ML20206L742
| ML20206L742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/22/1988 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Kintner E ALWR UTILITY STEERING COMMITTEE, GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| PROJECT-669A NUDOCS 8811300213 | |
| Download: ML20206L742 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _
+
Noecmber 22,1988 Project No. 669 Mr. Edwin E. Kintner, Chairman ALWR Utility Steering Committee GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 Interpace Parkway j
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 i
Dear Mr. Kintner:
f
SUBJECT:
POTENTIAL REVIEW ISSUES FOR STANDARD PLANT DESIGNS l
The attachment to this letter provides information recently developed by the l
ttaff regarding the scope of the safet analysis report for future standard design applications and the scope of t e staff's review of such applications.
We believe you will find this information useful in preparation of the Advanced l
LWR Utility Requirements Document. Coa 6ustion Engineering, Inc., General Electric Company, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation are being informed of l
these positions as they relate to their standard designs.
)
If you have any questions regarding these issues or need further information, please contact the EPRI Advanced LWR Project Manager, Mr. W. Long at (301) l 492-1103.
l l
Sincerely, l
l Denn s. Crutchfield i
Acting Associate Director for Projects l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
j As stated cc w/ Attachment J. DeVine i
D" TRIBUT10N:
i l
WLong ACRS(10)
WLong
,9 NRC PDR EJordan LRubenstein PDSNP R/F BGrimes CHolahan EHylton OGC-ROCL DCrutchfield (EPRISCOPE)
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
- LA:PDSNP PM:PDSNP
- D:PDSNP *ADR4
- A:D:DRSP f
/
EHylton TKenyon Chiller LRubenstein GHolahan D
chfield 11/16/88 11/16/88 11/16/88 11/16/88 11/16/88 11/ 7 888 ssit300:13 891122 h
l FDR FROJ ppe 669A I(
j
. ~
l l
Mr. Edwin E. Kintner !l 4.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS:
I It was decided that (1) proposed Technical Specifications should be developed as earl application. (2) y as practicable, but be subuitted no 'ater than the FDA j
proposed Technical Specifications representative of the design should be submitted for review and approval by the staff as part of 4
the FDA submittal, and will be included in the Design Certification I
procell, and (3) applicants should identify design features that are l
necessary for testing and maintenance during operation without challenging j
safety systems.
The Technical Specifications should be develnped, where practicable, based 1
l upon risk and reliability cont,tderations.
5.
TESTING AND MAINTENANCE:
i l
The staff decided that a repr;eentative Reliability Assurance Program
{
should be provided as pa:- A the FDA application for review and approval J
by the staff to afsure the reliability of components (as assumed in j
accident analyses and PRAs) is maintained throughout plant life. This j
program will rot be certified as part of the Design Certification process l
due to the plant-specific and administrative nature of such programs. The progran should address iteras such as (1) the Technical Specifications i
and IS!/IST, (2) the Maintenance Program, (3) Plant Frocedures, and j
(4) Security.
6.
INDUSTRY USE OF MAAP:
The staff decided that review of the MAAP code is unnecessery since the staff can apply its own HELCOR and Source Term Code Package (STCP) codes in its evaluations.
This inforration is p,ovided for your consideration in the develop *
. of the EPRI ALWR Requirements Document. By separate letter, Combustion Engineering, Inc., General Electric Company, and Westinghouse Eler^ric Corporation have been informed of these positiens as they relate to their standard designe, Sincerely, Dennis M. Crut W ield Acting Associate Director for Projects Office at Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File WLong ACRS (10)
TKenyun HRC PDR EJordan LRubenstein FDSNP R/F EGrimes GHolchan EHylton OGC-ROCK DCrutchfield (EPRI SCOPE)
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCUP.RENCE
- LA:PDSNP FM:PDSNP
- D:f0SNP *ADR4
'A:D:DRSP *A:ADP EHylton TKenyon:cw CMiller LRubenstein GHolahan 0CRutchfield 11/16/88 11/16/88 1?/16/68 1)/16/SE 11/16/S8 11/ /Sb
~
Mr. Edwin E. Kintner 4.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS:
It was decided that (1) proposed technical specifications should be developed as early as practicable, but be submitted no later than the FDA application, (2) proposed technical specifications representative of the design should be submitted for review and approval by the staff as part of the FDA submittal, and will be included in the Design Certification process, and (3) applicants should identify design features that are necessary for testing and maintenance during operation without challenging safety systems.
The Ta:hnical Specificatiors should be developed, where practicable, based upca risk and reliability considerations.
5.
TESTING AND MAINTENANCE:
The staff decided that a representative Reliability Assurance Program s!.ould be provided as part of the FDA application for review and approval by the staff to assure the reliabilit components (as assumed in in accident analyses and PRAs) y of is main-tained throughout plant life. This program will not be certified as part of the Design Certification process due to the plant-specific and administrative nature of such programs. The program should address (1) tne Technical Specifications and ISI/IST, (2) the Maintenance Program, (3) Plant Procedures, and (4) Security.
6.
INDUSTRY USE OF MAAP:
The staff decided that review of the MAAP code is unnecessary since the staff can apply its own HELCOR and Source Term Code Package (STCP) codes in its ecaluations.
This infrNtion is provided for your consideration in the development of the
(
EPRI ALW iequirements Document.
By separate letter, Combustion Engineering, Inc., General Electric Company, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation have been informed of these positiens as they relate to their standard designs.
