ML20127D326

Requests That Schedule Be Provided Consistent W/Resolving Identified Concerns Re Ssar App 19P, Evaluation of Potential Design Mods to ABWR, by Middle of Oct 1992

ML20127D326
Person / Time
Site:	05200001
Issue date:	09/02/1992
From:	Pierson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Marriott P GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
References
NUDOCS 9209140221
Download: ML20127D326 (5)

Text

_ . _ . _ _ _ . . .

4 September 2, 1992 Docket No, 50-605

^,

Mr. Patrick W. Marriott, Manager Licensing & Consulting Services GE Nuclear Energy 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125

SUBJECT:

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES RELATED TO APPENDIX 19P (EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL DESIGN MODIFICATIONS)-0F THE STANDARD SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (SSAR) FOR THE ADVANCED BOILING WATER REACTOR (ABWR) DESIGN

During the course of its review of the GE Nuclear Energy (GE) application for i design certification of the ABWR, the staff has identified certain issues that nee'd further consideration by GE. The issues identified in the enclosure

address staff concerns related to SSAR Appendix 19P, " Evaluation of Potential i Design Modifications to the ABWR."

We request that you provide a schedule that is consistent with resolving the identified concerns by the middle of October 1992. The staff is willing to

! meet with you in the near future in order to discuss the issues identified in the enclosure. If you have any concerns regarding this request, please call Dino Scaletti on (301) 504-1104. ,

4

. Sincerely, j (Original signed by)

Robert C. Pierson, Director Standardization Project Directorate i

Associate Directorate for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated DISTRIBUTION:

l lDocketFile PDST R/F TMurley/FHiraglia DCrutchfield NRC'PDR' WTravers RPierson JNWilson CPoslusny VMcCree RNease _

JMoore, 15B18 GGrant, EDO PShea ACRS (10) .

DScaletti OFC: LA:PDST:ADAR . DAR kST:ADAR D:P NAME: PShear)@ Df a 1:tz PM3 J 1 son RPie on 3:>ADAR DATE: 09Q 99$ 09/fL/92 0 /92 09/t/92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY: SSAR.DS 92091 ee _40221 920902 2emem , uYM m "2 C_N ~ "' M ~3 " -j A PDR l h.

,_.~7.-

' p:> uovg

[  % UNITED STATES i  ! i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

"o, [ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20655

%, . . . .

• f September 2, 1992 Docket No.52-001 Mr. Patrick W. Harriott, Manager Licensing & Consulting Services GE Nuclear Energy 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125

SUBJECT:

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES RELATED TO APPENDIX 19P (EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL DESIGN H0DIFICATIONS) 0F THE STANDARD SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (SSAR) FOR THE ADVANCED BOILING WATER REACTOR (ABWR) DESIGN During the course of its review of the GE Nuclear Energy (GE) application for design certification of the ABWR, the staff has identified certain issues that need further consideration by GE. The issues identified in the enclosure address staff concerns related to SSAR Appendix 19P, " Evaluation of Potential Design Modifications to the ABWR."

We request that you provide a schedule that is consistent with resolving the identified concerns by the middle of October 1992. The staff is willing to meet with you in the near future in order to discuss the issues identified in the enclosure. If you have any concerns regarding this request, please call Dino Scaletti on (301) 504-1104.

Sincerely,

(. .

Robert C. Pierson, Director Standardization Project Directorate Associate Directorate for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal' Office cf Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page

GE Nuclear Energy Docket No.52-001 t

cc: Mr. Robert Mitchell General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95114 Mr. L. Gifford, Program Manager Regulatory Programs GE Nuclear Energy 12300 Twinbrook Parkway Suite 315 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Director, Criteria & Standards Division Office of Radiation Programs U. S. Environmental riotection Agency 401 M Str eet, 5.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460 Mr. Daniel F. Giessing U. S. Dep rtment of Energy NE-42 Washington, D.C. 20585 Mr. Steve Goldberg Budget Examiner 725 17th Street, N.W.

Room 8002 Washington, D.C. 20503 Mr. Frank A. Ross U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42

Office of LWR Safety and Technology

, 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, Maryland 20874 Mr. Raymond Ng 1776 Eye Street, N.W.

Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Marcus A. Rowden, Esq.

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20004 Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.

Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

1615 L Street, N.W.

Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Mark McCabe

. U. S. Dept. of Justice /EAG 555 4th Street, N.W.

Room 11-809 Washington, D.C. 20001

4 Enclosure o REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ADVANCED BOILING WATER REACTOR IC CFR 50.34(f)(1)(1) ISSUES

1. GE has concluded that a filtered containment vent system is not applica-ble to the ABWR.

(a) Provide an expanded basis for this conclusion.

(b) Provide an t.nalysis for inclusion of a filtered vent with consider-ation of the recent developments in the moderate cost filter systems designed in Europe (venturi, wire mesh, etc.).

2. GE has concluded that core retention devices have already been incorpo-

rated into the ABWR design.

(a) Provide a description of the " incorporated core retention devices" and the supporting analysis to demonstrate their effectiveness.

(b) Provide the ecperimental data base to demonstrate that the passive containment flooding capability "provides an equivalent function to

, a core retention device."

(c) Provide an analysis that includes a " core-catcher" device similar to the ones described in NUREG/CP-3908, " Sus vey of the State of the Art i in Mitigation Features."

3. GE identified a list of potential mooifications from a variety of previous studies performed to address severe accidents. Has GE performed a systematic review or " brain storming sessions" to identify any new innovative methods for addressing severe accidents? If so, please describe the process.

4. The $1,000 per person-rem figure has been used by the NRC and industry for many years. Presently, consideration is being given to increasing this value by an amount that may change the benefits associated with snme of the proposed dcsign modifications. Please provide a sensitivity analysis relative to the cost-benefit ratio to evaluate the potential benefits of modifications if the $1,000 per person-rem value were

~

increased to 510,000 per person-rem.

5. Provide a more detailed assessment of the following potential modifica-tions emphasizing description, cost estimation process and cost data, calculation of risk reduction, and benefits. The analysis should include other offsite costs in addition to the dollar value used for person rem averted.

reactor building sprays anticipated transient without scram sized vent improved depressurization drywell heat flooding improved vacuum breakers suppression pool jockey pump reactor water cleanup (RWCU) decay heat removal

-A5 -

w.A__.-.-,. 4J,-.Li4 '-.A .+,A.m ,J.- i :J_s,.i. p, . m .p.--m 2-v

6. It is NRC's policy that in the consideration of cost-benefit related to the analysis of design alternatives,-averted onsite costs should be

- accounted for in the cost-benefit equation as reduct kns in the costs associated with the proposed design alternative. It averted onsite costs are considered in this manner, identify those modifications that would be deemed cost-beneficial based on a range for person rem averted of up to

$10,000.

7. In evaluating-.the benefit of improved depressurization, the GE submittal assumed a reduction in depressurization failure rate of a factor of 2.

Wby.wouldn't a reduction of 5-10 he more appropriate, given a diverse-system?-

8. GE' stated that a larger containment would not' prevent containment failure. Would not a longer time to failure increase the-likelihood of-core and containment heat removal recovery, which might prevent ultimate-containment failure. Please address.

9. Some of the modifications seem to incur a relatively low cost, such as the RWCU procedural upgrades'for enhanced decay heat removal. Given the probabilistic risk. assessment uncertainties, why shouldn't-the small cost actions be implemented?

10. In evaluating the cost-of a dedicated RHR de power supply,-GE only considered fuel cells ($6 million)-or an additional battery system

($2.5 million). A small diverse gas or diesel de battery charging generator would appear to offer much of the same benefit for much lower cost. Please address.

11. GE's dose calculations were based on offsite exposure over a 50-mile radius. Previous analyses have considered dose accumulations over a much larger area surrounding the reactor. In this regard, provide an assessment of the risk reduction. potential for the various' alternatives -

if a 1000-mile radius is used.

12. Use of fire water for core-injection or wetwell sprays-is.an important i contributor-to reduced risk for the ABWR and appears to be: dominated by human error. . In this regard,-please provide justification for not considering enhancements which would facilitate the use of diesel driven fire pumps as an alternative, such as providing the capability to achieve the necessary valve alignment from the control room.

13. . Table -19P.3-1 identifies a number of modifications already included in-the ABWR design. Please identify the SSAR section where such modifica-tions are described, or-provide a detailed-description of the modifica-tion and its use in the ABWR,.if not included in the SSAR.

- - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ . _- ' -,,_ e m -,,,,ym. y,y,-,,.m-_r,.-- , , pw ,, ,,._,.-%v.w-- r-ey, -,yv1- , -,v wy.- ,. %y-~ g