ML20154K021

Submits Questions from South Korean Engineers Re Value of Design Certification Program for C-E Sys 80 & Sys 80 Plus Designs

ML20154K021
Person / Time
Site:	05000470
Issue date:	09/12/1988
From:	Shik Kim J KOREA, REPUBLIC OF (SOUTH KOREA)
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20154K006	List: ML20154K003 ML20154K021
References
PROJECT-675A NUDOCS 8809230199
Download: ML20154K021 (4)

Text

_

~.

~

'k

1. k

[

Jong Shik Kim, Congret 1

National Assembly, RO}

l-1, Yeouido-Dong Youngdeungoo-ku, Seou!

i Korea, 150-702 I

US N"elear Reaulatory Consnission f

Was: cgton, DC 20555 l

Attntion : Chairman, Lando Iach

Dear Chairman Zech,

Last year KEPCO began negotiation with C.E. for two l

Nuclear Steam Supply Systems based upon combination-design j

of two different designs of 1) scaled-down System 80 (Palo l

Verde, year 1973 Model) and 21/re-System 80 (Arkansas Unit i2, year 1970 Model). In Acril 1987 the contract was signed pending ROK Government's final Approval.

Since that time we have continued to watch development and regulatory trends in the U.S. and have concluded that l

j these trends will have a great impact upon U.c. designs and design reauirments.

(

specially we have noticed that SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY l

l remains an open issue in U.S. regulation and to that extenc [

it is not fully clear what features will be reauired in F

future U.S. plants to satisfy severe accident protection

[

reauirements. We also found the escalation in important of i l

the joint industry effort led by the Electric Power reserch {

Institute (EPRI) to develen new recuirements for future j

{

plants. It looks to be the' intention of EPRI and NRC that I

t new plants must meet these requirements in order to be l

licensable in the U.S.

1 I

l 1

)

l 7/28...To CFA to Frepare Response in conjunction with EDO and f

j OGC for Signature of GPA...Date due: Aug. 12...Cpys to: RT.

l l

EDO 0GC.. 88-0692.

l i

{

eso9230199 880912 PDR COMMS NRCC l

I CORRESPONDENCE PDC 1

58 V

T, T

T si 4

9 d

i Through our contacts we are aware of the important efforts being made by both G.E. and C.E. to get DESIGN CERTIFICATION of their large plant d& signs. It is our understanding that both G.E./C.E. are implementing those design changes deemed necessary to enable these designs to meet the new reauirements. In the case of Combustion Engineering (C.E.), this has involved very extensive changes / modifications to the criginal System 80 design such as application of 4-trains of safeguards and inclusion of emergency recirculation water within the reactor contain-l ment. The revised dewign is also known as System 80 P us (System 80 +).

The above considerations convinced us that if KEPCO proceed with the present design in Korea, which is a combination of Scaled-down version of System 80 and Pre-System 80 designs we would be basing our future nuclear power program upon a design which is old (1970 and 1973 modell and has been superseded by safer and more perable designs. Furthermore, we are concerned as to whether our present C.E. design (the combination of Scaled-down of System 80 and Pre-System 80) would be licensable of not in the U.S., or at a minimum, the licensing process would be a very difficult and lengthy one, because the System 80 dssign ITSELF does not satisfy the U.S. recuirments as promulgated in the EPRI light Water Reactor Raouire-ment Document.

Since it is important to us that our new phase of nuclear power plant instc11ation should be vested in designs which are considered to be state-of-the-art in the country of origin, and since we wish to take the necessary steps to ensure this, we would deeply appreciate your comments upon the above evaluation.

9 9

e

s Comments from Korean Engineers...

Would it be possible for C.E. to obtain formal full regulatory approval to build such plant in the U.S.

from U.S. ACRS and NRC 7

1. Such soproval would reauire FORMAL application to the NRC who would only consider such and application seriously if C.7.. had a U.S. domestic customer for the plant.

2. Has C.E. received TULL Formal regulatory approval of the design to ba implemented in Korea from US.ACRS and US NRC 7

3. If not what extend of review has been comp 1sted by ACRS and NRC on this design, if any 7 How long was the length of review anC amount of documentation reviewed 7

4. If not approved, what would be involved in achieving such approval 7 What degree of design and safety documentation would be recuired by ACRS and NRC 7

5. If the full formal regulatory approval of the combina-tion of designs of Scaled-down System 80 (Palo Verde) and Pre-System 80 (Arkansas Unitf 2) is sought in the U.S.; would the design be recuired to satisfy the new EPRI Recuirement Document for LWR design ?

50 DYS i

3\\

6.

Korean officials understand that the on-going DESIGN CERTIFICATION program by C.E.

for their System 80 Plus (Systen 60+) design is only for the "larqe" plant, and NOT for family of plants which would include a Scaled-down System 80,just like the Korean model proposed by C.E. Is this understanding of Korean officials correct ?

7.

When is the present DESIGN CERTIFICATION program scheduled for completion ?

ery truly Jn h

X on eksman e

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _