ML20206A435

Summary of ACRS Subcommittee on Improved LWRs 880531 Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Review of Proposed Rule on Standardization of Nuclear Plants

ML20206A435
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/14/1988
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-2582, NUDOCS 8811150116
Download: ML20206A435 (13)

Text

-

, l .

CER"!FIED COPY hbf.$ ~~h b$ ,

- e-s DATL ISSUED: July 14,1988 l

' gy([ (U Jd f i

l St)MMARY/ MINUTES [

ACRS SUBC0mlTTEE ON IMPROVED '

LICHT WATER REACTORS i MAY 31, 1986  ;

The ACRS Subwmittee tc.et on May 31. 1988. Roor.t 1046. 1717 H St. NW.,

Washington, D.C. The subcomittee ret to review and conenent en the L l

pregsed NRC Cort;ission Rule on the Standardization of Nuclear Power  !

[

Plants. Fr. Charles Wylie ms the Chairman ef the Subcornmittee. The j other ACRS membert in attendance were: Dr. Chester Siess and Mr. l t

Carlyle Michelson. The principal attencees from the NRC Staff were:  ;

Jerry Wilsen. Steve Crockett, Marty Malsch and Dino Scalletti, f I

Attached a*0: A list of the attendees, the schedule for the inteting, the Federal Register Notice for the sneeting and a list of the hancouts.

The har.ficuts are fi'es with the office copy.  !

i Introductory Remarks {

i h

Chairr.an Wylie noted that the schedule had been organized along the  !

lir.es of the prcposed rule. He asked *,he Steff to artdr.ts the items j

that had been raised in the ACRS letter of August 12, 1906 en the "M

l Bg proposed Standardization Policy at a appropriate place in the presenta-nn I O tion. The specific points that Mr. Wylie asked the staff to coment on were: The relation of the proposed rule to the irplementation of the i future plant policies, the safety goal policy, severe accident policies, l

and advanced r cur policies. The definition of scope contained in the

.i -

D 1 f

\ KRs l_I.Y? L%h2L M i

l .

Minutes / Improved Ligh% Water 2 Reactors Mtg., Pay 31, 1988

, ' plant certification of standard designs, and where the definition of essentially complete is centained and how will tne resolution of the l generic issues and USI's will be factored in the certified plant design.

Mr. Wylie asntd for subconnittee comments. Dr. Siess noted that one of the thingt that caught his attentien was statements in the rule about advanced reactors, he noted that a paper provided for the reeting about  ;

advanced reactors had portions that were consistent with the proposed rule and other portions that were not consistent. Dr. Siess noted that tht cifferer.tation of an advanced reactor with ar.c without a containment is ret covered by the rule.

4 Dr. Siess rerarked that the stattrent in the rule about a combined license e.t the operating licerse stage produces a provisional license and the .eal ortrating license temes at e later tire. He took exception to tre restricticns on ACPS review. He noted the rule stated that the i ACRS shall limit its review to issues on which it has net rade findings ,

cr recommendations in er earlier proceeding.

! He took exception to limiting of the ACRS review ard noted that the ACRS l was supposed to be an independent review witheat any limits imposed on i f

it.

1 Mr. Michelson pointed cut that he thought that ence the c]rtification was complete then there cculdn't be any further review on the certifica- [

tien.

l Minutes / Improved Ligh% Water 3 Reactors M29., May 31, 1988

- 'Cr. Siess asked what if son)ething came up or the ACRS review reveals it?

Dr. Stess provided scr.e additional comrents. He ash d about the defini-tien of what is essentially ccrplete. He wanted to know if there was a dccument that provides that inforration. He noted that the rule re-quests gettir9 comittents frort local officials on emergency planning.

He asked what kind of comittrents can local elected officials rake that will be binding on their successors?

Jerry k'ilson, RES i i

fir. Wilson listed the standard plants that might be certified. He noted that for the light rater reactors, the existing regulation covers most of the standardization licensing needs. 10CFR Part 52 will provide t procedures for certification.

l Mr. Wilson renarked that the staff believes the certification process ,

t.c.ulc be helnd if the Cemission had a severe accident ruitmaking prior to the specific certification rultnakings.

Mr. Wilscn noted that the staff is considering procedural and perfor-mance requirerents for future plants.

ReSarding non LWR's, the existing body of regulations do not necessarily

apply to these plants. For each design, the staff will have to deter-i mine which regulations are applicable, which are not which need to be modified and which regulations would have to be adced.

[

Mirutes/!mproved light Water 4 Reactors Mtg., May 31, 1988 t

, '. l

- 'Mr. Wilson noted that there were two approaches towards developing requirercents for certification. One he labeled reactive. In the  !

reactivs mode the staff would wait for en application and then proceed l te develop the requirerrents.

i \

In the proactive mode, the staff wtuld develop requireru ts prior to the [

l j application. He noted the staff is suggesting the proactive mode. '

j i t l Fegarding stencardization of advanced reactors, Mr. Wilson remarked that 5

) i W the papr titlec "The Advanced Reactor Policy Staterent" discusses that. ,

l l He noted that an advanced reactor would require full scale prototype [

i The details of a prototype test would be

! testing at en isolated site. }

I  !

verked out during the FCA review. i l i

! I i

j Steve Crockett, OGC t

(

l l

Mr. Crockett noted the presence of Marty Malsch fron OGC, Mr. Crockett f j nottd that the rule was reant to implerrent the policy statement that was  !

i issued last fall. He' neted that the aim of the rulemaking package is to l

beep the safety benefits of standarcitation and to increase stability into the licensing precess. This 15 to be accomplished by design certificatier and the concept of a coebined construction permit and (

' L conditional operaing license.  ;

I i

Mr. Crockett pointed out the differences between the proposed legis- f l

lation and the rulemaking. The first difference was that the rule l provides for advanced reactors. The rule provides for redress of sites i j

l t l [

i r

Mir.utes/Irtproved Ligh? Water 5 Reactors Mtg., May 31, 1988 <

, 'that have been granted pre-approval. Another difference is that und(r present legislation hearirgs are mandatory for early site permits and construction perrits. Another difference is in amenenents by the holder of a design certification. These may or t.ay net be backfitted on all >

plants referencing the certification. The final difference concerned ,

the costs of review of holders of the design certification. The holders of the design certification will be charged but in a deferred basis.

i <

RfCcrding eatly site perrits, the applicants for early site pemits will be limitto te thune persons who nr which could apply for a constructicn l L

pemit. The ea.*1y site permit will be treated as if it were in fact a paiiial construction perrdt.

The rule requires redress of the site. In ra.sponse to a question. Hr.

Crcckett ncted that at the early sitt remit stage the design parareters for the site have to be d(elared. He t.0ted that the intent was whatever types the site ray te suitable for and multi-types of reactors may be specified.

I Dr. Siess asked about redular design. His question referred to the site t

reviewed of rrocular desicr and asked if that would be part of the type or numbers?

l l

Mr. Wilson replied that the rule asks for the number, type, and power level for the facility and that would limits the number of modules.

i l

Minutes / Improved Light t$ater 6 Reactors Mtg., May 31, 1988

'Mr. Crockett pointed out that the intent is to get the emergency plan-ning issues settled as e6rly as possible. It is hoped that the strong-j est possible convitments under the circumstances could be trade as early as pessible. Pc pointed out that the Comission will still consider the j application without the comitrents.

Mr. Crcchett discussed design certification. He nottd thai, Appendix 0 o' 10CFR Part 50 prevides for design certification. Section 7 of Appendix 0 provides for certification of designs. Subpart P of the pro sed rule arplies the existing regulaflons.

l The inter.t is to leave open all the tristing paths to standardization.

These include plant duplication, replication and final design approved without certificatien.

3 Ore of the isst.es in corrtetion with certificatirn is what legal forum the certificatien shculd take. The rule has been drafted to pro 'de l

l certification by rule. Th* other option is to certify by license.

l Mr. Crcchett noted ene of the reasons for deciding te certify by rulerating is that the staff kr ws they have the authority to issue a rule. It is not se clear that they have tbc authority to license a design.

Mr. Crockett pointed cut that the intention in ACRS review is that .

1 mandatory duplication of review is not recuired.  ;

i I

k i

liinutes/ improved Light Utter 7 Reactors Mtg., May 31, 1988

'Or. Siess noted that he thought the ACRS has an obligation not to reopen an issue that it agreed on unless there is new evidence. He recomended saying the ACR$ r;ay review instead of shall review and placing the burden on the ACR$ to discipline itself. Regarding the certification, fr. Siess noted that perhaps shall review to appropriate in that case. I There was a brief discultion of replication. Replication was defined as raking a copy of a plant that is operating. The point was rade that replication is still an acceptable path to standardifation.

Pr. Crockett pointed out the time limit for replication. He noted that  ;

the epplicatten for a replicate plant nust be submitted within five years of the date of the issuance of the staff SER for the base plant, ,

he ntted that the tirang presents a questien. He asked does the five yea" start from sore suppler.ent to the SER? t L

Mr. Crockett pointec cut that under 10CFR Part !?. the applicant has to I

specify th6t certificatien is desired following the FDA. This would necessitete an FDA that is essentially compete. He contrasted this Sith FDA's as they exist now with outstanding open iters.  ;

t Mr. Crockett discussec essentially cc,mplete and scope of design. He hoted that there was a pcssibility that the design would tse less than a  !

complete plant. He stated that the staff could accept everything essential to the safe operation of the plant and the balance of the plant could be left outside the scope of the design.

l Pinutes/!rproved Light Water 6 Rtactors Mtg., May 31, 1988

'br. Wilscn noted that the application shall contain the level of design information equivalent to that ree,uired for a FDA. Mr. Scaletti noted that 't would at least be performance level and procurement information.

Mr. Wilsch pointeo cut that the level of detail required is in the Reviseo Policy Statement cr. Standgrdiration, ,

l Fr. Wilson reperked that the staff is going to have to consider the f

i level of citail as they de the review. If they find the level of detail is inacecrate then they will have to ask for additional informatier..

1 In retronse to a question regarding interfdce requirements, Mr. Wilson f itdted that the rule s?)s the interface reQuiref efits must be suffiLient*

ly detailte to allow ceccletion of the FSAR and the PRA.

There was a discussien regarding changes to a plant after certificatten.  ;

The staff statcd any changes would reqcfre rulemaling. Mr. Malsch pointec cut that ruleraning does not have to be very time cor.suming. [

i I

I Mr. Malsch rcted that of there was a case where a change had to t(

l 1rrediately, an effective interim rule could be used.  !

l l1

)j Mr. Crockett noted that a licensee or applicant can make a minor change ,

j that doesn't affect the design by a variance and that doesn't rer,uire ,

i

rulemaking.

i I

t I

Minutes /Introyed Light Water 9  :

D.e6ctors Mtg., May 31, 1988 l

'The meeting wa: adjourred at 5:40 p.m. ,

h0TE: A transcript of the meeting is available at the hRC Public Docurent Roon.1717 H Street, NW., W*shington, D.C. or can be r>urchased fren Feritare Peporting Corporatier, 1220 L Street, NW. , Washirigton, D.C. 20005. Telephont (200)(28-4888.

2 i

Y i

f i

i L

I m.m _

^ NNENI A H. ALDERMAN ,

IMPROVED LWRs MdTTEEMIETINGON _

Room 1046,1717 H St. NW. Washington. D.C.

Ma y 31,1943 ATTENDANCE LIST INT:

+

iAM.E BA03E iiO. AFFILIATION

~

, Lewt ,

024 7 Nu5 A<w E-1000 sco0A neuEwa

, no . ll s- d-0943 _

-72 ff 'N 0 A,t nr A. E-n e t ,I QA- 760//

r NpN% f \) ~

c -- . ,

r i

l

)

i 1 go .

l - _ -

.' l

. . .  ?

Q ATTACHMENT I (

.s

.<o, .

- l; TENTATIVE SCHEDULE -

ACRS IMPROVED LWR SUBCOMMITTEE ,

l 1:00 p.m.,May 31, 1988,  !

, Room 1046, 1717 H 5t. N.W.

j Washington. 0.C.

