ML20205G070
| ML20205G070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/13/1988 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Jordan E NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205C430 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810280188 | |
| Download: ML20205G070 (5) | |
Text
( '3 i
[..e
'o UNITED STATES
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION bd n
,1 WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 4,,,/
OCT 131E MEMORANDUM FOR:
Edward Jordan, Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data 1
FROM:
Eric S. Beckjord, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CRGR REVIEW 0F SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT ON THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR THE MODULAR HTGR Enclosed for Comittee review is a final draft of the Safety (DOE) sponsor Evaluation Report (SER) prepared by the RES staff on the Department of Energy modular HTGR conceptual design.
Our review of this design was conducted at DOE's request under the charter of the Commission's Advanced Reactor Policy Statement. The purpose of our review 1:; to provide guidance, early in the design process, on the acceptability of the design and its proposed supporting R&D programs.
This SER is being provided for CRGR review, consistent w.ith the CRGR Charter, since it provides preliminary guidance which involves interpreting existing regulations for a potential class of standard plants.
Certain key issues associated with this design have already been presented to the Comittee in meetings 133, 135 and 136.
These were in the form of two Comission Papers, one on standardization issues (SECY-88-202) and one on policy related technical issues (SECY-88-203), such as containment, emergency planning dnd siting.
These papers were requested by theComission in advance of the SER. The subject draft SER builds upon and is consistent with the criteria, principles and recomendations presented in the above two Comission Papers and provides the staff's assessment of the potential of the modular HTGR to meet these criteria as well as the staff's assessment of the outstanding design and R&D issues.
It should be kept in mind while reviewing the draft SER that the review is a pre-application review of a conceptual design and; therefore, is not intended as an approval of the design or as a comprehensive review of all aspects of tne design (i.e. the review concentrated on those aspects of the design which were judged to be key to its viability).
Accordingly, we believe that the Comittee review should focus on the overall review process, scope and sumary conclusions and does not have to include the details of each chapter of the SER.
Supple-mentary inf ormation, as requested in Section IV.B of the CRGR Charter, is also enclosec.
SS1028018G 881020 PDR F.EV0P NRUCRGR MEETINO149 PDC
OCT 131988 E. Jordan 2
.Q N N.
f
. /o//ff83 Your review of the subject SER is requested as soo s possible to support our providing the SER to the Cownission by Spt:-is 30, 1988.'
ny questions should be directed to Mr. T. L. King of staff.
A b +s m
Eric S. Beckjord, D r<tetor Office of Nuclear Re'tfJlatory Research
Enclosures:
1.
Final Draft Safety Evaluation Report.
2.
PJpplementary Information 4
I 1
I 1
1 j
i l
I
^
i
.. -, - ~. -..
Supplemental Information for CRGR (i) PROPOSED STAFF POSITIONS The draf t SER documents the staff's review of the MHTGR design.
This review was considered to be a preapplication review for providing guidance early in the design process on the regulatory acceptability of the HHTGR design. As such, this SER does not constitute regulatory approval of the HHTGR design, but rather, it documents the staff's preliminary guidance regarding licensing requirements, including the regulatory acceptability of the DOE-proposed supporting research and development programs.
The draft SER finds that the HHTGR proposed by the Department of Energy is responsive to Consnission's "Statement of Policy for Advanced Reactors" (51 FR2463) and that the HHTGR has the potential to achieve a level of safety equivalent to current generation LWRs and, in some areas, provide safety enhancements. Current generation LWRs are defined as those large LWRs now being designed, such as the ABWR. The main factors leading to these conclusions are the following:
1.
The potential f or only minor core damage and fission product release over a wide range of severe challenges to the plant.
2.
The reduced dependence on human actions and the reduced vulnerability to human error.
3.
The long response time of the reactor under accident conditions, providing time for evaluation and corrective action.
4.
The capability to demonstrate by test the significant safety features and performance of the plant over a wide range of events.
5.
The successful demonstation to date of the potential for good HTGR fuel performance and passive safety characteristics.
6.
The results of independent analysis by ORNL and BNL which indicated good agreement with the designers predicted performance.
Of course final determination is contingent on the following:
1)
Satisfactory resolution of the issues identified in this SER.
In particular, we notice that the needs for the analysis, research and testing summarized in lable 1.6 involve an extensive and ambitious research program that will require a major commitment of resources for its successful completion.
2)
Completion of final design and licensing review by NRC.
3)
Conformance with HRC rules, regulations, and other guidelines current at the time of any future licensing action, 4)
Successful design, construction, testing and operation of a prototype reactor prior to design certification.
I i
' '~
(ii.a) DRAFT STAFF DOCUMENT Pre-Application Safety Evaluation Report for the Modular High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1988. (DRAFT)
(ii.b) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS A.
Letter to Chairman Zech from William Kerr, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, "Preapplication Safety Evaluation Report for the Modular High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor,"
October 13, 1988.
B.
00E Principal Documents submitted to staff by DOE
- 1. Preliminary Safety Information Document Vols.1-5
- 2. Probability Risk Assessment Document, Vols. I and 2
- 3. Regulatory Technology Development Plan NOTE:
Essentially all DOE documents submitted are classified as "applied technology" and are not publicly available from the NRC.
C.
Staff documents - SECY-86-368, "NRC Activities Related to the Commission's Policy on the Regulation of Advanced Reactors,"
NUREG-1226, "Development and Utilization of the NRC Policy on the Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plant," SECY-88-202, "Standardization of Advanced Reactor Designs," and SECY-88-203, "Key Licensing issues Associated with DOE Sponsored Advanced Reactor Designs."
\\
(iii) 0FFICE POSITION It is the RES position ttiat the SER provides a i
preliminary and limited assessment of the acceptability of the design including j
an assessment of the acceptability of the proposed supporting research and development programs.
When issued, the SER will not constitute a formal "licensability" determination since such a determination can only be made by the Commission after the staff and the ACRS have found the MHTGR design acceptable and an applicant has complied fully with the administrative process of nuclear reactor licensing, including public notification and participation, as required in Title 10, Code of Federal Reculations (CFR), "Energy" and Title 40, CFR "Protection of the Environment."
The guidance provided in the SER at this Teview stage should be considered preliminary with respect to licensing criteri6, the potential of the design to meet these criteria, and the acceptability of the research, development and testing programs proposed.
(iv) IMPLEMENTATION A final draf t version of the SER will be sent to the Comission f or its review and ultimate issuance es a public document.
Once published, this SER is intended to torm the basis for further staf f reviews of the HHTGR design design process., as well os provide guidance to the designers early in the (v) REGULATORY AHALYSIS The SER represents preliminary guidance consistent with the intent of comission Policy Statenents on Advanced Reactors, and as such, does not require reg. analysis.
2
y (vi) APPLICABILITY The SER applies only to the reactor design described by DDE in the documents referenced in (ii.b), above.
(vi) PRIORITIZING AND SCHEDULING The SER provides guidance on licensing requirements for the MHTGR ano7hould aid review of the PSSAR.
Currently, DOE plans submittal of the PSSAR at the start of FY90 in anticipation of PDA by the end of FY91.
(vii) BACKFIT No backfitting is required by this proposal.
(viii) PROPOSED RELAXATIONS No relaxation from current LWR licensing standards are proposed although not all LWR licensing criteria were found applicable.
The review has been performed in accordance with the advanced reactor policy statement which requires that the reactor design exhibit a level of safety equivalent to that of current generation LWRs with the expectation of enhanced safety.
O l
-