ML20127N348

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of ACRS Advanced Reactors Subcommittee 850205 Meeting W/Doe,Ge,Ga Co,Atomics Intl,Gas Cooled Reactors Assoc & Como in Washington,Dc Re DOE Redirected Programs for Lmr & HTGR Development.Meeting Schedule Encl
ML20127N348
Person / Time
Issue date: 03/07/1985
From:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-2278, NUDOCS 8505230499
Download: ML20127N348 (12)


Text

'

?D0ff/MJ

,.- FEi 3r ME) 3 Pa ~ , /645 -2 AT

1) p p i n  ;

3/7/Fg DATE ISSUED: 3/7/85 MEETING MINUTES FOR THE ADVANCED REACTORS SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 5, 1985 WASHINGTON, DC The ACRS Advanced Reactors Subcommittee held a meeting on February 5, 1985 in. Room 1167, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. The purpose of the meeting was to review the DOE's redirected Programs for LMR and HTGR devdlopment and to review the relevant NRC activities in the area of advanced reactors. Notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on January 2, 1985. The meeting schedule is attached. A complete set of handouts and a list of attendees have been included in the ACRS files. There were no written or oral statements from the public.

Attendees: Principal meeting attendees included:

ACRS NRC fi"."Tarbon, Chairman S. Bassett C. Mark, Member T. King C. Siess, Member P. Wood C. Bell, Consultant P. Williams S. Bush, Consultant R. Foulds R. Curtis DOE D Bunch COM0 F. X. Gavigan E- il ray R. Ng Atomics International Gas Cooled Reactors Associates R. Lancet A. Kelly General Electric General Atomics N. Brown G. Northrup C. Boardman F. Silday DOE PRESENTATION ,

D. Bunch, Office of Nuclear Energy in the U.S. Department of Energy, presented the HTGR and liquid Metal Reactor program studies. Mr. Bunch outlined the frequent criticisms about the existing light water reactor plants, namely; 8505230499 850307 DCICHAID ORIGI?TE PDR ACRS 2278 PDR Cortified ny j

I a.

's Advanced Reactors Minutes February 5, 1985 Costs are too high and too unpredictable.

  • Construction times are too long and too uncertain.
  • Plants are too complicated and unnecessarily difficult to

~ operate, maintain, and repair.

Plants are too difficult to handle in transients.

DOE has been monitoring advanced LWR and LMR/HTGR program efforts in the United States and overseas. As a relatively modest extension of the existing technology, DOE studied the following:

Internal recirculation pumps which are being considered by the Japanese ABWR.

  • Fine motor control rod drive mechanism, which is a modifica-tion of the German improved CRD system.

Reinforced concrete containments.

Advanced fuel to permit extended duty cycle.

Digital / solid state controls.

Dr. Carbon commented that GE and the Japanese have been working exten-sively on the BWP. and was interested to know if DOE has access to this work. Mr. Bunch replied that the arrangements between GE and the organizations in Japan are through contracting and there is a great deal of proprietary information associated with it. DOE was briefed exten-sively by GE on the activities overseas and by some of the Japanese participants as well.

Another possible alternative to the modification of the large LWRs is a small LWR. GE has a small BWR design with an elevated wet well that would use natural circulation process and gravity fed systems to keep the core covered under virtually 611 accident conditions. Westinghouse has 600-MWe Nupack modular plant design which is a modified version of the offshore power system concept involving shipyard fabrications as a way of reducing the lead times on construction.

'o Advanced Reactors Minutes February 5, 1985 One of the main areas that DOE has focused on is the issue related to severe accident concerns. The DOE program is keyed to recomendations of solutions to address the hardware and institutional problems. One of the approaches to solve institutional problems is to try to find systems that minimize tradeoffs between economics and safety. A more global view is to:

  • Provide a fault tolerant design which does not requirm the action of a multiplicity of active safety systems.

Emphasize system choices which can be readily validated by test-Use probabilistic risk assessment early in design process to assure balanced design with all contributors to risk made negligibly low.