I l

1. Introdactory Remarks - C. Wylie 1:00 e.m. I

- 1:10 p.m. 2. General Scope and Structure f

)

1:30 p.m. 3. Early Site Permits f 1:45 p.m. 4 Certified Standard Designs .

[

l 1 2:00 p.m. 5. Combined Construction Fermits and Conditional l Operating Licenses 2:15 p.n. 6. Coonission Questions f

I 2:30 -

7. Replicate Policy 4

2:45 p.n. SUGGESTED EREAK

• i l 3:00 p.m. 3. Backfit Analyses i j I i

3:15 p.m. 9. Regulatory Analysis 3:30 p.m. 10. Contents of Applications 1

3:45 p.m. 11. Duratien of Certification, application for Renewal

and Duration of Renewal l

4:00 p.m. 12. Finality of Standard Design Certification ,

l a

13. Changes to Certified Standard Design t

4:15 p.m.

i Inspection during construction f

! 4:30 p.m. 14 I

4:45 p.m.

15. Conversion of combined license to Operating license I 1 .

5:00 p.m. 16. Subcomittee Discussion 5:30 p.m. ADJOURN i

i i  !

t

P .. - _ . . . __

ATTACHMNT C -

4eo61

• Federal Regtster / Vol. 53 No.102 I Thunday, May 26, 1988 / Notices (Doctet leos. 36444 and so.364, uponee SvePLtiatNT any int ont i AhoN: The Advisory Committee on Reactor less. 98Pf42 ene HsT4, EA 87 142)

Nuclear Weste Pobey Act of1962 Safeguards,Subcommittet on .

Pnpeoved i.WRa; hloeting '

Mobema Pogror CoJettey hasteet (NWPA). Pub l 9?-4:5. end the Commission regula?!on 10 CFR Part to The ACRS Subcommittee onImptoud Plant;Cedee imposing Ceve Penesty prorr of e interaction between the m o.'a h IERs will hold a meeting on May 31, , 0.ec.be -

Department of Energy (DOF) and NRC .-

19M. Room ip.1717 H Street, NW.,

pner to DOE's submittel of a ;seni, Washington.DC. / 0 W Alabama Power Comipany (Ikonsee}

sp;hcanon for a geo!cg! cal repos!!or). is the holder of Opereting Ucense Noe.

The entire merung will be open to Then ir terattions are to fJy inform hTF-2 and NTF4 leeued by the Nuclest pubhc attendance. '

DOF about the types erd amounts of Regule.ory Conunission (NRC/

information that m.si be praided in a The agenda for the sub}ect sneertng Commission) on june 2,377 and '

hceru apphcation to ellow a hcensing shall be as fo'Jow : March 31,1961,rupectively The Tuasday, May Jr, IMS-I tVp m. lacenses authortte the licensee to dec! sten o be msde b) NRC. 4;ntd tf e conc /asion of tws/a,,,

The pucy at mechams n for operate Joseph M Farley Nuclear Plant pou&rg gadance to the DOE in the The Subcommittee mil renew the nits 4 and 2 in accordance with the proposed Coevnission ts!e on - condit.ons specified therein.

NRC staff e 5 te Characteri anon standerstatien.

Anal) sis f5CA) ef DOE s 5.te 0:st statements may be presented ty 11 Characteraato. Plan ISCP) The $CA members of the pubhc with the Inmcups of thelionsn's acunUn and SCP are ret.nred by the NWPA and concerence of the Subcommittee were conducted on May 11-22. june 14, to CFR Part (O Addmenal muns hase Chatrman, wntten statements will b, and June 'al--]Jy 10.1987.The n auhe of been dese! sped to sar;'eme, t the accepted and made asailat!e to the these ins cuent in&csted that the gWdance pouded in the SCA Thus Ccmmittu Recordess will be perniitted hunsu ad not concucted its acuuun inctsd. :taff technical pes t.cns (TFs) only darir those puttiens of the This TP prendes sedance to DOE on

