ML20058P834
| ML20058P834 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/19/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-93-289, NUDOCS 9310250251 | |
| Download: ML20058P834 (3) | |
Text
RELEASED TO THE PDa ~~j 5 Ah. hTLJ-)
5 Y
2 f*"%g
- o+c4cocey,"N. f,~
- a v
w r
4
- **+
POLICY ISSUE October 19, 1993 SECY-93-289 EQB:
The Comissioners FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations ISSUANCE OF THE DRAFT PREAPPLICATION SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT
SUBJECT:
(PSER) FOR THE POWER REACTOR INNOVATIVE SMALL MODULE (PRISM LIQUID-METAL REACTOR P_URPOSE:
To inform the Commission of the staff's intent to issue for comment a draft of the final preapplication safety evaluation report (PSER) for the power reactor innovative small module (PRISM) reactor.
BACKGROUND:
The NRC reviewed the PRISM design at the request of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and in a manner consistent with the NRC's advanced reactor policy statement (51 Federal Reaister 24643). The PRISM design was one of two liquid-metal reactor designs sponsored by DOE and submitted to the NRC for review.
In August 1988, DOE selected the PRISM design for the NRC's preappli-cation safety evaluation. A draft PSER for the PRISM design was issued by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research in September 1989.
In 1990, DOE provided the NRC with additional design information that addressed issues identified in the draft PSER.
In November 1990, the NRC transferred the review responsibility for this project from the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
In SECY-92-393, " Updated Plans and Schedules for the Preapplication Reviews of l
the Advanced Reactor (MHTGR, PRISM, and PIUS) and CANDU 3 Designs," the staff I
informed the Comission that the PRISM PSER would be issued in December 1993.
l NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN 3 WORKING DAYS FROM THE CONTACTS:
DATE OF THIS PAPER Stephen P. Sands, NRR l
504-3154 O
Edward D. Throm, NRR
~~
M2 m n M+
l 504-1111
\\
agoou 4
The Comissioners As described in SECY-92-393, the staff is following the same review process for approving the PSERs as is being used for the safety evaluation reports on the evolutionary light-water reactor (LWR) designs.
Therefore, before completing the review, the staff is submitting a draft of the final PSER to the Comission. The staff will forward the draft of the final PSER to the preapplicant, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), and the NRC Public Document Room. After considering information from the public meetings with ACRS and the preapplicant, the staff plans to submit a final PRISM PSER to the Comission in December 1993 for approval.
DISCUSSION:
The staff is submitting this document in accordance with its commitment to the Commission in SECY-92-393. Responding to the Commission's staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY-91-202, " Departures from Current Regulatory Require-ments in Conducting Advanced Reactor Reviews," July 2, 1991, the staff committed to identify those policy and technical issues that require Comis-sion guidance or staff resolution for design certification.
The staff committed to find these issues during the preapplication review and to include instances in which advanced reactor designs deviate significantly from current regulatory requirements.
In SECY-93-092, " Issues Pertaining to the Advanced Reactor (PRISM, MHTGR, and PIUS) and CANDU 3 Designs and Their Relationship to Current Regulatory Requirements," the staff requested the Commission to approve staff proposals or provide guidance for those issues for which the staff is proposing to depart from current regulatory requirements in the preapplication review of advanced reactor:.. The review criteria and policy issues discussed in this draft PSER are consistent with the staff's positions in SECY-93-092, as approved by the Commission in an SRM, July 30, 1993.
The review approach and criteria used by the staff are directed toward meeting the guidance in the Comission's advanced reactor policy which states that advanced reactors must, as a minimum, provide at least the same degree of protection for the public and the environment that is required for current-generation LWRs.
Further, the policy states that tha Comission expects advanced designs to provide enhanced margins of safety. Accordingly, in the review of the PRISM design, the staff has used and built on the applicable existing regulations and guidelines for safety to develop additional criteria when necessary to address the unique characteristics of the design, and to ensure that they were assessed for enhanced safety margins.
In the applica-tion of the existing regulations and guidelines, the staff, in some cases, has had to interpret the guidance developed for LWRs for application to the PRISM concept and for issues under review.
In making such interpretations, the staff has directed its approach toward maintaining limits and criteria at least equivalent to those of LWRs for quality, design, construction, and operation, and for the release of radiation, maintaining defense in depth, providing for conservatisms to account for plant-specific uncertainties in the designs, and maintaining consistency with the guidance under development for future LWRs for the treatment of severe accidents.
J
-~
The Commissioners The PSER presents the staff's evaluation of the conceptual design of the PRISM reactor, identifies key policy issues, and provides i.n assessment of the designer's proposed criteria which, in the designer's judgement, apply to the design. Confirmatory research and development programs and plans for proto-type testing were also reviewed. The PSER identifies areas where additional 4
information will be required to support design certification and indicates where the information provided in the preliminary safety information document either appears to support the design's proposed criteria or where additional work may be needed to strengthen those positions. The focus of the PSER is on licensability issues and does not cover all aspects of the full design, including balance of plant and areas where the technologies to be used are consistent with operating sodium-cooled, fast reactor designs.
The PSER does not constitute approval of the PRISM design.
Further engineer-ing development, including a significant research and development program (the ANL Integral Fast Reactor program) on the metal-fuel design, needs to be completed to confirm the designer's characterization of the PRISM response to transients and accidents, and documentation will be required to support any future design certification application and review.
CONCLUSIONS:
The staff concludes that the enclosed draft of the final PSER for the PRISM design should be forwarded to DOE to inform DOE of the staff's findings and conclusions.
Accordingly, the staff will issue the enclosed document in 3 work days from the date of this paper.
At that time, the staff will place the document in the NRC Public Document Room.
COORDINATION:
The Office of General Counsel reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
The staff is forwarding the draft of the final PSER for PRISM to the ACRS for its review and comment.
/
((
a es M. Tdlor ecutive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
PRISM draft PSER (Commissioners, SECY, OGC only) j DISTRIBUTION:
j Com".issioners OPP f
OGC EDO OC/s ACRS OIG SECY OPA OCA
~.
_