Provide an objective which maintain large safety margins.

  • Provide for early interaction with NRC on key design deci-sions.

In summary the DOE sponsored programs are intended to be complementary

. to and support of NRC and industry programs. The developments related to current generation LWRs can and do profoundly impact viability of new concepts. The early. interaction between designers and NRC on advanced concepts is in accord with recomendations of the ACRS.

Mr. F. Gavigan, DOE - Office of breeder demonstration projects, dis-cussed the advanced concept development program for LMR plants. This program involves a design competition between Rockwell and GE that will span approximately over 39 months. The focus is on small modular, inherently safe designs. DOE (in conjunction with EPRI) is also com-pleting a conceptual design of a large-scale pool breeder reactor. The '

main goals of the large-scale pool program are as follows; To provide a vehicle for technical exchange with foreign nuclear programs.

To develop an economic and safe large-scale pool type reactor.

Advanced Reactors Minutes February 5, 1985 To' produce a state of the art design that could be commercial-ly deployable.

In response to Dr. Carbon's question, DOE said the base technology program will be redirected to meet the needs of the proposed LMR modular design.

EPRI PRESENTATION Mr. O. E. Gray discussed the large-scale prototype breeder (LSPB) design concept. This effort was sponsored by the CoMo group. A 3500 MWt loop design effort was recently completed which produces approximately 1320 MWe net. It is a four-loop plant. Basically, the goals and objectives for LSPB are to come up with an economic and safe plant. The LSPB project has been conducted in a concensus mode with a number of contrac-tors participating. The' basic overall parameters are four loops, heterogeneous core, mixed oxide fuel, and with a once-through Benson cycle steam generation system.

Mr. Gray discussed the safety approach overview, basically based upon a review of the Clinch River safety analysis. The LSPB Loop safety analysis status is as follows:

' Preliminary design basis accident (DBA) list has been complet-ed.

  • Preliminary DBA analysis results meet CRBR guidelines for CP stage.

Preliminary risk assessment has been completed.

  • Risk assessment results indicate LSPB-Loop meet trial safety goals for LWRs.

l In response to Subcommittee questions, EPRI said the LSPB power produc-tion costs are estimated to be almost competitive with coal for the year l 2000. l l

Rockwell International l

1 l

Advanced Reactors Minutes February 5, 1985 R. Lancet discussed the Rockwell International (RI) proposed modular LMR plant design in closed session. RI believes the market conditions are just right for a small 330 MWe modular LMR plant. Such a plant captures the balanced advantages of economy of scale, shop fabrication, and low investment risk. RI envisions at least four 300 MWe sodium advanced fast reactor (SAFR) units per site. Each SAFR unit is a pool-type design with passive decay heat removal. The plant design life is given as 60 years. The core design can accommodate either an oxide or metal fuel. The 80P is completely decoupled from reactor safety consid-erations allowing conventional construction.

The top level SAFR safety goals are to have a plant that will be placed in a safe condition by natural forces given ATWS event or any credible

-accident. This implies the use of inherent design features such as, self actuated shutdown, passive DHR, passive sodium fire mitigations, etc. The goals for minimizing the potential for severe accidents can be achieved by:

Providing long grace period for corrective action.

Providing diversity in major safety functions.

Minimizing dependency on supporting safety equipment.

Providing redundant and diverse core support.

Minimizing need for operator action.

RI discussed how to minimize occupational radiation exposure by provid-ing exposure less than 5% of typical LWR and meeting ALARA requirements with substantial margin.

The goals for assuring a low risk plant can be achieved through:

  • Provide defense in-depth with multiple barriers.

~

Provide low leakage containment.

Provide heterogeneous low void worth core.

  • Meet NRC trial-use safety goals with substantial margin.

Advanced Reactors Minutes February 5, 1985 The licensing goals are to assure licensability, and that subsequent plants are limited to site-related issues only. RI is evaluating various licensing plan' alternatives. Each alternative would involve full scale safety tests. A safety evaluation report will be issued sometime this year and will be available to the Subcommittee.

General Electric N. Brown discussed the GE modular LMR design approach known as PRISM (Power Reactor Inherently safe Module) in closed session. The key points for PRISM innovative approach features:

System's simplicity (intrinsic characteristics, passively safe systems).

Maximum factory fabrication to take advantage of modern production technology and efficient QA/QC.

  • Minimum safety envelope; minimize safety-related functions in 80P.

Parallel construction scheduling with B0P constructed to conventional power plant standards.

  • Full-scale demonstration of safety characteristics.

Standardized plant design - cost reductions through replica-tion.

The GE's PRISM safety goals are to assure that plant operation, includ-ing accidents within the design basis will not restrict the normal day-to-day activities of the surrounding population. Public risk from PRISM will be comparable to current generations of LWRs.

GE is placing major emphasis on fuel scale tests to demonstrate the plant's safety. GE expects the full scale tests to result in a major change in the NRC Licensing process.

The PRISM design as envisioned by GE consists of a typical 9 module /3 turbine type arrangement. Each plant module generates a thermal power

Advanced Reactors Minutes February 5, 1985 of 425 MWt. The key features for the passive inherent decay heat removal are:

No active components.

Tolerant of sodium fire aerosols.

Continuously monitored.

No B0P support required.

^

The B0P is completely disconnected from the primary loop safety consid-erations. Metal or oxide fuel can be used. A completely passive vessel cooling system is relied on to remove all decay heat under any accident conditions. Other inherent safety features such as flowering core and absorber expansion are relied on to mitigate accident situations.

Containment design considerations are such that the GE goal is to assure

' that no offsite dose consequences result from PRISM operation.

NRC PRESENTATION T. King, Chief, ARG/ DST /NRR, overviewed the NRR Advanced Reactors Activities:

In May 1984, there was established within the Office of NRR an advanced Reactors Group (ARG) to act as the focal point for future interactions with DOE and Industry on the review and licensing requirements for advanced reactors. The reactors considered to fall under ARG responsibility are HTGRs (except for FT. St. Vrain),

liquid metal reactors and LWRs significantly different than current generation LWRs such as (PIUS). The main functions of the ARG are to:

Interact with advanced reactor designers early in the design process on review of the designs, identification and resolu-tion of safety issues and the development of a draft licensing framework (Criteria and Guidelines) for Advanced Reactors.

r Advanced Reactors Minutes February 5, 1985 Encourage the development of designs with greater inherent safety characteristics.

Identify technical assistance needed to support ARG's review ,

of advanced reactors.

These actions are consistent with a draft Commission policy statement on advanced reactors currently under consideration.

NRR will interact with the designers, licensees, etc., at an early stage in the process in order to minimize regulatory delay. Two key points of the Groups approach are to: (1) build upon the LWR framework where practical, and (2) assure that advanced reactors are at least as safe as current generation LWR's (emphasis added). NRR estimates a funding need of $1.5 - 2.0 M in FY 86, pending DOE initiatives. Potential problems the ARG sees include the uncertainty regarding future commercial interest for advanced designs.

As a result of Subcommittee discussion, Mr. King (NRR) indictted he would not support RES's further funding of the SIMMER code in FY 86.

Mr. Curtis (RES) indicated that the money spent on SIMMER continues RES's access to foreign (Japanese, French, German) research in this and other areas of interest to NRC.

Mr. P. Wood (RES) noted that RES plans to spend =$500 K in FY 86 on SIMMER as part of a joint overseas agreement. Germany and Japan are also contributing funding. The French are sharing the results of test data.

R. Ng (DOE) overviewed the HTGR development Program. The development of a large (2240 MW(t)) HTGR design was ended in May 1984 when the focus -

shifted to smaller modular designs. The base technology program is also being realigned to accommodate this shift. I l

Four candidate modular designs are under evaluation:

m

' Advanced Reactors Minutes February 5, 1985 100 MWe, pebble bed fuel, steel. vessel, in-line steam generators.

100 MWe, pebble bed fuel, steel vessel, side-by-side SG's.

480 MWe, prismatic fuel, PCRV, annular core.

430 MWe, prismatic fuel, PCRV, enhanced core.

DOE and NRC have begun licensing interaction focusing on top-level criteria, emergency planning, technology support, etc. A PSID (forerunner of a PSAR) is scheduled to be submitted in September 1986.

A. Kelley from the Gas Cooled Reactor Associates (GCRA) discussed the utility design requirements for small HTGR's. Key requirements noted were: (1) nominal 400 MW(e) net, (2) 40 year design life, (3) no need for public evacuation beyond exclusion area boundary, (4) standard plant design, (5) maximum use of shop fabrication, (6) radiation exposures to plant personnel comparable to Ft. St. Vrain, (7) can be sited at 85% of potential US sites, (8) 80% plant availability, and (9) has a decommissioning plan.

The specifics of the HTGR design concepts under evaluation were reviewed by T. Northrup (GA Technology). The central point made was that the carbide coated fuel will retain fission products up to 4/1600 C. This allows great flexibility in designing highly reliable decay heat removal systems. Besides the smaller plants, two larger units (1170 and 1260 MW(t)) were also evaluated.

P. Williams overviewed the NRR HTGR interaction activities. Presently, NRR is interacting with DOE on the above work. NRR is also closely followir.g the foreign HTGR activities, most notably the on-going startup of the German THTR pebblebed HTGR. NRC hopes for an agreement with DOE /GA on HTGR licensing bases by mid-1986. .

l T. King reviewed the status of Ft. St. Vrain. The plant was shut down j in June 1984 following a failure of some control rods to insert. The  !

I l

~

Advanced Reactors Minutes February 5, 1985 licensee in addressing some significant problems with the plant and plans to restart in April 1985.

In response to Subcommittee questions, S. Bassett (RES) said the HTGR research budget is zeroed out for FY 86, unless Congress indicates money be spent in this area, as has happened in previous years.

In conclusion, the ACRS Advanced Reactors Subcomittee requires no further action at this time.

Meeting adjourned.

NOTE: Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., or one can.be purchsed from ACE-Federal Reports, 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700.

1

e. 2/4/85 l

ACRS C'OMBINED ADVANCED REACTORS / GAS COOLED REACTORS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 1985 - WASHINGTON, D.C.

- TOPICAL AGENDA -

I. -Introduction M. Carbon 8:30 am II. DOE Advanced Reactor Program D. Bunch Overview DOE 8:40 am III. Summary of Advanced LWR Activities D. Bunch 9:00 am IV. LMR R&D Program Status A. DOE Redirected Program

a. Introduction and Schedule F. X. Gavigan 9:15 am Overview DOE
  • Design Concepts Selected by DOE for Development ,
b. LSPB - Overview and Status 0. E. Gray 9:20 am CCM0
      • Break ***
c. Atomics International R. Lancet 10:35 am Concept Description (Closed) R. Johnson s
d. General Electric Concept N. Brown 11:50 am Description (Closed) C. Boardman B. DOE /NRC LMR Program Interaction 1:05 pm
  • RES Program Status P. Woods /

R. Curtis .

      • Lunch *** 1:30 pm
  • --m

'.- Advanced Reactors Agenda February 5, 1985 t

V. HTGR R&D Program Status 2:30 pm A. DOE HTGR Program Plan 2:45 pm

? w n-

  • "In'tr6 duction and Schedule R. Ng Overview DOE

' Summary of Design Concepts G. Northurp Under Ev'aluation F. Silday GA/GCRA' B. DOE /NRC HTGR Program T. King / 4:00 pm Interaction P. Williams NRC/NRR C. Ft. St. Vrain Status and T. King 4:45 pm Application of Ft. St. Vrain to HTGR Research D. NRC-RES Program Status RES 5:15 pm (response to questions from

' Subcommittee)

VI. . Discussion and Adjournment 5:30 pm I

s l

  • Times shown are total times which includes time for Subcommittee questions.

l r l

/ m - - - - - - - - . . -