• t n hotce of req re nt d  : ion a e aske J by Violatin and Preposed Impositen of m t ed for d f) n: e and memben tf de Subcomrmttu its Qul Peulun (NouW m prud upp actainn t. hat are subect to the ga!dy ww O the bunsee by le tter dated Nos erober 3, ensurance rea Ater erts of10 CFR Part to make oral statements should nonfy 19e).The Nobca stain the natun of the the fu inACRS thanu asstaff reemter narned is pathcable so dat below as MolaboM N W etWe N h

requinmenta that the bcensee bad On b !) 31.19*6 t e NF sp;rernate sarangements tan be made.

the Nobre of k adabila[C p<.%shed for the draft Dunr4 the initial portion of the deleted and the amount of de civil pnaldo poposed for the violauons TP and schcHeit.ttc cemrents As a meet ng the Subcommittee. eleng with The beensee responded to the Notice of resJ's n; ret 3 sa ecmments were an) cf its sensultants who enay b, VMeon ud Pmpond leposition of recened from v.sht d fferent partes M Ts. the more, a p.t he ree t.rg a n te!d Od! Ptnalues b) tw o lstters. both dated view regardmg matters to be Deceraber 17,1987.

c ns.deaed dortr4 the balance of the e C f res n es t " " "" I UI pubtc com ncn's Rep'eienta'hes for After considere5on of the beenue's the States affected Inisn Tnbn. fhCyd.yd a d seu s es nspoon and de statemen:s of facts, inLitr). and the De;artmert of Lnugy w,th representatnes of the NRC Staff, emplanaton and arpmen's for were in ettendarce and pouded its con.ultants, and o$er interested arut gat on contained therein, the Deputy fndback to tha NFC staff in septemt er pnen ngueng h Euevun Dantor for Regional 195', a resised draft w as issued for Furder Leformation regard as topi:e Operatons has determined, as set forth edit onal comment As a result, ninet). 's be &scussed whether the sneectng Ln de Appnea to h Ordu, det ein three commetits were recened from sa 6 e been cancelled or teschedJed the n of udaden IA.ou nample

&fferent prt es Changes and Chatrnan'c ru!tes on requests for the nemfsuon13 of Wo A ed one natarts of clanficebons base been made in the oppertunit) to present oral statements violation 11 A should be withdraww that finalTP as e neult of thne interact ons and the time allotted therefor c4n be ne nmetning namplo of ndation The final positien hn also been obtained by a prepid telephone c4!! to I A.13 5, and II A and the nrestning nurwed by the Ccmmission's Addsor7 the cegnisent ACRS staff member, Mr. violations in their ent!rery occuned as Commmee on Re actor Safe gards Herman Alderman (teleptone 202/M4, statei that the deladone w en proprly

( ACRS) Waste Manageme nt 1413) berwun 7.30 a m and 415 p ro. categorlud in de aspegate u two Fersons plantd.r4 to attend this meetira Ses enty LAullU problems, and that the Subcommities.

are Erged to contatt the above camed penelun popened for de Moletine Dated at RcdnDe. Mar)lM th2 Xhh day inludeal cne or two da) before the . dengnated in the Notice of Vio!stion

• ) odedded meeting to be edused of an). and Proposed imposition of CM)

Ice the Neclu* Bess'atory Cerr.s s;ct' charges in schedJe. etc which sny Penaltaee ahould be impgsei baye occurred pa g gg , IV Arf.q S cnA CA;ef, Cre stus EsN A. DeteJ Ma) Jo.12dL Honoe W. M lt dew of the foregotra and punuant Ans e ef H P leel Waste Mmge. tent to section ut of the Atomic Energy Act e of c!ect MateVs kfety esd 4,,,,g.t fm ve &verorfbr Prereer

) Ad m of 1954. as amende d I Act). 42 U 5 C.

3241 and 10 CFR 825,it la bereby (F1t LAe. 3411s]1 Fued 6-2He, a ts a:r)

. (Til Doc 6H1664 FJed bb44. e 45 aml ordend thet.

enma coce no-eias e=wo ccu n c ,

l

. . ATTACHMFNT D HANDOUTS May 31,1958 ACRS leproved '.WR's Meeting

1. Proposed 10 CFR Part 52. Early Site Permits; Standard design certification; and combined licenses for nuclear power reactors t

l

_ _ _ - . . - - - . . . 2