied over 370 mostly-new open items, many of which resulted from the partial closure of previcusly identified open items and about half of which are related to the ITAAC review. Currently, both GE and NRR staff are conducting an intensive set of conference calls and face-to-face meetings at the working and management levels to reach prompt and sound resolution of all issues.
As a result of the difficult design issues and delays experienced in the first ITAAC development, GE is developing a revised schedule for submittal of ITAAC and closure of open issues.
A revised schedule for FSER issuance and final design approval is being developed by the staff for the ABWR. The staff expects to submit its revised schedule to the Commission in the spring of 1993 following GE's j
submittal.
i l
l
. l CE SYSTEM 80+
l From March 1989 to March 1991, Combustion Engineering (CE) submitted material in support of an application for final design approval and design certification of the Syst;m 80+ nuclear power plant design.
However, this application did not include ITAAC, the reliability assurance program, or a detailed analysis of fire hazards. The staff's DSER was issued during September 1992. The NRC staff and CE are working to resolve the open issues identified in the DSER in preparation for issuing the FSER. Design certification rulemaking will follow issuance of the FSER and the associated final design approval.
EPRI UTILITY REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT EPRI has prepared a compendium of technical requirements, referred to as the ALWR Utility Requirements Document.
These requirements l
apply to the design of future evolutionary and passive ALWR power plants.
Volume I of the URD, "ALWR Policy and Summary of Top-Tier Requirements," is a management-level synopsis of the requirements l
document, including the design objectives and philosophy, the overall physical configuration and features of a future commercial nuclear power plant design, and the steps necessary to apply the proposed ALWR design criteria to a functioning power plant.
Volume 11 contains the utility design requirements for an evolu-tionary nuclear power plant [approximately 1350 megawatt-electric (MWe)).
Volume III contains the utility design requirements for nuclear power plants of approximately 600 MWe that use passive design features and systems. The URD also proposes resolution of unresolved safety issues and generic safety issues and delineates ways of complying with 10 CFR Part 52. Although the URD is not l
associated with any licensing action, the staff is reviewing it and documenting areas where EPRI's requirements deviate from the regula-tions.
URD Volume II (Evolutionary LWR)
The NRC issued the FSER on EPRI's URD for evolutionary plant designs as NUREG-1242 in August 1992. Because EPRI intends to continue to make changes to the evolutionary requirements document to follow resolution of passive plant issues, the staff intends to document its review of those changes in a supplement to the FSER at a later date.
URD Volume III (Passive LWR)
The NRC issued the DSER on EPRI's URD for passive plant designs in April 1992.
EPRI has responded to the issues identified in the staff's DSER, and the staff is reviewing those responses. The staff plans to issue the FSER to the Commission in June 1993.
Final issuance of the passive FSER as Supplement I to NUREG-1242 is scheduled for the end of September 1993.
V.
PASSIVE REACTOR PROJECTS Westinghouse AP600 Westinghouse Electric Corporation submitted an application for a final design approval and design certification of the AP600 design on June 26, 1992. The AP600 is a 600 MWe pressurized water reactor plant in which passive safety systems and features are used for the ultimate protection of the plant. As a result of the staff's acceptance review, which found that the application was incomplete, Westinghouse submitted the requested information on December 15, 1992. The application was accepted on December 31, 1992, and the NRC staff has begun review of the AP600 application material, i
including the transmittal of requests for additional information to l
Westinghouse. The staff expects to begin preparation of the DSER in 1993.
In addition, the staff has developed a confirmatory test program, including tests to be conducted at the ROSA test facility.
GE SBWR l
GE submitted its application for design certification in August 1992. The staff conducted its acceptance review and provided a letter summarizing its finding that the application was not complete to GE in December 1992. A docket number was assigned, and GE provided supplemental information in February 1993. The staff is I
completing its acceptance review of the application and is continuing its review of the SAR, including the transmittal of requests for additional information to GE.
VI.
RESOURCES The total budgeted resources associated with NRC's efforts in the I
area of certification of standardized advanced reactor designs are j
shown below. These numbers include not only the technical review efforts associated with individual advanced light water reactor designs but also the research required to develop sound technical bases for evaluating safety issues associated with advanced reactor designs and the preparation of guidelines and regulations necessary for NRC to license and certify advanced reactor designs.
FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 30talFunding
$42.4 41.7 39.7 Total Staffing 192 185 178
- 0ollars are in millions; includes program support, as well as salaries, benefits, and travel for staff members under " Total staffing."
" Staff numbers are budgeted full-Time Equivalents.
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _