ML20196B098
| ML20196B098 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/16/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8806300192 | |
| Download: ML20196B098 (63) | |
Text
M %%%%%%%%%%WA%%%%%W6%%%%%%%W46%fQggi g g ggi g ;
TPANSMITTAL TO:
Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips g1 j
ADVANCE 0 COPY TO:
The Public Document Room DATE:
4 /#e//[
3j FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch E
Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting i;
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and i
placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or
!f required.
g Meeting Titie: A d mi A
Mb
%, fM Meeting Date:
5/IA/f'f Open X
Closed
,E Item Description *:
Copies 1:
Advanced DCS
- 8 ll to PDR Cg s
i f:i
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 k
a luW, s&
li e OM) 1 i:
ll
- 2. YM b ll r W-l
/
hit b'. W E d $
bb t,/P f 3.
4-l 5.
l 6.
l
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY g
E papers.
88063001'72 000616 E
k k
l k
I YlYII ll l
\\YlIl lYI l l I 6
J
1 l
1 1
l 0)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
l l
Title:
BRIEFING ON ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTORS BY EFRI j
i i
Location: ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 1
l Date:
THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 1988 IlO Pages: ~ 1-63 i
u i
.I 1
Ann Riley & Associates l
coun n.ponm 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 3
Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
e M...aa:n m n a=.s,e:u 4hau-s.
_*M
l l
' O DISCLAIMER This'is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the Unita
'ates Nuclear Regulatory Commission held-on,
6-It-in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been rev'iewed, corrected or edited, and.it may
~
contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solei; for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the
(}
matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other papei may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
4
- eus e
E L. f?
e h
a o
^
i 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0
e 2
NUC' LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTORS BY EPRI 5
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
8 Nuolear Regulatory Commission i
9 One White Flint North N
10 Rockville, Maryland 12 i
12 THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 1988 31 13 i
14 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 15 notice, at 2:03 p.m., the Honorable LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of k
16 the Commission, presiding.
f 17 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
i 1E LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 1
19 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 20 KENNETH M. CARR, Member of the Commission 21 KENNETH C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission
(~
22 23 24 l
25 I
J:5 -y%a u t$ ViQ~ jlS.E I,lN
'.&, "Sh~jb $'r'~a AGAD~4Y~:N aux w N: L ' m*'s =D ~b La s*'N' - ~'
t 2
..y c.
.Y 1
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
y 2
3 S. CHILK W. PARLER 4
4 sw 5-5 E. KINTNER
~
6 J.
DeVINE, JR.
1 7
K. STAHLKOPF_
8 J.TkYLOR i
9 10 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
l 11 12 R. B. IDWTON, G.E.
.w, f'
13 w
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
(
22 23 24 25 yw-v m
--y----,-
- yy. -- g x - --, - -
=sr..
-r!-----
.--g--
.,,---,.,,---ywr
? _
Wl
. ?$
$f5 Df
I 3
1 PROCEEDINGS 2
(2:03 p.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
c l
4 Today the Commission will be briefed on the Electric l
5 Power Research Institute's advanced light water reactor 6
program.
The Commission will hear both the Advanced Light Water Reactor Steering Committee, represented by Edward Kintner 7
8 and the Executive Vice President of GPU Nuclear, and i
3 9
representatives of EPRI led by Mr. John Taylor, Vice President 1
i 10 of the Nuclear Power Division.
1 11 It is my understanding this is a two phase program 12 with the first phase being the development of the Utility 13 Requirements Document for the evolutionary development of an 14 advanced light water reactor based on current light water 15 reactor designs, and the second phase would be the development j
16 of a similar document for a smaller plant size, utilizing
?
17 various passive means for accident prevention and mitigation.
18 The commission has in the recent past been briefed by i
)
19 the General Electric Company, Westinghouse and Combustion i
20 Engineering on their programs to certify their standard plant 21 designs.
e 22 Today's briefing will provide the commission with a 23 better understanding of how these various activities relate and 24 possibly converge.
[
25
, The Commission is also interested in hearing how the 1
M
' +
t>
e
{
~
4 1
1 interactions between NRC's staff and EPRI are going in the l
2 review of the various sections of the Utility Requiremants 3
Document.
)
~
4 This is an information briefing and no Commission 5
vote is expected this afternoon.
I understand slides have been 6
available at the entrance way to the room.
7 Are there.any comments from ny fellow Commissioners 8
before we begin?
9 (No response.)
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
If not, Mr. Kintner, will you begin, 11 please?
12 MR. KINTNER:
We are very glad to be here to talk to j
you in person about the advanced light water reactor program.
13 14 We have had meetings with Vic ntello, Tom Murley and their 15 staffs.
These have been very helpful.
I think the process of 16 review of the documents which we are producing is going along 17 well.
Significant issues are being raised and discussed and I 18 think resolved reasonably well.
19' We met twice with the ACRS on the subjection of the 20 ALWR program and now it seems timely that we should meet with 21 you and tell you where we stand and what we propose to do.
r' 22 We have a very simple agenda for this program.
23 (Slide.)
()
24 MR. KINTNER:
Contracting for additional nuclear 25 power plants has been in a hiatus for a long time, but there
{
4
/
O N
?
9 5
1 are many of us who believe as we here do that there must be
~
2 within the not too far distant future, some innovations in 3
nuclear power for the future for reasons of environmental
)
4 protection, for economic well being and military safety.
I 5
We believe that will be encouraged if we are able to 6
do two things.
First, have continued stable and reliable
{
7 operation of the present plants, an objective which the NRC and 8
INPO and the utility industry are devoting major efforts to I
9 that end.
Second, the conceptualization of a next generation 10 of improved plants evolved from the experience gained, both D
11 good and bad experience over the last 20 years.
12 Almost six years ago, the Electric Power Research b*
C 13 Institute commenced discussions with senior utility executives 14 on the question of whether there was a need to prepare for 15 further development of nuclear power engineering, and if so, 16 what direction that should take.
The conclusion then was that 17 steps should be taken toward a second generation of light water 18 reactors and that the most important objective of that effort 19 should be increased margins of safety through additional 20 engineering margins in the reactor and significant 21 simplification of the plant as a whole.
e 22 The resulting ALWR program has now been underway for 23 four years.
It has several years more to go but we think we 24 have made significant progress.
In carrying out the program, 25 we have been greatly encouraged by and we have adhered very 3
n
.-,-,+n.
S' g
l b
3
6 1
closely to, we believe, the commission's statement on the O
2 policy on regulation of advanced nuclear power plants.
3 The ALWR program is aimed at improving the g
4 application of light water reactor technology rather than 5
starting over with a new technology, a new coolant, because we 6
now have a very large body of experience from more than 100 7
plants'in this country and 400 worldwide.
j 8
If you develop any other reactor system to a similar l
9 level of understanding and maturity, and consider that includes 10 development of the subsystems of fuel and waste disposal and 11 the extensive set of codes, procedures, regulations, that's an 12 effort which would be very difficult to carry out and I don't 13 see anybody who is willing to undertake it at the moment, if 14 they fully understand the entire magnitude of such an 15 undertaking.
16 Notwithstanding all the criticisms the industry and 17 regulators have had, the safety record of light water reactors 18 has been remarkable.
We have had only one serious accident and 19 that did not cause harm to the operators or the public.
20 This effort is sponsored by and managed by the 21 utilities through EPRI.
The first generation reactors was 22 primarily the intellectual product of reactor suppliers, 23 engineers and constructed by architect engineers, and 24 contracted for by utilities with widely different backgrounds, 25 neither the AE's not
.ie utilities themselves had much m
- 6 p
i l!
i I
7 1
experience in nuclear technology.
O 2
That balance has now been reversed.
It is the l
3 utilities who not only have the vperating experience but bear
~
c l
4 the moral and financial weight of the nuclear design,
~
5 constructio'n and operations.
The utilities have said 6
enphatically that they want something better than they have.
7 Nuclear utilities are beginning to speak with a I
8 single voice on the subject of the next generation of reactors i
9 and the fact that they are speaking with a single voice should
}
l 10 increasingly help avoid commercial pressures and competition h
l 11 which might compromise safety.
l l
12 There was, of course, initial resistance to re-
) (u?)
13 thinking plant designs.
It took the form of arguing that if 14 you do anything different from what has been done before, you 15 cast 9.oubt on what has been done. That's a false argument in a i
}
16 tech. ilogy as new as this one.
I:
)
17 I'm pleased to say the U.S.
reactor suppliers and 18 major trchitect engineers are now working constructively toward f
19 the (
- 1. mon goals of the program.
20 The Department of Energy is providing major support 21 especially in funding developmental aspects of the program and l
22 in de. sign certification work which is an adjunct to this i
23 program.
24 Additional financiel support and experience is coming
{
25 from overseas, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Netherlands, Italy, l
l l
L.vwM+m&%QGh%s%Mi%%Ywho4%1s&:h'n &v% nMm::m"4WS'r5
I 8
1 support we are receiving from all over the world is steadily O
2 increasing.
i 3
We are not saying that what has been done is not safe 4
and useful.
LWR's are obviously providing larger amounts of 5
electricity in many nations more cheaply and reliably than 6
other energy sources.
What we are saying, however, is that 7
with the experience of the last two decades, it should be 8
possible and we believe it is possible to make design changes 9
of a fundamental nature which will have positive effects on 10 both safety and economics.
11 The basic principles by which we propose to gain 12 safety margin and improve overall operating characteristics are
(:D s
13 to increase the engineering margins and significantly simplify l
14 the plants.
Some examples of the way we are headed are we have 15 limited T-H to below the levels which previously have been 16 thought to be acceptable.
We have increased reactor heat 17 transfer margins by 15 percent.
We have lengthened transient 18 times in the plant as a whole by increasing water inventories 19 and pressurizer sizes.
l 20 We have removed neutron sensitive welds in the mid-21 section of reactor vessels.
We have specified reactor vessel 22 materials which are less sensitive to neutron embrittlement.
23 We have importantly increased dependence on 24 fundamental physical properties such as negative temperature of l
j 25 power co-efficients and natural circulation for removal of i
t 1lkM&lrit"A5S'WhM$ s$ht.<Sen:.w&*ntdu % WNM4'O::-WWANO4W'l*NWWNN
s.,.
3 5
4:
1 decay heat..We are making major efforts at the same time of
~
,9 2
reducing demands on the operators by simplifying the man-o 3
machine interface.
s
..a 4
In many of these areas, we are going well beyond G.
existing regul'atory requirements and that should ease the 5
6 burden on your staff in arriving at licensing decisions.
l 7
Further, we are applying these principles throughout
.,7 O
the plant, not';just to the primary reactor system.
We believe f
9 this is the best way to achieve greater safety in operations as 10 well as reduce costs and construction times overall.
I f
11 While we are doing this, we expect to achieve what 12 Pierre Tanguy of Electricite de France says is an important 13 objective of the new French design effort, the so-called REP-14 2000, and that is provide coherence in a total plant sense, 15 rather than just design a primary plant and tnen a secondary 16 plant, tie them in with a control system, put a containment b
17 around them.
That's an idea, the word never occurred to me 18 until I heard him use it and I think it makes a lot of sense in i
19 terms of this massive experience we nave from the previous 20 20 years.
21 Carrying out this work, we hope to avoid what to many e
22 of us seems to have been counterproductive in terms of true 23 safety in the development of commertial reactors, that is h
24 overemphasizing mitigation of conse.quences of severe accidents 25 to the detriment of the prevention of small events which could
%% iip *&<gssi.ineenvd-Kr csW6We%s:46+4@R.Msi@*VdsU'A9'.@EicssdN* MAN
10 1
lead to severe results.
2 We are not ignoring severe accidents but we are 3
putting emphasis in the first case on designing plants so "ifs" 4
do not occur rather than on "what if" they do occur.
5 That requires a leap of faith of a sort but many of 6
us know instinctively that is the way to really improve safety 7
in a low risk, high consequence technology, which this one is.
l 8
overall guidance of the ALWR program is by the 1
a 9
Utility Steering Committee whose membership is shown on 10 Attachment A.
I believe we have a viewgraph which shows that.
11 (Slide.)
12 MR. KINTNER:
We have three members of that committee
~~
13 with us here today, Bill Cahill 'of Gulf States; Lou DelGeorge I
14 of Commonwealth and Charles Jackson of Consolidated Edison.
I 15 would point out that active members of this group include 26 representatives from Italy, Taiwan and from the Netherlands.
17 These members are in fact participating fully in the activities 18 and many times have contributed significantly important 19 questions.
20 Not all of these people are at the meetings but there 21 is sufficient participation ensuring utility viewpoints and r-22 experience of nuclear operators are fully addressed, and each 23 of these individuals gets some help from within his
()
24 organization as a whole.
Jack, I guess in one case, you had 25 800 commento on one chapter coming for the utilities, comments
=
g
(*
m
(
11 1
and questions.
It is not just a matter of the individuals i
O 2
commenting on what is being done, we really are getting 4
~3 detailed review from an oporating experienced point of view on 4
the design requirements we are providing.
5 Karl Stahlkopf and Jack Devine will explain many of 6
the details of the program.
Jack, on my left, is the Program 7
Manager at EPRI.
He is a nuclear submariner.
He has been with 8
the general public utilities organization from before the TMI-9 II accident.
He has been in charge of this program for two and 10 half years.
He adds additional utility experience to the 11 center of the work.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH Thank you very much.
You may 13 proceed.
14 MR. STAHLKOPF This program has its antecedents, as 15 Ed said, some five and a half years ago, when the Utility 16 Advisory Committee that provides advice and also programmatic 17 guidance to the Nuclear Power Division, asked that EPRI develop 18 with them a program that would ensure that the nuclear power 19 option would be available for the next ordering of central 20 station power.
Working with them, we formulated the ALWR l
21 program.
r' 22 (Slide.)
23 MR. STAHLKOPF We formulated it really with several
(}
24 goals.
One was it was clear that the utilities understood that i
25 they had the responsibility for owning and operating the plants v,w h % g:46d"45 5 %M M f4d$nis SsW A h W MM S W WA % tM N 'M MNIN N O M
1 1
12 1
and they felt they gaine.d much knowledge and understanding
(
l 2
about the things that were right and the thing.s that weren't l
3 quite right with the current generation power plants.
4 Consequently, they wanted to establish their readership in the 5
design of the next generation.
That became a premiere goal in 6
our effort and I think Ed Kintner and the other membe'es of the 7
Steering Committee here today show the continuing interest of 8
the utilities in this program.
9 When we looked at the program, we said to ourselves, 10 is the light water reactor the right reactor.
We went into a 11 study and looked at the variety of alternatives that were 12 available at the time and we came to the conclusion that in p9 c.
13 fact a goal of the program should be that the next generation 6
14 should be a generation of light water reactors and the program 15 should build the foundation for those reactors to be certified 16 and to be ready in the 1990 timeframe.
17 With those two major goals, we then formulated three 18 specifio object.ives of the program which is shown on the next L
19 slide.
20 (Slide.)
21 MR. STAHLKOPP:
The first one of these has largely r-22 been completed.
We went to Harold Denton and discussed with 23 him our interest in formulating an advanced light water reactor 24 program.
7i that time, the industry was still in some change 25 as a result of many of the TMI backfits and I think it is not U.9?rW
- U M d 55 b N" 0 N O b
- N '
E
- UE
'##b!U bO*'**
E
i 13 1
an understatement to say that the regulatory basis for the next 2
generation was not really clear.
Working in conjunction with 3
NRC staff, the EPRI staff developed a list of outstanding 4
potential safety and licensing items which might confront any 5
new design.
6 The initial list was really a clearing of the drawers 7
of all the people in the commission along with a compilation of l
8 what was on the books at that time and it came to some 550 l
9 potential issues.
Since that time, the list has grown to 10 almost some 700 issues but through the work of your staff and 11 ours, we have brought that down to 62 specific issues, which 12 now serve as the basis of regulation between EPRI and NRC.
t, <j 13 That work has largely been done.
I f
14 The next two objectives of the program deal first a
15 with the development of a r.,pecific set of design and 16 performance requirements for the next generation reactors and 17 you will hear us talking about the Requirements Document, and thatiswhatthleRequirementsDocumentreallyis, setting down 18 8
j 19 what the utilities feel should be the basis and the performance
?
20 requirements for their next plants.
21 Finally, we wanted to take perhaps a step forward or 3
22 a step into the future from the present systems which use l
23 active components for ECCS, for cooling of the core, for decay 24 heat removal and for removal of heat from the containment, and
}
25 see what could be done in terms of developing a light water unauu~~na-wman<sw-a-
14 1
reactor which would use passive instead of active components.
2 That becama the third objective of our program. We wili talk 3
about all three of those as we go through the presentation 4
today.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Does the design consideration in your 6
Requirements Document face up to the issue of whether the 7
balance of plant should be included in the standardization 8
program?
1 9
MR. STAHLKOPP:
It very clearly does.
The 10 Requirements Document is written for a total integrated plant 11 and it does not make a distinction batween a balance of plant 12 and a nuclear steam supply system which are cut along some l 19 I
O 13 finally defined line.
We try to look at the machine as a total 1
14 machine and that is reflected in the Requirements Document.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good.
16 (Slide.)
l 17 MR. STAHLKOPF One of the things we are seeing as we l
18 move forward with our effort is a heightening of interest in 19 nuclear power and in particular, a new generation of nuclear 20 power plants.
Bennett Johnston presently has an initiative 1
i 21 which he has been discussing on the Hill.
He held hearings two e
22 weeks ago about how the Government might support such an l
23 effort.
DOE has a major program going on, both for the 1
24 certification of that we call evolutionary plants, which are 25 active safety system plants, and is moving in its follow-up l
I l::.m.w.,.iw&mm.u;;;.waanwwwsaswmwwamwww
15 i
i phase for development of passive plants.
I'm pleased to say j
2 the EPRI and DOE programs are very closely tied together and 3
have a very. definite symbiosis.
4 We are seeing increasingly positive media coverage.
l l
5 You may have seen the omni article last month which was very 6
positive on nuclear power and the advanced light water reactor l
l 7
program.
We expect a major artic'.e to be coming out in Fortune 8
within the next several months which we think wi'll also be 9
positive on this subject.
There have been numerous newspaper 10 articles.
The media is becoming awakened to this.
I think you 11 can see from the presence of Ed Kintner and the other members 12 of our Utility Steering Committee that the utilities are in
~
13 support of the efforts that we have ongoing today.
14 The program expands beyond the shores of the United 15 States.
16 (Slide.)
17 MR. STAHLKOPP This slide shows the partners that wo 18 presently have in place.
Presently, we have as paying members 19 of the program, and that is paying through both hard currency 20 and staff, we hava staff in-house from all our partners, from 21 Korea Electric Power, Taiwan Power, Kansai Electric in Japan, r-22 ENEL in Italy, and KEMA in the Netherlands.
23 I au pleased to say that Taiwan Power has chosen to
()
24 use the Requirements Document as the basis of their bid 25 specification for their next two power plants.
YihydtwssNGS:sk5&hrd"15viks51h$hwiaJoh%ASVS'%!M5ANMONkNOb*%
l l
l 16 1
We are, presently in negotiation with Korea Electric
}
2 Power to prepare a modification to the Requirements Document to
)
3 do the same thing for them.
p 4
We are also in negotiations with CEGB in England and i
5 CRIEPI in Japsn and hope we will be able to conclude agreements 6
with them to bring them within the next several months into the l
7 fold of the program.
8 (Slide.)
j 9
MR. STAHLKOPF:
This speaks to the two concepts which 10 are being developed within the program.
The evolutionary ALWR, 1.
j 11 which you have heard Ed speak to, which we feel should have the 12 features of ruggedness, simplicity, reliability and certainly 13 increased margins in terms of lower core power densities, 14 greater primary and secondary water inventories, and you will I
15 hear more about that as Jack DeVine makes his presentation.
I 16 of course, this evolutionary ALWR is tied in with the 17 certification program, which you have heard both CE and GE j
18 speak to.
We in fact are tied in a joint Memorandum of 19 Understanding between EPRI, DOE and the reactor vendors, that 20 the Requirements Document will serve as the basis for the 21 submittals to the NRC for those certifications.
22 On the passive plant, we are looking at using passive
'~
')
23 systems, not only because we feel they might offer something in 24 terms of safety that the active systems don't, but also because 25 they hold the promise of significantly simplifying the plants.
h *
,.4 e
at a
/ /
+
t he 4
4 t
17 1
You will have an opportunity today to see in some more detail 2
what some of the early versions of that design look like.
L 3
(Slide.]
4 MR. STAHLXOPF This speaks to the Utility f
5 Requirements Document.
What we are doing with the Requirements 6
Document is establishing top tier, functional and component 7
design requirements for both the evolutionary plant and more 8
recently as the designs have become more nature, the passive 9
plants.
10 Mr. Chairman, speaking to your question, we are 11 looking at the entire total plant as an integrated system.
We 12 feel this is a necessary part of our program.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Fine.
I i
14 MR. STAHLKOPF We seek to incorporate the 15 resolutions of generic safety issues in this as well as a new 16 term which we have coined for this program called optimization 17 issues.
Optimization issues are issues where we take some y
18 question as to whether the current NRC regulations are perhaps h
19 not over conservative, particularly on the basis of the fact 20 that we are adding more conservatism in the designs of these
[
21 plants.
1
(
r' 22 We are looking at both meeting your issues and we are 23 raising some issues of our own.
()
24 We feel that since we have all elements of the 25 industry working within this Requirements Document, the e
T =.-
~
V*
I I
18 1
utilities, the NSSS vendors, the architect engineers, the 2
Nuclear Regulatory commission, that between all quadrants of 3
the industry, that this document refleuts the consensus of the 1
4 United States on what the principal safety, performance and 5
design requirements for the next generation of light vster 6
reactors should be.
7 We look at this document every bit as much as your l
8 document as our document, because we feel it needs to reflect l
9 the total U.S. position.
I would like to note at this juncture 10 that the working relationship between EPRI and NRc has been 11 very constructive on this program.
We would like to thank that 12 you and the staff, Les Rubenstein in particular, for the help lO 13 they have given us on this program.
This is not to say they l
14 haven't given us a hard time.
They are and they do.
It has 15 been very constructive so far.
I 16 (Slide.)
17 MR. STAHLKOPF:
The next slide shows the status of I
18 the Requirements Document.
For the evolutionary plant, we plan 19 a 13 chapter Requirements Document.
Of these, the Utility 20 Steering committee has approved and we have submitted to you 21 five chapters covering overall plant, power generation systems, e
22 reactor, reactor, fuel and auxiliaries is another chapter, 23 reactor coolant system is a fourth, and safety systems is the 24 fifth.
25 We have draft SERs in hand for the first four.
The EN-NNNM'.tNMEN'42f[dbbNhKNISM3kkd$0.byNskhhdypA3N$x~
s 19 1
remaining chapters, 6 through 13, are in preparation and if we O
2 are able to stay on the ambitious schedule we have set for 3
ourselves, we hope they will be completed this year.
4 Obviously, the passive plant lags behind.
We felt it 1
t 5
was necessary to get some maturity to the conceptual designs of 6
the passive plant before we could begin the Requirements j
e 1
7 Document phase.
Now, we feel that the designs are far enough 8
along that we can actually start looking at the requirements 9
which will be somewhat based on the foundations that we have 10 seen from the evolutionary plant, but obviously, some great 11 areas of difference, particularly in the safety systems.
12 We think it will take about two years to get through U
13 the development of those Requirements Documents.
14 (Slide.)
15 MR. STAHLKOPF:
The next slide talks about what is 16 ahead in the future.
clearly, the next year will be the 17 completion for the evolutionary plant of chapters 6 through 13,
}
l 18 a continuation of the type of interaction that we have had with 19 the staff in resolution of safety issues and finally proceeding 20 into what we call a roll-up phase.
That is since we have 21 submitted the Requirements Documents in a sequential manner, 22 obviously, some things in chapter one may not reflect decisions 23 which were made in chapter 13.
We feel it is neceosary to take 24 the document as a whole once it has been through your review 25 and roll that up into an integrated piece that shows internal t
N s
' 7;.'
20 O,
1 self consistency and reflects in fact the resolutionjof issues 2
which clearly we didn't know tihe resolution of when we' started 3
in with the program.
4 For the passive plant, we will look at the5 continuing
^
i 5
development of the requiramente and the desiga concepts and it 6
is our hope that we will continue an early and frequent 7
interaction with you to establish the regulatory foundation for
-, 3 8
the passive safety concepts.
Clearly, the use of pan i;ive j
9 safety concepts will require some regulatory changes from what 10 we anticipate we will see for the active plants.
11 With that, I would like to turn it over to my I
12 colleague, Jack DeVine, who is the Senior Program Manager for O
'd,/
13 this effort, who will be talking about some of the ALWR safety 14 aspects and give you a closer look at the passive plant.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
You may proceed.
16 (Slide.)
l 17 MR. DeVINE:
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
18 In trying to use our limited time effectively this 19 afternoon, we chose two topics which we thought would be of 20 particular interest to the Commission.
I will touch upon those 21 fairly briefly.
As you wish, certainly we can explore them in 6
1 22 more detail.
?
23 The first of those is ALWR safety requirements.
In i
24 recent months, a topic of great interest and attention within L
25 the Commission and in our effort as well, just last week, for I
& Am*4Mw4h:+A-M@wMWWWixW.EnO/>4M+Whh*MMWNa
l t
21 1
example, we provided information at the NRC research meeting on l
2 severe accident treatment and advised the attendees at that l
3 meeting of our treatment of severe accidents in the ALWR i
('
f 4
Requirements Document.
Before that, John Taylor and Karl 5
Stahlkopf met with Vic Stallo and Tom Murley and others on the 6
staff on general issues related to the ALWR program.
I 7
understand severe accident treatment was the topic of most 8
interest at that meeting as well.
l 9
Let me try to brief you on the approach we have taken i
10 in the ALWR Requirements Document.
11 A point I would like to make initially there is I
12 simply that we have been struggling with this for a long time l
13 and in fact the position which I will describe has been j
14 articulated in our chapter five of the Requirements Document.
15 It is the chapter which addresses engined safety systems.
It i
16 has been in the hands of the staff for several months now.
We 17 are in the process of comment resolution.
We would hope within j
18 the next few months it will lead to the development of a draft 19 SER for that topic.
We are at the point of groping with the 20 issues with the staff and hopefully reaching closure sometime 21
- soon, k
3 22 The document addresses both policy and principles and 23 then specific numerical and technical requirements.
The
()
24 policies and principles basically define our approach to l
25 safety.
We thought it was very important in the document to l
i A
22 1
not simply list a bunch of rules for the designers to follow l
j 2
but an underlying logic for that approach.
3 The top tier requirementa and these really are stated 4
in chapter one of the Requirements Document, which has already 5
been endorsed by a draft SER from the commission staff, include 6
two numerical ones of significant importance, core damage 7
frequency less than ten to the minus five events per reactor 8
year and a personnel protection criterion of less than 25R dose 9
at site boundary, that is half a mile, for any event or for the j
10 aggregate events with probabilities greater than ten to the 11 minus six events per year.
12 These are certainly building on the severe accident 13 policy statement.
These are more strict requirements than we 14 understand you are currently envisioning.,
our philosophy in 15 fact is across the board to establish rules in the Requirements
{
16 Document for the designers which in fact leaves some margin to
}
l4 17 the regulation.
That is an important part of the philosophy.
i 18 (Slide.)
)
19 MR. DeVINE:
In a nutshell, the principles laid out 20 in the Requirements Document involve achievement of safety in a 21 very straightforward way.
First of all, and certainly as a g
1 r
22 manifestation of the philosophy that Ed Kintner described a few lj 23 minutes ago, we emphasize greatly reliance on fundamentals, of 24 the design of the ALWR from its overall requirements down to 25 specific system and functional and component requirements, i
l WL fWYf$b%Y ff! YbNfl5N f*f $.'?f,A Wf5Ah Dhk
23 1
emphasize simplicity, straightforward operations,. systems which 2
the operatars can understand, which will not give ambiguous L
3 indications which he can deal with in upset conditions as well.
4 as normal operations, that sort of thin'g.
f 5
Ruggedness is :.nother aspect of simplicity in general 6
terms.
In every occasion where we are faced with building a l
7 system or specifying a system which could be analyzed in a very 8
complex way to serve its function versus one which can be shown j
to be clearly on the rugged side, on the overdesigned side, if 9
10 I can use that term, is the direction we have been taking.
11 Secondly, defense in-depth, and I mean that in 12 several respects.
Certainly, the traditional approach of 13 multiple barriers to fission products which is codified in the 14 regulations but also defense in-depth in the sense I will 15 describe in a minute, which is a progressive reliance on solid 16 design principles, extensive steps to prevent accidents and 17 then finally citigation of accidents.
l 18 Thirdly, a balance between prevention and mitigation.
i
)
19 Again, Ed Kintner touched on that in his opening remarks.
The J
E 20 guidance we have gotten loud and clear from our Steering l
21 Committee is they don't want a severe accident to happer.,
e 22 rather than designing -- for us to design a plant which 23 performs excellently e ce one does take place.
24 Reasonable consideration of severe accident events 25 outside the licensing design basis.
This is a somewhat touchy 6
i
/ ;,
I 8
I
l i
l 24 l
1 is sue.-
Certainly it is clear that there is concern on the part
}
2 of plant designers and plant owners that the more attention 3
that is paid to severe accidents, the mora very restrictive, 4
very extreme and very expensive requirements will end up being 5
built into the plants, i
6 our approach is to provide a measured, focused 1
i 7
attentio'n on severe accident scenarios, but to do that in a I
8 balanced way, not to provide the level of redundancy and 9
conservatism which one might apply and which the rules require 10 to be applied to events which are much closer to reality and 11 deserve much higher attention.
j 12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Could you talk a little more about II i
13.
mitigation and prevention?
I'm curious to know, did you 14 discuss criteria or did you have any kind of discussion on i
15 specifics, just how far you might go to make that balance?
g 16 MR. DeVINE:
Yes, sir.
First of all,, the core i
17 damage frequency requirement which was noted on the earlier 18 slida, ten to the minus five, we believe is significantly more 19 severe than most operating plants. That is not rooted in the 20 regulations anywhere.
That is imposed by the utilities via the 21 Utility Requir'ements Document.
It provides a large measure of i
,t 22 the protection which we would hope to achieve for the overall 1
23 plant.
()
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Your goal for prevention, moving it 25 out to ten to the minus five, not to elaborate too much, are 2
a A
l 25 I
i 1
you going to tell us the specific things you had in mind to try 2
to approach that goal?
3 MR. DeVINE:
Yes.
As I go through, I will be giving
~
t 4
you examples.
5 CH IRMAN ZECH:
Fine.
I would appreciate it.
6 MR. DeVINE:
I will try to think of examples.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
8 (Glide.)
)
j 9
HR. DeVINE:
The next two pages are a bit tedious h
10 perhaps but they are useful in particular, I think, because 11 they are extracted from our Requirements Document, chapter 12 five, in explanation of the philosophy which I described a 13 minute ago.
I f
14 First, in the subject of defense in-depth, again, 15 manifesting the philosophy that Ed Kintner outlined, first of 16 all, specification of designs which we feel are highly accident 17 resistant, and that means accident resistant to a greater l
18 extent than one would achieve simply by complying with the 19 regulations.
20 Design margins, and this fits into your question as 21 well.
A 15 percent thermal margin built into our chapter four.
t 22 We have just recently received a draft SER just last week from 23 the staff on that chapter.
24 Frankly, we got some argument from the vendors on 25 that point because they made it clear that did not appear to be W W o W %%%lN & 51% %i4 W 4:NhhK4adw,:46nnspw-Aism& w dc,vs44eappess gQ;G Q.mypu,
26 1
optimum from an economic standpoint.
Our feeling was from an S
2 investor protection standpoint and from a philosophical l
3 standpoint in the lines we have already described., that margin g
4 was well worth the incremental cost.
The 600 degree T-H Ed 5
described as well.
6 There is a requirement, for example, not rooted in 7
the regulation for no core damage for a six inch loss of 8
coolant accident with the target of a 12 inch effective break 9
size for loss of coolant accident.
All of these were designed 10 to provide the owner confidence that he could build a plant 11 which would have a very low likelihood of an event which could 12 cause major and expensive damage or certainly which could lead 13 progressively to a severe accident.
14 Simplicity, we have mentioned.
Best matarials.
15 Across the board in the Requirements Document we specify l
16 Cadillac materials.
In some cases, again, we have had some f
17 disagrennent from some quarters that will drive the cost up and l
18 it will cause us to be unable to meet our cost targets but our 19 thinking was first and foremost, we have to find a way to build j
a plant which is resistant to accidents, then beyond that and 20 l
21 mainly by improving constructability, we are going to have to l
l 22 nake that plant affordable.
I 23 Extended operator response times.
We have specified 24 targets.
We are just developing the man-machine interface 25 systems now, but across the board and I also think it fits into r mA a
6
. =,
y ai,
- s-27
- k{.1 1
the context of.your question.
We have established requirements O.
l 2
that give the operator more time to diagnose what is going on i
3 and an easier job in diagnosing what is going on, by virtue of simplersystemaYandbetterinstrumentation.
4 T.
' 5
~
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Quality products?
i.
~
6 MR. DeVINE:
Absolutely, without hesitation.
1 7
MR. KINTNER:
Not just the manufacture, quality in
.37 8
original design-and engineering.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I can't find the slide that you 10 showed me earlier that talks about some of the conservatism you 11 have built into the plant.
12 MR. DeVINE:
That was a good list, in Ed's 13 presentation.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You mentioned the T-H, limiting T-H.
15 Also the second one I was looking for, to increase reactor heat 16 transfer margins.
That is important.
It shows conservatism, I 17 think.
Leng'hening transient time constants by increasing 18 water inventories and pressurizer sizes.
19 You have discussed all these with suppliers and with 20 utility people?
21 MR. DeVINE:
Yes, sir.
L 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
What did they have to say about that?
23 MR. DeVINE:
Actually, I have to say that as we have 24 gone through the process, I think we have gained some 25 enthusiasm and support fro;9 the vendors.
I think initia'.ly Y
/
5
t 28 1
they were so.awhat skeptical.
I remember one of the vendor 0
I 2
program managers advising they tried to put lots of margin in 3
fuel and the net result was nobody bought their fuel because it 4
was more expensive than the other guy's.
i 5
Our feeling is if it is codified in the requirements l
i 6
and in fact if it truly represents a consensus of the industry 7
and the utility industry is willing to buy products to that 8
Requirements Document, that permits the vendors to supply that I
9 quality product and not lose their competitive edge.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes.
11 MR. KTdTNER:
That goes to another point which I
12 underlies this, which is a belief or maybe not a belief as much lh gm 13 as a sense that the economics of nuclear power were not 14 understood when the present plants were designed.
Reliability, 15 safe operation, capacity factors, ease of operation, low 16 maintenance costs, operating maintenance costs, all those 17 factors were not included in the equation when people took more 18 and more power out of a liter, higher temperatures, increased i
19 the pressures and so forth.
20 The fact is that fuel is a small part, a much smaller 21 part of the cost of operating a reactor as compared to a fossil i
22 plant and the fossil economics and fossil approaches were
^
4 23 carried over.
What we are trying to do is say if you can get 24 another one, two or five percent capacity factor or save a year 25 in initial construction or reduce the number of valves and
.m.
._m-m_m -e.
-~..
i l
l 29 1
pumps you heve to maintain, by giving up five degrees or ten OY-2 degrees or 15 degrees on T-H or 15 percent on the thermal 3
margins in the reactor, you have gained overall in the I
economics.
That is what we are trying to achieve.
We do not
}
5 agree that making a reactor vessel out of material which does l
6 require a special system to relieve pressure, if you pressurize l
7 it at a low temperature, is more expensive than building one s
f 8
out of material that doesn't require that.
h j
9 This is by no means proven.
A lot of people don't f
l 10 agree with it yet.
I believe that there is a sense and an understanding and agreement on the part of the Utility Steering 11 12 Committee because I'm fairly sure they are very much a part of b) 13 the conclusion that this is the way we ought to go.
They can I
14 speak for themselves.
I l
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I believe it very strongly.
I don't
{
16 knou if you have oeen reading my speeches recently or not.
i 17 MR. KINTNER:
Most of them.
Memorizing them.
18 (Laughter.)
3 i
l 19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I'm glad.
I have been saying for a l
l 20 long time and I keep wondering if people understand it, but you i
l 21 have given a very clear background description of what I am r~
22 trying to say and I am trying to say it clearly and concteoly 23 and succinctly so perhaps people understand.
You have filled
()
24 in a lot of the background.
25 A safe plant is a reliable plant is an economic t
l~;n m s 2:4 mmuso m w w w w.sca ucuw w www.w m wwww w w w.ww +m
t.
30 1
plant.
2 MR. KINTNER:
Exactly.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
That is what it is all about.
4 MR. KINTNER:
Safest plants at 100 percent power 5
steady state for two years.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
If you want it economical, and most 7
utilities do, you better make it reliable and safe.
You cannot 8
separate thek.
9 MR. KINTNER:
Absolutely.
I l
10 CRAIRMAN ZECH:
What you are saying I think here is 1
11 certainly what I believe and also it costs money.
You have to 12 buy quality, like Mr. Devine is telling us and you have to put g
13 it in there.
You have to make it conservative.
That costs
.i 14 mon'ey, too.
I submit, if you build it conservatively, with j
15 quality material and quality workmanship, your chances of 16 getting a safe plant and a reliable plant and an economic plant 17 are an awful lot better than if you don't put those factors u
18 altogether.
19 MR. KINTNER:
Absolutely.
That is exactly what we 20 are trying to say is a principle in this program.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It sounds like it.
It is 22 encouraging.
Proceed, please.
23 MR. DeVINE:
Working down the chart on our defense
()
24 in-depth approach, beyond all of those items which frankly we 25 think deserve highest attention and has been receiving it, are b
e 8
4 L ' *
- 4 31 1
two layers of accident consideration systems.
First, those for O
2 core damage prevention in the traditional way.
These are the 3
engineering and safety features, the safety injection systems g
4 and the spray systems and those systems.
/
5 In that respect, in the case of those systems, again, 6
we have tried to walk the extra mile and provide systems which
[
7 really are responsive to the learning experience of the last 30 1
}
8 years, and which will be easier to operate, generally more 9
dedicated systems than we have seen before, systems which 10 provide better capability in areas that have proven to be hard 11 spots in the existing PRAs which have been done and also 12 demonstrated by incidents at various plants.
13 As an example, the feed system requirements in the 14 PWR are substantially more restrictive than I think in any 15 plant in the field right now, basically a feed system with two y
16 motor driven, two steam driven pumps, dedicated to loops; much 17 less complicated in terms of cross ties.
No sharing of its job
?
18 with the start-up system.
It is a straightforward system for 19 emergency protection.
We think that is an improvement.
f 20 The final layer, mitigation systems, systems to i
21 contain fission products released as a result of core damage j
22 accidents.
We haven't scrimped on those but we consider those i
j 23 systems which are much less likely to come into play and in 24 evaluating severe accidents, we are really looking at the 25 aggregate of these three layers, not just the mitigation
)
NQ*15$$-lt&*>iRVSCMA'5kb&@%A&O349XiY$k55S5&'&h5 VOS5h.4.Sh&$&W5&5
32 1
systems.
2 (slide.)
3 MR. DeVINE:
I.will touch on this only briefly.
It j
l l
4 introduces a concept we think is intriguing.
It is in front of 5
the staff right now.
Basically, it attacks the concern that 6
perhaps the illogical approach which has been followed in the
(
7 past in a sense that one provides a tremendous amount of 8
attention to a rigidly defined list of threats, protecting l
9 against those with redundancy and a great deal of conservatism, 10 and then does not look beyond that envelope at all because 11 those things are considered impr'obable to the point of i
12 impossibility.
13 We are providing more of a graded approach in which 14 we address licensing br-events, using conservative NRC i
15 methods.
Going to the righthand side of the page, we have 16 added a category of design bases called performance evaluatien i
r 17 basis, and these include a strict set of performance events, of
(
18 investment protection events.
I mentioned the LOCA criterion l
19 which is more restrictive than the rules require.
20 In these areas, we are giving the designer more 21 flexibility in developing the methods and the margins which r
22 ought to apply.
23 Finally, a risk evaluation basis which really permits 24 a PRA system to be used to evaluate full spectrum of core L
25 damage events using PRA methods.
We had a lengthy discussion l
_, m,_n.n._ ann _-n
33 1
last week with the regulation folks about whether or not a PRA O
2 limit ought to be written into the rules, our feeling was it 3
is a very complicated device, certainly the precision is not
,,s 4
what everybody would understand, but it is a useful tool to P-5 design the plant and to evaluate the performance of the plant 6
and we would propose to use it in that way but not be saddled l
7 with a very rigid regulation basis for it.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
In all of your review of this i
}
9 advanced light water reactor design, from the utilities' l
l 10 standpoitet, I would expect there has been a reasonably good l
11 input from the operators themselves, the SRos and others.
12 Have you had supervisors and SROs and people like
, ((?D'
/
13 that look at the design at this early stage?
What kind of 14 input have the operators had?
j 15 MR. DeVINE:
So far, that input has been limited to 16 the structure of Steering Committee reviews that Ed described.
I 17 We certainly are getting extensive input from some of the 18 utilities and it is quite clear that they have distributed our 19 draft sections among their departments.
I would expect that I
j 20 some of those comments are actually filtering up from an SRO l
l 21 level.
r' 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I would strongly recommend that you 23 make sure you get that input.
()
24 MR. DeVINE:
We do have the intent as we develop the 25 man-machine interface systems, which includes the control room m,n..nn..m-~~w.~.-w.ncanwn s ~wv=~w
U 34 i
1 requirements and instrumentation requirements, to involve
' people with hands-on instrumentation and controls experience in 2
3 that aspect of the Requirements Document.
r 4
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Human factors part of it; all that.
5 MR. STAHLKOPF:
And INPO.
6 MR. DeVINE:
In fact, they are providing extensive
{
7 input now.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I just want to emphasize that I think 9
it is important that whatever stage fou see fit, but it has 10 been my experience, the earlier the better, to get the 11 operators involved.
It maken them feel an ownership to the 12 thing, let them make comments and recommendations and treat 13 them seriously.
The earlier the better in my judgment.
14 Proceed.
l 15
[ Slide.)
16 MR. DeVINE:
This slide summarizes what I think I 17 have already said.
In a chronological sense, it describes how 18 we are treating accidents across the board and ultimately how 19 we are treating severe accidents.
We think it is a reasonable l
20 approach.
21 Designing for licensing design bases events, which by l
r 22 itself imparts substantial margins to the design, we are adding 23 of our own volition additional margin and features, first to
()
24 provide further prevention of core damage.
We are then 25 conducting evaluations of dominant severe accident scenarios on
&& lh M Y A
o
_t
-
- f h
4
.f% :
'W b
f h O} s y
35 1
a realistic basis.
We are using a PRA methodology to do that.
2 We are accounting for the whole rack up of systems and 3
components requirements established, including some common 4
sense requirements which we provided to permit sensible coping l
l 5
with severe accidents, such as requirements on the k
6 configuration of the cavity below the reactor vessel and that 7
sort of thing.
8 As a whole, we think this sequence provides a 9
measured attention to severe accidents and will provide much 10 better confidence than we have had before that severe accidents 11 can be dealt with.
12 (Slide.)
13 MR. DeVINE:
The other topic I would like to discuss 14 and I will try to do it quickly because I have used up more 15 time than I was allocated in the first part, is the passive 16 plant concepts.
17 In summary, both Karl and Ed spoke to this, the 18 passive plant is one which will use primarily passive means for 19 accident prevention and mitigation.
The target is to keep the 20 core protected without operator action for three days.
That is 21 a major step in the right direction in terms of reactor safety, i
12 It would be greatly simplified compared to existing 23 plants; could be a PWR or BWR.
We have chosen a reference size 24 of 600 megawatts because the early examination work suggests 25 that plants may be impractical to build beyond that size range, e
k+
7 4
n.
36
)
1 although there doesn't seem to be a hard stop that we are up O
2 against.
The Japanese right now are looking at 900 megawatts 3
for possible application of passive safety.
-s 4
It could be constructed in three years with extensive 5
modularization and prefabrication.
That is really an economics 6
target but it turns out that it fits rather nicely with the 7
rest of the package.
8 We are looking hard for ways to make this very 9
attractive smaller passive plant, economically competitive with 10 the bigger plants which would appear to have an economy cf 11 scale benefit.
12 The link there would bo to build them in a short I
13 period of time, with a short predictable construction schedule, 14 made possible by modularization, that three years really looks 15 achievable and that would be a tremendous incentive for 16 utilities to 9roceed with that system.
17 COLMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Don't misconstrue this as 18 being critical in any way of what you are doing.
Are these 19 things that you ticked off on this slide, are these anything 20 more than concepts at this moment?
21 MR. DeVINE:
Yes, they are.
I will be showing you a r-22 real quick slide show in a few minutes that will give you an 23 idea of how they are developing.
They are moving energetically
(}
24 and in very specific directions.
25 (Slide.)
4 9
Y p.
4
37 1
MR. DeVINE:
Benefits of the passive plant.
It lO provides a basis for renewed public,' government and in'vestor 2
3 confidence across the board.
That is important.
People's f_.
4 confidence has been shaken, certainly in the investor community 5
and the public community in existing designs.
I 6
Pundamental advances in safety, simplicity and 7
constructability.
The simplicity is astounding, at least at 8
the preliminary engineering stage.
I will be showing some 9
slides of the Westinghouse PWR AP-600.
They have sponsored 10 some ccuparisons with an existing Westinghouse 600 megawatt two n
11 loop plant and showed reductions by about a factor of two in 12 numbers of valves and components and in some respects, even
(
13 greater reductions.
14 I wouldn't take that to the bank yet but it certainly 15 in looking like a major advantage.
16 Lower rating looks particularly attractive in the 17 U.S.
in terms of matching utilities' demand to supply.
It I
18 permits a smaller capital investment, fewer eggs in one basket.
I 19 Historically, smaller, simplar plants have had very high 20 capacity factors.
Just yesterday, Bob Lowton of GE mentioned 21 to me, and this is a rather extreme example, but the natural 22 circulation BWR, and I believe it is a 60 megawatt plant, has 23 been operating over a 90 percent capacity factor for something 24 like the last ten years.
25 That design is a base model for the SBWR 600 megawatt 8
4'5 WAib
t
+
.y M' 38 m
e1 plantandinfact,someKEMAdesignersareworking,,at[GE'sshop
'2 right now to help them develop the core design for th CBWR.
3 s
MR. KINTNER:
No pumps, no circ pumps.
It is all natural circulation, full power.
p
~
4 7.
5 (Slide.)
[
6 MR. DeVINE:
The way we have approached the problem, 7
this was a conceptual idea.
Commissioner Roberts, picking up
..,3
~
8 on your comment, a few years ago, it really was sort of a hazy 9
concept and in fact maybe a curiosity in our program, there was I
10 some serious consideration of not proceeding beyond an early 11 study phase when we first began this program.
Because of the 12 interest and enthusiasm and technical success that has been k:}:
A 13 generated, it has now become a main feature of the program.
j Thn Department of Energy has been sponsoring an 14 f
{
15 extensive program which is very compatible with our more 16 analytical one.
It is particularly strong in the area of 17 system and component design verification and testing.
I have a j
few photographs of some testing going on.
Basically they are 18 19 testing hardware in key areas of this plant.
20 There is the Westinghouse AP-600, that has canned 21 rotor pumps.
They require for loss of flow accidents either
(
22 mechanical or electrical inertial.
There has been a test 23 program to evaluate use of a' hearing design which applies high h
24 inertial to tiiat system.
That is an important testing step.
25 GE has been testing gravity during cooling.
They have been 1
j7gaiufftca1D'AA%%%M6Mi@MMi4'm89W7M@d5kynYtNN/I5M"D$NNI63W8MMO
39 1
testing the steam injector, which is an important safety 0
c
(
2-feature in that system.
These are hardware tests going on 3
today and many to be finished this year.
4 Expanded emphasis in our phase two effort based on 5
the success in phase one, evaluating technical issues.
We 6
agreed to develop a Requirements Documents.
Karl described
{
7 that.
I would point out that was not initially in our scope 1'
8 and it is only because of the excitement generated by this 9
thing and the promise it holds that we have decided to put that 10 sdditional resource on a Requirements Document.
11 Two design teams working right now, GE/Bechtel/MIT on 12 the BWR version and Westinghouse with Burns & Roe and Avondale 13 on the PRW version.
We have also involved combustion 1
14 Engineering in some analytical work in support of the PRW area.
1 15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I am going to show my 4
I 16 ignorance.
Who is Avondale?
17 MR. DeVINE:
Avondale is a shipyard in New Orleans.
18 They are the guys who are designing or developing the 19 constructability aspects and nodularization.
I have some s
20 photographs that will show a piece of that.
It is really an
[
21 intriguing aspect, r
22 I should point out by the way that there is nothing W
23 magical here that limits modularization to passive plants.
In 24 fact, the attractiveness of this feature suggests we probably 25 ought to be looking harder at that for the evolutionary plants kmRwr~WfhMykNWWwhW%%w?Wc : dii.5 NW I r.&.nM:% W#W Xh*:MhM~15L'MnM4WM WM~.
. _. ~..-..
40 1
as well.
2 (Slide.)
3 MR. DeVINE:
Some requiatory issues not covered 4
specifically.
The point of this slide is simply that by I
5 definition, some portions of the existing body of regulations 6
won't apply.
For example, it is our belief that if we can 7
demonstrate there is no need for operator action and no need 8
for AC systems to operate in a period of like three days, we no 9
longer have to have a safety grade electrical power supply.
10 Diesel generators, short start time, all those kinds of things.
11 Those regulations would not apply.
12 certainly, there may be some other areas in I
13 regulatory areas covering gravity driven cooling systems which 14 don't exist right now.
There is a need for a new body of I
15 information, at least a substantially amended body of regulatory requirements to cover this design.
16 17 3
Status of the passive plant right now, as I-i l
18 mentioned, it really has emerged as a major element in the ALWR I
19 program.
We think it may well be the concept which best 20 fulfills the vision that Ed outlined.
i 21 Vendors, with DOE and EPRI support, are making real i
l
('
22 progress in developing both the PWR and BWR versions of the 23 passive plant.
24 (Slide.)
25 MR. DeVINE:
This slide show will be very brief.
gw <-r wm.wmevmottheHH.msI,EA ~=cmW&rJv&,-- ~ --a-c,-..MdWNP.**tf*+MP W
, ~. -. - -
--._,-~~_-.,..__n~_-_
-n----.
41 1
Frankly, the intent was to give you an impression that a lot of O
2 things are happening rather than a tutorial on the design.
l 3
There are a lot of things that we simply: won't have time to
}
4 cover.
Let me just give you a quick walk through.
5 This is showing the BWR side first.
Features on the 6
BWR, to implement those general features which I described.
It 7
is a fully natural circulation reactor.
No pumps at all, both 8
in normal and operating mode.
Gravity driven cooling system, l
9 depressurization system, somewhat different than the current 10 BWR depressurization system that basically permits the plant to a
a 11 get down close to ambient pressure real quick, so that the 12 gravity driven systems can work.
A steam injector system which (I
13 provides a passive means of dealing with small break LOCA or 14 generally loss of condenser, loss of feed type events.
A 15 substantially modified containment.
The main feature of which l
16 is a passive cooling system.
It requires no safety grade
)
17 active systems.
18 (Slide.)
}
19 MR. DeVINE:
I know this is hard to see.
I would 20 suggest perhaps if you would be interested at another meeting, 21 we can get a much more detailed presentation or send you 22 information.
Just to cover some high spots right now, reactor 23 vessel in the middle.
(}
24 MR. LOWTON:
It is about 251 inches which is the i
25 largest size in our current product line.
O n'
a w
T hE A9R
42 1
O
- CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Would you zdentify yourself, please?
2 MR. LOWTON:
My name is R. B. Lowton with General 3
Electric.
It is equivalent to the largest sized vessel in our 4
current product line.
l' 5
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
Let's make sure 6
the Reporter picked that up.
It is easier if you come up to j
7 the microphone.
The Reporter indicated she got most of it.
1 8
think that's probably satisfactory.
Let's proceed.
9_
251 inches is the answer.
J 10 MR. DeVINE:
This is a low power density core and 11 because of its natural circulation, obviously requires a very 12 large vessel.
As you can see, no recirculation loops, no pumps
()
13 on the bottom.
There is an elevated suppression pool with an 14 isolation condenser.
The isolation condenser permits natural 15 circulation, decay heat removal.
There is a depressurization 16 system, series of valves coming off the yellow main steam line.
17 There is a steam injector system which is this non-18 visible red dot which provides motor force for feed without L
19 electricity.
Finally, there is a water wall concept which 20 provides overall passive cooling of the containment building or i
/
21 the containment structure, I should say, in the case of BWR.
1
~
22 This is shown schematically as a water filled wall, an annular 23 one around the outside diameter of the elevated suppression
(}
24 pool although it is one of the test areas that GE is looking 25 at, at a number of different concepts including submersible s' N P.9 E mT'
. em - w ea h Y C-N h h.
A
4 43 1
cooling bundles which could be removed and maintained.
O 2
The key obviously to this whole thing is to lui able 3
to get the heat that the passive cooling systems deliver to the 4
suppression pool out of the containment without creating a 5
pressure situation.
l 6
(Slide.)
7 MR. DeVINE:
Very quickly, just as an example, the j
8 steam injector system is fundamentally a simple injector system 9
but it requires adaptation of that simple concept to 10 substantially higher pressures and flow ~ rates than have been 11 demonstrated so far.
We believe it is a simple safety device.
12 (Slide.)
13 MR. DeVINE:
This is an ongoing test program.
This 14 is shown schematically, simply it takes cold water supply, uses 15 the steam from the primary system, the reactor system, to give 16 it enough boost to get back in as a feed.
It can take water 17 from the condenser, from the storage tank or from the fuel 18 pool, all without AC power.
19 (Slide.)
20 MR. DeVINE:
The Department of Energy has been 21 sponsoring a test program involving a series of tests, small i
22 scale tests and large scale tests, to test the system.
The 23 first part of the test program which is going on now and GE is
(}
24 testing, too, commercially available small scale steam 25 injectors, really to get a better handle on the principles ismecmpuu ws=a6mcwwim. rwnmwy:c.4%y+NW~%wgwptunieke
44 1
involved, the variables, the effect of injection temperature, O
2 how the, system works as steam pressure decays and thati sort of f
3 thing.
f 4
[ Slide.)
l 5
MR. DeVINE:
This is just a photograph of the 6
injection system test going on at San Jose.
There is a follow 1
l 7
up test in the preparation stage right now.
l 8
(Slide.)
9 MR. DeVINE:
Of a full scale prototype injector 10 system at the ETEC facility at Rockwell's facilities outside of S
l 11 Los Angeles.
This will ultimately be a large scale test.
i 4
12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Are these all DOE funded 13 projects?
14 MR. DeVINE:
These are DOE funded projects; yes.
I 15 DOE's part of the program as we have worked out to be as i
16 compatible as possible involves primarily in the passive plant 17 area, equipment verification and testing.
Our work has been 18 overall requirements setting, analysis and that sort of thing.
19 They are both moving ahead.
20 GE is also working with the Japanese to develop 21 systems.
Other work going on includes development of the core r
22 design.
I understand that is going quite well.
They have 23 settled at least preliminarily on a basic configuration of the 24 core.
A gravity driven cooling system is going on, the 25 containment cooling system is a key area of importance, i+ ww.n.~ur.
- waja
- < ;.4.n.acx:x.m:1 r.yi+a.nwgyy&,On&34 e2.%)rn:n.:navsm&ie
a n.n 3
45 c.
up 1.
(Slide..)b j
e,
,.y 1
2 MR. DeVINE:
I have a few pictures here also of the y
i 3
AP 600.
Next slide, please.
?
C,,
., e 4,
(Slide.]n 1
3
'5 !
~
MR. DeVINE:
I neglected to b' ring a diagram of the I
6 RCS which would have been interesting and I apologize for that, 7 --
but I'll describe'it.
}
... 7 l
8 It's a simplified reaccor coolant loop with canned 9
motor pumps.
Basically two steam generators, standard 10 Westinghouse Model'F generators, two canned rotor pumps 11 inverted and attached to the lower head of each generator.
So 12 it's got four pumps.
0 5 13 There is not a separate cold leg loop and, as I say, p
14 the pumps do actually take suction on the lower head, which 15 really cleans up the RCS and makes it much simpler.
16 The reactor coolant system supports are much cleaner.
17 It's basically a very neat system.
Some questions about 18 maintainability and access to the lower head for reactor I
19 coolant pump maintenance, but on balance it sure looks like an 20 attractive tradeoff right now.
B l
21 Lower power density core.
Passive safety systems 1
22 throughout, again, for removal of heat from the primary system 23 and the removal of heat from the containment.
24 Simplified systems throughout the plant.
It was the 25 Westinghouse work which came up with the preliminary body count a
[a
['
3
[ Ah.M 7 Y*.
e 4
- n...
.n
..-...n---__--=___.
4 46 i
1 on the valves and pumps and that sort of thing, which looks (E) 2 very attractive.
l 3
And this part of the program has really examined the l'
4 modular construction work extensively.
Next slide, please.
5 (Slide.)
i 6
MR. DeVINE:
Diagrammatically, the two slides simply 7
show the main features of the passive safeguards, and they 8
involve an accumulator, two high pressure accumulators, two 9
core drain tanks, and an in-containment refueling water storage 10 tank.
11 All three of these are passive sources of water.
The 12 core flood tank basically rises and consist of pressure.
The f ()
13 accumulators are charged for dealing with higher pressure 14 requirements and larger breaks.
j 15 And the in-containment refueling water storage tank 16 is a large volume of water which acts as a heat sink for a 17 natural circulation RHR system, shown in this little white blob 18 there, and also as an ultimate water supply to keep the core 19 covered for an uncontrollable event.
Next slide, please.
20 (Slide.)
l 21 MR. DeVINE:
This slide simply shows the ultimate 22 extent of a loss of coolant event in which all V.6 vater was s
23 used and no external source is available.
{}
As you can see, the geometries are set such that 24 25 water will remain above the core, even in that case.
The 1w e sem,=gwamew*m7+e*Wm'M-+We wmW
~
i 47 1
containment, in turn, has passive capability to reject heat by 2
means of basically a chimney effect.
3 Water is drained from a tank on top of the 4
containment vessel, around the steel containment, and the 5
shield building acts as a chimney and draws cool air around it 6
to reject heat.
7 This has been demonstrated by analysis at 600 8
megawatts and, as I said, in looking at the same principle for 9
900 megawatts.
Next slide, please.
8 10 (Slide.)
L l
11 MR. DeVINE:
We're just going to walk through these -
12
- no.
Go on to the next one.
I know you can't see that.
13 (Slide.)
i 14 MR. DeVINE:
Just in answer to your question about j
15 how much has been done, there was a very extensive body of work l
16 done to develop this modular concept using shipyard techniques, 17 and really carry it to the point of specific layout and sizing i
18 of modules, identification of how those modules would be
}
19 constructed, establishing size requirements so it will be real l
20 shippable, so size and weight requirements, systems and 21 concepts to deal with structural modules which have to handle 22 shielding with piping and equipment modules for cable carrying
^
23 modules that cables actually would be strung in the plant, but 24 cable trays and condoms would be pre-fabbed and those kinds of 25 things.
l m a g w w 3. m m v 9 g s s w : w o ;# p w.t w w. % w. m a y s w i m a w m m y y,,,. y. s.
c
y--
- 7. % -.
t 48 1
(Series of slides.)
0 2
MR. DeVINE:
I've pulled out a set of slides that I
3 simply show the detail that's been developed in a model form to 4
show how this works.
So Paul, at this point could you just 5
work through those slides at a few second intervals.
6 You'll see the plant building up in a modular way.
7 Each of these layers coming up on the Aux building.
That's the 8
fuel handling building on the left and the Aux building on the 9
right.
I i
10 Access building toward the front with the diesels in 11 it.
Each of those areas has been developed with -- hold it 12 right there, please.
Sorry.
Moved too fast.
Followed 13 instructions.
Don't worry about going back.
I 14 Basically that last slide showed the configuration of 3
15 the containment building and then the steel containment.
And 16 this slide shows the concrete shield building and chimney 17 around it.
l 18 Obviously, this is plastic, not steel, and it's small 19 scale, but we were impressed by the depth of detail in not just 20 plastic models, but detailed schedules, very clear lists of 21 materials and sizes and shapes for a number of those modules.
{
C 22 This is preceding way beyond the conceptual stage.
23 I've taken much too much time, I apologize, but let me ask John 24 Taylor to finish.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
John, welcome.
I
49 1
You may proceed.
O 2
MR. TAYLOR:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In summary, 3
we're defining a future advanced light water reactor with the I
f 4
tremendous infusion of experience from the couple of decades of 5
extensive operation of the present plants.
6 And with some infusion also of creativity and 7
innovation to gain substantial further improvement.
We've 1
8 increased the margins for safety and reliability, t
9 We've put tremendous emphasia and will continue on 10 human factors, both in making the equipment and the subsystems I
11 more forgiving, and increasing the passive safety features so 12 that reactors aren't expected to operate very rapidly in the 13 event of an abnormal accidental condition.
)
14 And we're putting in our continuing work great l
15 emphasis on advanced I&c and control room systems to further 16 aid the operator.
17 The whole effort encompasses an integrated plant 18 design, so we understand all the relations among all aspects of 19 the design.
20 All of this experience leads us to believe we can 21 achieve a major improvement in reducing the chance of any 1
r 22 severe accident for these plants.
23 We have, however, our infusing experience to assure i
24 that we can meet containment integrity requirements.
The f
25 experience gained from the THI-1 accident and the extensive R&D
{
Whsg.w%n m &c wW kw eck W+.H.ntuM~iw wp% WMEukid&si&HW4:% 4WGR
-=
-- - - -- = =-
_=
50 1
work that is followed up from it, and the major experimentation 2
carried out by NRC and by the industry and by DOE, and the 3
accompanying analyses of severe accident conditions and g
4 containment burdens in the event of such an accident.
5 And finally, that experience is of enormous 6
importance in assuring standardization.
The fundamental base 7
is the Utility Requirements which will standardize requirements 8
for those who wish to supply the utilities with a nuclear plant 9
in the future.
10 It would go without saying that we have not neglected 11 the issue of getting the costs of these systems down from the 1
12 present experience, without which there's going to be no O
13 interest in nuclear power in the future.
b 14 However, as I think has been described to you 15 already, this will be through simplification, through iV 16 standardization, through improved reliability, gaining of l
17 higher capacity factors, and through shorter construction times 18 as a result of the simplification and the modularization steps 1
19 that have been discussed with you.
20 Not through higher performance, such as higher 21 specific power densities or higher or improved heat rates.
q 22 Now, this leaves us, I think all of us, with a real challenge.
e 23 We believe that NRC has to establish a regulatory 24 framework and make the egulatory decisions which will lead the 25 utilities to feel that a predictable construction operation a m m M m e's?eUF M S % m WLM W w m H 5 v 4 W T W %T &MM M m W:9,4 Wic.&.Ma-
n.
. -. e l
51 1
schedule and cost is in the cards for them.
O 2
Without that, I don't think they would be willing to 3
proceed.
We also are well aware that you would not be 7,
interested in undertaking that kind of challenge if we would 4
1 5
not provide you with the technical basis for review so that you 6
can establish that regulatory framework and make those 7
decisions.
8 And we intend to do that to meet the deman' ding 9
standards the utilities have set on this program and do it in 10 conformance with your advanced reactor policy and severe 11 accident policy statements.
12 And we intend to provide, as a result of the 13 extensive support from DOE, with hard test data to establish 14 that the performance features, the passive ' capabilities we talk 15 about, are real and can be depended upon.
26 I'd like to end simply by saying that your staff has 17 been working with us in a highly constructive manner, has been 18 giving us guidance.
19 We feel very strongly that we must present to them 20 our work as we do it so we can get the feedback from the 21 beginning and.as we go to develop these designs and approaches.
r-22 And we thank you, in turn, for the support you're 23 providing in those staff resources and the stimulation you have
(
24 provided to achieve the severe accident policy and importantly 25 to the advanced reactor policy statements, i
hh'@$%Q?Y?$?h%$kAYT'5$SN$ WY?SEY N
Y b'
.mn
=,_
-_m--
n
_ x 1-o.
52 i
1 We would not end up without very clearly thanking DOE
'O 2
al'so for the extensive support they are providing for the 3
testing and constructability effort to make this program real.
4 I'd like now to open the table to any questions you i
5 might have.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
Questions from 7
my fellow Commissioners?
Commissioner Roberts?
8 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I don't have a question and 9
don't answer, but it sure does make me wonder how in the vorld a
10 you sought out your limited resources between PWR's and BWR's.
11 MR. KINTNER:
Did you ever hear of the lows in l
12 fishes?
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr?
!)
14 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Well, I just want to commend you 1
l 15 on the effort.
I think it's long overdue and I'm sorry it took i,
16 so ong to get here.
It should have been done a long time ago.
b
}
17 I think you're going the right way.
Certainly safety
'i 18 margins and simpler plants are the right way to go, and I 19 certainly, personally, am,not convinced of the economies of 20 scale yet.
]
If I can help in part of the challenge, well, I'll be 21
- i
(
22 in there pushing it.
j 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Comalasioner Rogers?
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
Well, I think we're all 25 impressed with what you've had to tell us.
I didn't hear I
(
. - = _ _.
-n.--_
+..
53 1
specifically about questions of, I think somebody mentioned it, 2
but maintenance and surveillance.
3 From a human factors point of view, we've seen that g
4 as such a big problem over the years.
And it's really just a 1
5 comment, I guess, because I know that's something that would f
6 have to come somewhat later in some ways.
i 7
But I would hope that if we get to the point of actually constructing something new that the small aspects, the 8
9 small maintenance and surveillance aspects of these plants is i
10 looked at from the human factors point of view and that we l
11 don't wind up by building back into the systems the standard 12 problems that have existed ~in just about every plant in the 13 country that when a technician goes to make a measurement, he 14
~or she can knock the plant off line.
15 And that nobody really thought about it from that 16 point of view, that we just sort of regarded it as a routine 17 way to install a rack with some equipment in it and so on and 18 so forth.
19 MR. KINTNER:
I think that is a very important point.
l 20 So far what we've done is to some degree motherhood but it is 21 clear in instrumentation control, computers and so forth, r'
22 there has been almost a revolution since the present plants 23 were designed.
24 And many of them were, I think, putting it in an j
25 extreme sense, they knew they needed a measurement off some l
.h-g g
~
54 l
1 component.
O 2
They put an instrument there.
They'd run a line in a 3
control and put an instrument there.
And that's not quite all j
4 that's needed.
5 What's needed now is a very comprehensive re-look at 6
the whole question of how information is obtained, digested, j
7 and presented to the operators.
]
]
8 And we're in the middle of writing that chapter now.
9 The man-machine -- as a matter of fact, we call it the man-l 10 machine interface chapter and not instrumentation of control, 11 to underline the fact that we don't want it to be --
l 12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Of course, as you know, it's
)
13 not just in the control room.
W 14 MR. KINTHER:
Oh, no, no, no.
3 15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
It's everyplace in the plant.
16 MR. TAYIDR:
In the modularization program, there's a 1
17 potential trap there that you end up with a lower capital cost,
(
18 shop-fabricated subsystem which is extremely difficult to y
maintain.
i 19 l
20 And we consciously examine maintenance issues in that 21 constructability program already.
But NRC will begin to see e
22 this work as it is described in the very near future as we 23 generate it and transmit it.
24 MR. KINTNER:
We will follow through on that.
25 MR. DeVINE:
Our current Chapter 6 work in the w.m e r w +rw w m ww w w w m w asrm m +vc~+ + wm**
g
. - ~
55 1
Requirements Document involves actually developing layouts,for O_
j t
2 the illusionary P&B, with requirements that are quite severe 3
and also specific in terms of space allocated for access lanes, l
4 you know, for access to equipment, for transfer of materials 5
and all those kinds of things.
6 So it is specifically being implemented in the j
7 current chapter.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
At that particular time, too, you 9
should involve operators as well maintenance people and let 10 them look at what you're doing.
n 11 As Commissioner Carr points out, you have to leave 12 room for maintenance and I certainly agree with that.
These 13 are the kind of people who are going to do the job, you want to
)
14 get out there and look at the concepts and look at your layout.
15 MR. DeVINE:
We've just set up a meeting, not 16 scheduled yet, but the people have been identified and some 17 have been invited, of operations managers of a number of plants i
)
18 around the country to review the plant layout work before 19 Chapter 6 is completed.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Very good.
Get some supervisors, 21 too.
(~
22 MR. Da' INE :
Yes.
23 COKMISSIONER ROGERS:
Also, is it your intent to
(}
24 check out plant performance using engineering plant simulators 25 as part of the design process?
That's, you know, a very t: *: % x :2.;Wie.wr&T3%a.*anu6Lts5itM2ishes'5DWMWW*
. a.ux: ~. - - =na-w.u -_ -
-w
..a em m-a
.56
,4 1
powerful tool that, rather than just a simulator for training O
2 purposes, put an engineering simulatur to really look at.
I 3
extreme conditions, set them up and see how the design 4
functions in detail.
4 5
MR. DeVINE:
Wedon'thaveplanstodothatwi$hin i
6 our current scope of work.
However, we already specified the 7
requirement in Chapter 1 that two levels of simulation be 8
included by the designer, and they're the ones you mentioned, l
)
9 principals or a simulator to evaluate basic dynamic responses 10 of the plant, and then a complete control room simulator which
)
11 can be used to develop procedures and finalize the design of 12 the control room and that sort of thing, both mandated by the j
13 Requirements Document.
1 l
14 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Do you foresee being able to do l
l 15 this without a pilot plant?
?
16 MR. KINTNER:
Yes.
One of the requirements that was 17 written is we will not require a prototype plant, and that t
l 18 does, in fact, to some degree limit the degree of innovation.
1 f
19 COMMISSIONER CARR:
But no lockup or simulator?
20 MR. KINTNER:
Yes.
But individual parts can be 21 locked up.
One of.the thoughts I had, and in answer to your e
22 question, Mr. Roberts, was how much -- to what degree is this 23 proven developmental, what is just ideas.
~
24 Oyster Creek and many of those early BWR's have 25 isolation condensers which are an actual circulation laser
- =n n -.s w e n e m n w w m e n - m n -
_ _, _. ~. _.. - _. _ _ _.
,r _
l 57 1
moving heat on the primary side.
And that's not a very O
j 2
difficult thing to see.
3 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Well, let me amplify the l
4 purpose of my queution.
I had a presentation three or four f
5 years ago, not just I, the Commission, about a reactor concept 6
and it seemsd quite interesting.
7 hnd afterwards I inquired of more information.
I was 8
told, well, you've seen everything.
This package of slides is 9
it.
It w;is a concept.
10 MR. KINTNER:
We're beyond that.
It's not a finished
.l 11 product and it won't be until it's engineered.
I 12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I understand.
(
13 MR. KINTNER:
I think we're identifying those issues j
14 which are developmental, and we're taking steps to see that j
15 they are checked out.
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just on this engineering, 17 increase of engineering margins.
It's my impression that there 18 are some very large engineering margins built into existing 19 plants, just because that's been standard engineering practice 20 in a number of different areas, but it's not uniform.
q 21 It's not always ctudied and it's not balanced.
It's
]
(
22 not coherent in a sense, to use that term.
I would just think 23 that it might be a good idea to, while you're focusing on the 24 increase in engineering margins, to not give the impression 25 that present day plants don't have substantial engineerir.g
$*G
'*W
('.
4
~ - - - - _ - - - - _.- -
- - - -_y 4
58 1
margins built into them, because they do.
O 2
They do in many, many important systems.
But it 3
hasn't been actually included in the analyses very often of 4
these plants' behavior.
5 MR. SThMLKUPF:
As a matter of fact, that's what I 6
was referring to when I talked about optimization issues early 7
in my presentation.
8 There are areas that we feel that margins, present 9
regulatory margins perhaps are too great, and that we can 10 understand, as our analysis techniques become better, to 11 identify what those margins are.
f 12 Perhaps it's appropriate to remove some of that 13 margin and put it somewhere else because we now better i
14 understand it.
15 I think Appendix K analysis is a prime example of 16 that.
i 17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Good.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Let me just say I agree with my 19 colleagues that some of the things you've told us are very 20 encouraging.
21 I particularly appreciate your emphasis on quality i^
/
22 and, of course, safety.
Also the conservative approach you've 23 taken and the simplification approach that you've emphasized, 24 and the passive features.
25 We have learned a lot over the years and we should l
lm.r n m. w y.--;, m g_;.t.x n w,zt & u s M ?.x x u. m n. u w T+ + W
u.
-= m --
n ~_.
59 1
bring those lessons to bear now in looking at advanced light 2
water reactor programs.
3 And I think it's important that you mentioned 4
integrated.
We didn't talk about that too much more, but I
~
5 didn't miss that point.
6 You talked about integrated programs.
That's very 7
important.
I think you talked about Pierre Tanguy's reference 8
to coherent.
i 9
But it's my view that some of the problems we have 10 are because we havent integrated, we haven't brought it all 11 together.
12 And here you have a chance to do that now when you're O
13 making an advanced desiqn, and so you should emphasize that 14 integration of the plant, and that means that you should think 15 about maintenance, you should think about the human factors.
16 As we all know, we still make too many mistakes, 17 people make mistakes.
Not they're trying to make mistakes, 18 they just make mistakes.
I i
19 And there are good peop h doing that, too.
So we've 20 got to factor that in and try to factor into the design itself 21 the ability to maintain the equipment and the ability to-F 22 operate it safely, to test it and surveillance it and so forth.
23 I hope that one thing that you can think about as you 24 design it is some of the surveillance and testing, perhaps 25 won't have to do as much at power as we do now, and I'd just 77
[%, qdM4, MN g)
- {- l T*
- A Ik ok Tb,
4M
{
)
4
~
- a af k
e i, '
60 j
1 throw that at you for something to think about because we do 2
too much of that in my judgment now, and give the plant every 3
opportunity to have a problem.
4 And perhaps in your new design you could figure out 5
some way to do a considerable amount of the testing and r
6 surveillance when the plant isn't operating.
7 I'd just give you that as a challenge because I think 8
that would be a significant contribution.
That would not only l
L 9
contribute, in my view, to simplification, but it would 10 contribute the human factor considerations.
6 i
11 I appreciate the emphasis you're bringing to 12 standardization and John Taylor mentioned that.
And we all l b' v
13 know the benefits thst brings to safe operations.
i 14 But also, your very clear concept that we discussed 15 that a safe plant is a reliable plant is an economical plant.
3 16 And that has simply just got to be factored into what you're 17 doing and I very much appreciate, Mr. 1;intner, your emphasis on 18 thtt very feature and your description of how you're going to i
19 do tlose things and your commitment to that, because I 20 certai11y agree with that.
21 Well, let me thank all of you for a very fine
,e 22 preser tation and for your contribution that you're making to 23 the future of nuclear energy in our country, because I think 24 that's what you're really doing.
25 You're making that possibility, that benefit to the 1
f.~.
_,+,.m n,y4 c c m m sp n p s, % :c c.;.p.1 & s L+: 4 % g:M W % s4& W;.::s.'.w % V:S a u b i..c
, _ - _. -,. _ _ _ ~, n_
- n....
.= -_,
I l
61 1
American people, real.
You're trying to bring forth something O
2 that would be reasonable.
t 3
I'm particularly encouraged by the progress that you 4
are making in the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program and the b
i 5
possibility that we can move ahead with some kind of a 6
standardization program as a result.
7 As you know, we.are interested in standardization and 8
I would say that the Commission accepts your challenge to do 9
what we can to further make predictability and the licensing 10 process more predictable and more achievable.
11 As you are aware, the commission has a policy 12 statement on standardization right now and we're currently 13 working on a rule being prepared by the Office of General 14 Council and it's working closely with the technical staff, to 15 develop a proposed rule for standardization which would reflect 16 pre-selected sites and also involve single-stage licensing to i
17 the iffect we can do so within our own authority.
l That's being worked on now and we hope to have that 18 19 rule available for public comment by the end of this summer.
20 So we've already accepted your challenge to see what we can do l
21 to the licensing process and we are, as I say, working very i
j e
22 hard to bring that about.
23 And again, I'd emphasize that that rulemaking would, 24 to the extent that existing statutes would permit, would bring 25 us closer to the combined construction permit and operating wwx;mygn.x na:%s..;.swm:%: we.M MF.%%w&NUMw*.*MtF &wK r.,-
-~-
_ _ _ nu 62 1
license and allow design certification and pre-approved sites -
0 2
to minimize the uncertainty that we know exists now with the 3
regulatory process.
4 So we're already undertaking that initiative.
I 5
think it goes hand-in-hand with what you're doing.
We feel 6
reasonably optimistic that we'll be able to achieve a certain 7
amount of success in this area.
8 And I emphasize again, to the extent within our own 9
authority, because some of the things we would need legislative l
l 10 authority for.
11 We have that proposal, as you already know, too, 12 before Congress.
So those are the things that we are doing in 13 order to recognize our responsibilities in this role and we 14 appreciate what you're doing, commend you for your efforts.
15 I think that the things that you've presented to us 16 today are certainly on the right course.
I appreciate, too, 17 your references to the close working relationship you have with 18 our staff and with the support you're getting from DOE.
19 This is a combined effort that we're all taking with 20 industry, the various utilities involvement, as well as the 21 government.
r' 22 So I commend you again for an excellent presentation 23 and for the approach you're taking.
We'd be interested in
(}
24 hearing from you in the future when you think it's appropriate 25 to come back and give us a progress report.
- 6'.
s 8
Q r-g.
+
. e..
-;.T' 63 J.
. 4,.
Thank you.iery much.
We stand adjourned.
1
, -,y (Whereupon{at3:35p.m.,thebriefingwas 2
3 concluded.)
p e
. c.
4
.w a
y,
'f a
6 o
7 r
s
.,3
.':~
8
- )
9 10 11 12 9
14 15 16 h
17 18 19 20 21 r
22 l
l 23 u
1 24 25 8-='-
h.
4
,y jg-f a
w
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER l.
This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting o' the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING: Briefing'on Advanced Light Water Reactors by EPRI PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, June 16, 1988
'l i
were transcribed by me.
I further curtify that said i
transcription is accurate and complete, to the best t
l l
of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and
\\l' accurate record of the foregoing events.
]@
htA Yl21W
/
i.
,*I Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
S 9
h
.e
,I 6/16/88 SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE:
BRIEFING ON ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTORS BY EPRI
[
SCHEDULED:
2:00 P.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 1988 (OPEN) k f
DURATION:
APPROX 1-1/2 HRS fn F
PARTICIPANTS:
EPRI 9
- EDWIN KINTNER (GPU NUCLEAR) 10 MINS 9
CHAIRMAN, ALWR STEERING COMMITTEE
- JACK DEVINE, JR.
25 MINS SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER, EPRI o
l
- KARL STAHLKOPF, DIRECTOR 15 MINS MATERIALS & SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT, EPRI
- JOHN TAYLOR, VICE PRESIDENT 10 MINS NUCLEAR POWER DIVISION, EPRI 6
i 4
g
a THE EPRI ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR PROGRAM A PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSIONERS t
i l
E. E. Kintner w
l J. J. Taylor l
K. E. Stahlkopf J. C. DeVine, Jr.
16 June 1988 7
i Rockville, Maryland I.
t k
N~
Nr& sik& E 9 G $ NNh& S Nhh~$ % NSS:ke54 hc6h 41Si4 N u S Q % 5 hS 5 5 04 4 5lc556E L 5
,y
.,n Ot:
r k
h!.
AGENDA k
$.y C
'[j The Utility Viewpoint E. E. Kintner sj k
ag ALWR Program Overview K. E. Stahlkopf
'?$
w Two high Priority Topics J. C. DeVine, Jr.
9.'
k fp
- ALWR Safety
?r.!
- Passive Plant Concept 6
1:
ef Challenges to Utilities, Industry and NRC J. J. Taylor
.T,.
&py t-
- ' _]
NRC688.-
EPRI ALWR Program g
Yl; li1
3; M
3.1 tj t
Ct nn.
THE ADVANCED LIGHT WATER E
REACTOR PROGRAM r',$i
- W a.
.L THE UTILITY VIEWPOINT it lff i;
If'y
$1 E. E. Kintner-Y; Executive Vice President F1 GPU Nuclear Corporation i
Chairman B
ALWR Utility Steering Committee v,
f-
'u..
h?Lg isj
.n uncma EPRI ALWR Program ai h,.
,Jq 3
f
$1 2
k, E
UTILITY INVOLVEMENT AND SUPPORT g.
3J
$oQ U.S. utilities have the experience and knowledge to establish M
requirements for the next generation nuclear plants, and they carry
[ij ultimate responsibility for their safe, reliable and economic oper " n The ALWR Program is an initiative of the U.S. utility industry and is l
{6 directed by a Utility Steering Committee (USC)
(5
- Senior executives of U.S. and participating international utility
- ],
companies which own and operate nuclear plants
.?1
- USC is an active participant in the program, both on policy and technicalissues t-S
- USC approves all submittals to NRC sv Is':<N y
t llx WM MWR R wm
[.,.'
Q uge,,,,,
e
UTILITY STEERING COMMITTEE Active members of the Utility Steering Committee include:
Mr. E. E. Kintner, Chairman Mr. Eng Lin GPU Nuclear Corporation Taiwan Power Co.
Mr. Angel Broggiato Mr. R. Pat Mcdonald ENEL/ Italy Alabama Power Co.
Mr. William J. Cahill Mr. Ted C. McMeekin Gulf States Utilities Co.
Duke Power Co.
Mr. Louis O. DelGeorge Mr, Robert Mitti Commonwealth Edison Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
Mr. Carlyle W. Fay Prof, ir. Peter Mostert Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
KEMA, The Netherlands Dr. Michael High Dr. James Rhodes Tennessee Valley Authority (represented by Mr. Lauren Johnson)
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Mr. Charles W. Jackson Consolidated Edison Company Mr. Walter H. Rogers Florida Power and Light Co.
Mr. Masahiro Kaino Kansal Electric Power Co.
Mr. Chang Saeng Shim Korea Electric Power Corp.
Mr. John S. Kemper (represented by Mr. Steve Gibbon)
Philadelphia Electric Co.
o T
6
\\**
3 0
a A
$I 9,
t h
O E,,l f-r.
p,
.n O.
F ALWR PROGRAM OVERVIEW 0ty v.
bm
?-j M
l-al fii f,
K. E. Stahlkopf Director, Materials & Systems Development
[!
Electric Power Research Institute p.
p
!t..
1 W
h
,n-r EPRI ALWR Program 1
(
4
,j fj klnR-Iff ALWR PROGRAM GOALS M.
+
yf 9
tY l
Establish utility leadership and effect positive M
k progress toward a revitalized nuclear power (i
option in the United States yy
.:Ti 1
Formulate a practical and credible foundation for
}]
the design of advanced light water reactors for 6.
the next decade 1i
.>Ii4
\\
.y Q,w
?{r EPRI ALWR Program nacssa t
.g
,1 0
e; 5Y i$
q y
p.
ALWR PROGRAM OBJECTIVES e
p ;;
Ikg in support of these goals, the ALWR Program objectives are:
Q,..
h A stabilized regulatory basis, via cooperative effort with NRC
[
to identify and resolve outstanding issues of nuclear plant p
safety y
NO Development of a set of specific design and performance if requirements for the advanced LWR (The "Requirements f
Document")
4
.i
'tl l
An assessment of nuclear plant design concepts which would f:
incorporate areatIV simolified. Dassive safety systems ji 4.7}
EPRI ALWR Program L
7
^
y V
Ey
}9 Y f.9 E
IN THE U.S. - AWAKENING INTEREST 6
AND SUPPORT FOR THE ALWR p
D[
Indicators:
i Legislative initiatives for advanced reactor development i
Maior DOE effort underway, with plans for followup phase for y..
jf passive plant development f
Increasing and positive media coverage jL U.S. utilities actively supporting via EPRI I'
What's Happening:
U. S. utilities are working together, reaching consensus on i
requirements and issues; NSSS vendors and A-Es are actively
- jl supporting, and their new products are reflecting utilities' input 1if
?. ~
5;
$i
%n EPRI ALWR'Pfooram s:
.V'n
s f't f
1py E
ALWR PROGRAM -
5 INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION a
Buildina Momentum y;i 1:
Partnerships are in place:
h
- Korea Electric Power Corp.
k
- Taiwan Power
{
- Kansai Electric Power Co. (Japan)
Ti
- ENEL (Italy)
$1
- KEMA (The Netherlands) p Prospects are good for new or expanded agreements with:
h
- CEGB (Engiand) (finalstages of negotiation) x
.V
- CRIEPl(Japan) 6
@1,
- Korea Electric Power Corp k
NRC/6/88 y
g:
t 7
t t-W I.
f:
b EVOLUTIONARY AND PASSIVE CONCEPTS y
ij in the ALWR Program, two concepts are being developed:
.O I
I.;
Evolutionary ALWR A simple, rugged and reliable advancement of today's LWR K
..; c
{i-designs, using conventional safety system concepts
'li NRC Certification Program under spor.3orship of DOE p
fvy Passive Plant A greatly simplified ALWR which employs primarily passive i
means for accident prevention and mitigation st
([?
c.
c L
W EPRI ALWR Program n;
{l:
T
Q:
c.
qf p
t:
.L i
y THE UTILITY REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT The Requirements Document is the primary work product M((
in this phase of the ALWR Program w
R{
it establishes top-tier, functional and system / component design requirements for
[M evol'itionary and passive plants i
- PWR and BWR, entire plant sMf It incorporates resolutions of generic safety issues and 5l.
optimization issues y
1[
It reflects industry and NRC consensus on the principal i
[
safety, performance and design requirements for the S
ALWR p
((e EPRI ALWR Program
$f V
y 6-.y l
?\\ Es
=' f '
?
~
wk 3.J lg REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT STATUS tiig For the Evolutionary Plant kh
- Five chapters (of 13) completed, approved by USC, submitted to O
NRC. These cover:
y
-- O.verall Plant is 9
-- Power Gereeration Systems g
-- Reactor, Fuel, RCS and Auxillaries
[gj
- Safety Systems
- NRC draft SERs in hand for the first four chapters y
- The remaining chapters in preparation, to be completed this year c[p Passive Plant Requirements
}c
- Just beginning; will be produced over the next two years w;
6:gl
$(t
~
j FM MWR Npm
,gc,,,,
+;
7,
!si vs ALWR PROGRAM - WHAT'S AHEAD WW lR 1
l 5
Evolutionary Plant Complete Requirements Document Chapters 6-13 g
Interact with NRC staff in review, comment and resolution of safety R
issues R
tj)
Proceed with integration and rollup phase
,!C
}
Passive Plant 9
11 ]
Develop requirements and design concepts for passive plant
$lll Interact with NRC in establishing regulatory foundation for passive safety concept x
g%
A;:
W EPRI ALWR Program NRC&tB8
.y 1;
p
- - - _ =
c x,
n; 15]4 h,'
z>g i:
j$(j k.
I TWO HIGH PRIORITY TOPICS
)
a.
1 ALWR SAFETY
,1 y
- PASSIVE PLANT CONCEPT 4
I...
g i.^
i L.<
J. C. DeVine, Jr.
y Senior Program Manager g:o 1
Advanced Light Water Reactor Program
$b
- .o y'L EPRI ALWR Program NRC/6/38
- sf
+1
gy
(.:
s s.<
s
. {
$9 ALWR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS Fi wy p
gl Policy and Principles
@j The Requirements Document articulates policy And principles
)]!l which define the ALWR Program approach to nuclear safety, including severe accident protection
}g; t +m.
s, m, 2
e h
4+
{
Top-Tier Requirements
- j$
The ALWR Requirements Document has set demanding, top-level a
y"l-performance targets:
.i.
- Ej Core Damage Frequency <10-9yr M
Site Boundary Dose <25R, for events of probability >10-9yr
%$t
.a. :
,$j EPRI ALWR Program
.m d[$
.y
7' - --
= _
?.~
16
~
?;
+x hpl
[
lk ALWR PROGRAM - SAFETY PRINCIPLES y:
cy;j The ALWR will achieve its safety criteria (including severe
{gs accident protection) by:
)g$
Reliance on fundamentals - simple and rugged design
..,.c Defense in-depth uy Balance between prevention and mitiaation h
Reasonable consideration of severe accident events
(?)
outside of the licensing design basis
?j
- I O
ne i
8
-)
R, w
p _?1' 5:e i
fi c;
}$c EPRI ALWR Program NRCS/88 y6(
h.
I i
ALWR Defense in Depth i
Accident Resistant Desions l
ALWR Design Features Which Provide Intrinsic Safety Design Margins Simplicity Best Materials Extended Operator Response l
Times j
e f
[
Ch1pters 3 & 4 - RCS and Reactor Systems 2
Core Damaae Prevention Systems Which Prevent initiating 3
i Events from Progressing to the Point of Core Damage l
}
i Mitication Systems to Contain Fission Products Released as a Result of ij Core Damage Accidents i
i I
k Chapter 5 - Engineered Safety Systems S
O hN %' b ikish 1-h Iv h hh Y NkQ :$5?
hk *ha$
^3,
h j ( h%*
k
' Or*
$^75?A>4 ~
t
~x._,.
A l
s,'
1}
Illustration of the Three Parts That Make Up the ALWR Design Bases 0
>1W
- J ALWR Design Bases a
i r$
Licensing Design Basis R!sk Evaluation Basis Performance Evaluation Basis Y.L
?i) gEj Safety Events (as defined in Core Damage Events Performance Events p
Events Chapter 1)
(Chapter 1, Table 3-6) p$
k Investment Protection Events hi<
(Chapter 1, Table 3-8) h g.
R.sl
$?
- 7 Conservative, NRC-approved Probabilistic Risk Assesment.
Designer-selected Methods (q;.
Methods (PRA) Methods and Margins Analysis i,ilj Methods h
)q.;
,f5 Df ag m
kS!j p
M'.
y 4k
g
~
[
h?h Mk
)
E[
ALWR TREATMENT OF ACCIDENTS N
k
- 1. Design for Licensing Design Basis Events - This imparts substantial q
margin to the design k
hj
- 2. Add margin and features for further prevention of Core Damage C
A
- 3. Evaluate dominant Severe Accident scenarios on a realistic b
basis; show sufficient margin to ultimate plant capability j
- demonstrate, by PRA, that top-tier ALWR requirements have gQ been met
- account for:
- f
-- ALWR system / component requirements provided for
.r accident prevention and mitigation 3;.
0
-- other specified ALWR features which enhance severe
~
$p accident capability M
EPRI ALWR Proaram L2 B3
- = - -
,~i
.d sy M
)
bo w
in Ki PASSIVE PLANT-CONCEPT fi g
gg in concept, the ALWR Passive Plant is a design which:
M Utilizes primarily passive means (gravity, natural circulation, stored 13 energy) for accident prevention and mitigation n
}k Keeps core protected without operator action for about 3 days
- j~
Is greatly simplified compared to existing plants Can be PWR or BWR, of reference size 600 MWe
$6M Can be constructed in three years, with extensive modularization, l,ki prefabrication
$s.-i
%R A
p M%
EPRI ALWR Program
- 7f]
NRCS/88 m
- M
=, _..
. - = - -
s yp rx I2.
Q.p 1
F PASSIVE PLANT - BENEFITS s
W Si
- s The ALWR Passive Plant is an attractive concept because:
ry it provides a basis for renewed public, government and 59 investor confidence ge flj{
It offers fundamental advances in ssiety, simplicity, g
constructibility v
&(
Its lower rating:
4:$
- can better match needs of U.S. utilities with low or uncertain demand growth nf
- permits smaller capital investment to first power generated f
Smaller, simpler plants have had historically high capacity factors py Qi ep g
1.~
?i i[.
EPRI ALWR Program,/
(
NRC/6/88
$lL E
g h
4:
'Ju (I
PASSIVE PLANT - PROGRAM STRATEGY 0.e f
EPRI leadership in Phase 1, conceptual development Major DOE Program for system component design verification and testing g$
Expanded emphasis and resources in EPRI Phase 2 g
- technical evaluation of key issues k
- extend utility requirements to cover passive system concepts
~
k Two design teams:
hj
- SBWR: GE/Bechtel/MIT f
- AP 600: W/ Burns & Roe /Avondale rj Synergism g
p
- close cooperation between DOE and EPRI programs j
{$
- increasing international cooperation
- strong utility linvolvement, via ALWR USC
~
t NRC/6/88 w?
w.
t M
l'$$j PASSIVE PLANT - REGULATORY ISSUES y
g if f{f The Passive Plant concept effects a new approach to nuclear plant safety. Therefore, some portions of the existing body of detailed
- kJ regulatory guidance will not be applicable. The NRC Advanced Reactor Policy statement and Severe Accident Policy Statement h
provide the framework to make appropriate changes. This is an it opportunity and a challenge to develop effective regulatory h
requirements applicable to this concept
!n UE m
$k 1
~
%g1
}
EPRI ALWR Program f
7 n
F 6
,yv Sw PASSIVE PLANT STATUS l,.
Kwk V]
The Passive Plant has emerged as a major element of the ALWR Program. It may prove to be the concept which best
[p fulfills the utilities' vision for a safe, simple, economical e
ALWR 1
li h
U.S. NSSS vendors, with DOE and EPRI support, are
!?
making real progress in developing PWR and BWR
);
versions of the passive plant hi kl T
~
E f
};
il:
EPRI ALWR Program nacmes k
t
p
~
K3,
- N y
f
+1 y;
E CHALLENGES-yw Y:
p.i TO UTILITIES, INDUSTRY AND NRC
~
4
/i
$3 J. J. Taylor i
Vice President - Nuclear Power i
Electric Power Research Institute yi.
5 i,*((
- 4. :
x r
h.
a.
12-Si
\\
2
?~
1 i
EPRI ALWR Program l
NRC/6/88 cp d,
l-C4 L__
s.
d yI
$w f
1
.i CHALLENGE TO INDUSTRY & GOVERNMENT
- l NRC must establish the regulatory framework and make the
.i regulatory decisions which will permit predictable construction l
and operation g
p
/
EPRI, DOE, NSSS vendors, architect engineers, constructors 1
and others must work together to meet demanding standards
$j set by the utilities in conformance with NRC Advanced Reactor-E and Severe Accident Policies.
^
@y ILg fi(t
..f 1
%c EPRI ALWR Prodram-
+NI f
~
w
June 16, 1988 EPRI Utility Steering Committee Presentation to Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program We are very pleased to be able to talk to you in person about the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program. We have had several meetings with Vic Stello and Tom Murley and their staf f, and the process of review of ALWR documents with the Commission staf f is proceeding.
Significant issues are being raised and discussed.
We have also met twice with the ACRS.
It seems timely that we should meet with the Commissioners and explain the ALWR Program from our perspective.
Contracting for additional nuclear power plants in the U.S. has been in a hiatus for a long time.
But there are many who believe, as we do, that there must be within the not too far distant future, for reasons of environmental protection, economic well being, and military safety, a return to nuclear energy as an electric power source. We believe that return will be encouraged and accelerated by two important factors:
First, continued stable and reliable operation of present plants, an objective to which the NRC, INPO, and the utility industry are devoting major efforts; and second, the conceptualization of a next generation of improved plants evolved from the experience gained, both good and bad, over the last twenty years.
b.
. Almost six years ago, the Electric Power Research Institute commenced discussing with senior utility executives the question of whether there was a need to prepare for further development or nuclear power engineering, and if so, what direction that development should take.
The conclusion was that steps should be taken toward a second generation of light water reactors, and that the most important objective of the effort should be increased margine of safety through additional engineering margins at.d significant simplification.
The resulting Advanced Light Water Reactor Program has now been underway for four years.
It has several years to go, but we have already raade significant progress.
In carrying out the program we have been greatly encouraged by, and have adhered closely to, the Commission's Statement of Policy on Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants.
The ALWR Program is aimed at improving the application of light water technology, rather than starting over with a new coolant, because we now have an extensive body of experience from more than 100 plants in the U.S.
and almost 400 worldwide.
The development of any other reactor system to a similar level of understanding an1 maturity, including development of the subsystems of fuel manufacture, waste processing and disposal, as well as the extensive set of codes, specifications, and regulations, would be an effort which no one seems prepared to undertake.
Moreover, notwithstanding all the criticisms which have been leveled at the industry and at you as regulators, the safety record of light water reactors has been remarkable.
Only one serious accident has occurred and that did not cause harm to the operators or the public.
. This ALWR effort is sponsored by and managed by the utilities through EPRI.
The original generation of reactors was primarily the intellectual product of reactor suppliers, engineered and constructed by architect-engineers for widely diverse utilities.
Neither the AE's nor the utilities had much experience in nuclear technology.
That balance has now been reversedz It is the utilities who not only have the operating experience but bear the moral and financial weight of nuclear design, construction, and operation.
The utilities have said emphatically that they want something better than they have.
The nuclear utilities are beginning to speak with a single voice on these matters through the ALWR Program, and that should increasingly help avoid commercial pressures aad competitions which might compromise safety.
There was, of course, initial resistance to rethinking plant designs.
It took the fucm of arguing that if you do anything different you cast doubt A what had been done before.
That is a false argument when applied to any new technology, and I am pleased to say that the U.S.
reactor suppliers and major AE's are now working constructively toward the common goals of the ALWR Program.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is providing major support, especially in funding developmental aspects and in design certification work.
Additional financial support and experience from overseas is being provided from Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and Italy.
The momentum and support of the program is steadily increasing.
t
. We are not saying that what has been done is not safe and useful.
LWR's are providing large amounts of electricity in many nations more cheaply and reliably than -any other energy source.
What we are saying is that, after analyzing the experience of the last two decades, it is possible to make design changes of a fundamental nature which will have positive effects on both safety and economics.
The basic principles by which we propose to gain safety margin and improve overall operating characteristics are to increase engineering margins, and significantly simplify the plant.
Some examples are:
a)
Limit TH (PWR).
b)
Increase reactor heat transfer margins.
c)
Lengthen transient time constants by increasing water inventories and pressuciter sizes, d)
Remove neutron sensitive welds in the mid-section of reactor vessels e)
Specify reactor vessel materials which are less sensitive to neutron embrittlement.
f)
Increase dependence on fundamental physical phenomena, such as, negative power and temperature co-efficents, and natural circulation for removal of decay heat.
g)
Reduce the demands on the operators by simplifying the man-machine interface.
In many areas we are going well beyond existing regulatory requirements.
That should ease the burden on NRC staff in arriving at licensing decisions.
e
. Further, we are applying these principles throughout the entire plant, not just to the primary reactor system.
We believe these are the best ways to achieve greater safety in operation as well as reduce cost and construction time.
We expect by the time we are through to achieve what Pierre Tanguy of i
Electricite de France says is an important objective of the new French design l
effort; that is -- provide ' coherence
- in a total reactor plant sense, rather 1
than design a primary reactor plant, then a turbine-generator system, tie the two together with a system of controls, and fully enclose it in a containment system.
In carrying out our work we hope to avoid what to many of us seems to have been counter productive in terms of true safety in the development of commercial reactors up to this point, that is, overemphasizing mitigation of consequences of severe accidents to the detriment of the pesvention of small events which could lead to severe results.
I do not mean that severe accidents are not being considered fully, but that the emphasis from the beginning has been on designing plants so that
' ifs' do not occur rather than on "what if."
That requires a leap of faith of a sort, but many of us know instinctively that is the way to really improve safety in a low risk, high consequence technology.
9
. The overall-guidance of the ALWR Program is by the Utility Steering Committee whose membership is shown on Attachment A.
Not all of these people are present at all our meetings, but there is sufficient participation to ensure that the utility viewpoints from experienced nuclear operators are fully addtessed.
Now Karl Stahlkopf and Jack DeVine will explain many of the details of the program.
Jack DeVine is the ALWR Program Manager at EPRI.
He is a Naval Academy graduate and has nuclear submarine operating experience.
He has been an employeo of General Public Utilities f rom before the TMI-2 accident.
He has been in charge of this program for two and a half years, and he brings direct utility experience to the ALWR work at its center.
l l
1
/2604n 1
ATTACHMENT A EPRI ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR UTILITY STEERING COMMITTEE EDWIN E. KINTNER, CHAIRMAN PROF. PETER MOSTERT EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT DEPUTY HEAD OF RESEARCH/ PHYSICS GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION VAN ELEKTR0TECHNISCHE MATERIALEN THE NETHERLANDS ANGELO BROGGIATO CARLYLE W. FAY DEPUTY MANGER OF ESE, ENEL VICE PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR POWER ROME, ITALY WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
WILLIAM J. CAHILL DR. MICHAEL HIGH SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT DIRECTOR ENERGY DEMONTRATION & TECHNOLOGY GULF STATES UTILITIES TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY LOUIS 0. DELGEORGE CHARLES W. JACKSON ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT TECHNICAL CONSULTANT COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY MASAHIRO KAINO DR. JAMES RH0 DES GENERAL MANAGER-NUCLEAR SR. VICE PRESIDENT POWER OPERATIONS KANSAI ELECTRIC POWER - JAPAN (REPRESENTED BY MR. LAUREN JOHNSON)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY JOHN S. KEMPER WALTER H. ROGERS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT CHIEF ENGINEER. POWER PLANTS ENGINEERING AND PRODUCTION FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY MR. STEVE GIBBON)
- PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC CO.
ENG LIN CHANG SAENG SHIM VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL MANAGER TAIWAN POWER COMPANY KOREA ELECTRIC POWER CORP.
R.P. MCDONALD TED C. MCMEEKIN SR. VICE PRESIDENT CHIEF ENGINEER ALABAMA POWER CO.
DUKE POWER COMPI.NY ROBERT MITTL GENERAL MANAGER - NUCLEAR NUCLEAR ASSURANCE PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS
_