Sincerely, i
Dennis M. Crutchfield l
Acting Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: feo next page
[
DISTRIBUTION:
l Docket File WLong ACRS510)
TKenyon l
NRC PDR 5 Jordan LRubenstein l
PDSNP R/F BGrimes GHolahan l
EHylton OGC-ROCK DCrutchfield V
l gj' %
so LA: KNP PM4DSNP PM!IPNNP D:PDS P'n ADR4k A)h.bS (A)ADP EO to'n WLong.cw TXelyon Cililleri LRubenstein GHolahan DCRutchfield N
11/ P/83 11/ /88 11/4/06 11/p/88 11//4/88 11/p/88 11/ /88 l
J'//G 113
1.
'o, UNITED STATES k [/ gf/,g NUCLEAR RCGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 g
%,*.v.. /
November 22, 1988 Project No. 669 Hr. Edwin E. Kintner, Chairman ALWR Utility Steering Comittee GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Dear Hr. Kintnerr
SUBJECT:
POTENTIAL REVIEW ISSUES FOR STANDARD PLANT DESIGNS The attachment to this lette.r provides information recently developed by the staff regarding the scope of the safety analysis report for future standard design applications and the scope of the staff's review of such applications.
We believe you will find this information useful in preparation of the Advanced LWR Utility Requirements Document, Combustion Engineering, Inc., General Electric Company, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation are being informed of these positions as they relate to their standard designs.
If you have any questions regariing these issues or need further information, please contact the EPRI Advanced LWR Project Manager, Mr. W. Long at (301) 492-1103.
(
Sincerely, vL )
enn N tch e [ T ' '"
Acting Associate Diredtor for Projects Office of Huclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
As stated cc w/ Attachment Mr. Jchn DeVine, Jr.
Nuclear Power Division Electric Power Reseaich Institute P.O. Box 10412 Palo Alto, CA 94303
ATTACHMENT POTENTIAL REVIEW SUBJECTS FOR STANDARD PLANT DESIGNS On October 3 and 4,1988, the staff met to discuss major issues related to the review of advanced light water reactor applications.
Included in the dis-cussions were issues in which the scope of the staff's acceptance criteria may go beyond that of the current Standard Review Plan to ensure improved design, construction, and/or operation of these advanced plants. The following are brief discussions of the staff's current views on some of these matters.
1.
SCOPE OF DESIGN In the proposed regulation 10 CFR Part 52, the Commission has defined the desired scope of designs for standard plants requesting certificatio:.
The proposed regulation states that "Ideally, the designs for which certification is sought will be for essentially complete plants."
It also states that "the NRC will give priority in allocation of resources to support reviews and approval of applications for essentially complete plants." Therefore, an applica. ion be for a design certification must be essentially complete and consistent with the proposed 10 CFR Part 52 in order for us to provide th: appropriate priority resources to the ap-plication review.
2.
60 YEAR LIFE:
For applications proposing a 60-year design life, the staff would review the designs for a 60-year life notwithstanding the fact that a 40-year license term limitation is presently in the regulations.
It is the applicants' responsibility to identify the components and systems which are affected. Applications for design certification will have to provide information and programs to support cesign life, and the reviews for such issues as fatigue, corrosion and thermal aging.
3.
FIRE PROTECTION:
Improved fire protection criteria are needed in view of the significant contribution of fires to core melt probability. The current Appendix R and BTP 9-5.1 requirements (e.g. 20 ft. separation) should be replaced by a requirement for safe shutdown capability in the event of a complete loss of any fire area.
4.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS:
The etaff considers that (1) proposed Technical Specifications should be P.
) ped as early as practicable, but be submitted no later than the FDA a
- e. ion,(2)proposedTechnicalSpecificationsrepresentativeofthe dc.
.uld be submitted for review and approval by the staff as part of th
.ittal, and will be included in the Design Certification process, and (3) applicants should identify design features that are necessary for tetting and maintenance during operation without challenging safety systems.
1
g The Technical Specifications should be developed, where practicable, based upon risk and reliability considerations.
5.
TESTING AND MAINTENANCE:
Certification of a design will be based in part upon a probabilistic risk assessment of that design.
In that the validity of a PRA is highly dependent on the reliability of systems, structures and components, the staff requires assurance that programs will be implemented which will ensure that the reliability of those systems, structures and components (assumed in analyses) will be maintained throughout plant life. There-fore, a program to assure design reliability must be provided as part of the FDA application. This program which will be certified as part of the oesignshouldaddressitemssuchas(1)theTechnicalSpecificationsand ISI/IST, (2) the Maintenance Program, (3) Plant Procedures, and (4)
Security.
6.
INDUSTRY USE OF MAAP:
MELCOR and Source Term Code Package (y since the staff can apply its own Review of the MAAP code is unnecessar STCP) codes in its evaluations.
7.
ST/ TION BLACK 0UT AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:
Future ALWRs should adopt improved electrical systems to ensure a safe shutdown of the reactor. These systems should provide, in part, for diverse power sources in order to eliminate the concerns related to station >1ackout. General guidelines will be developed and finalized during the course of the ABWR review.
8.
LEAK BEFORE BREAK:
Leak before break can be considered where justified. Where applicable, designs must address good practices in order to maintain steam generator tube integrity.
Also, designs should address issues of material embrittle-nont associated with current vessel materials and vessel supports.
A new rule and draft SRP Section 3.6.3 have been issued.
The EPRI design requirements has adopted these criteria.
9.
S_gR,Cf_ TERMS:
The staff is concerned that the licensing basis source term "TID 14844" is not consistent with current knowledge, therefore, with EPRI input, realistic source terms will be established to be uniformly applied to future ALWRS.
10.
PHYSICAL SECURITY:
i Sabotage should be addressed in all future ALWR applications. As a l
rinimum, information should be provided to demonstrate the existence of sdequate physical barriers to protect vital equipment in accoronnce with l
10 CFR 73.55(c) and to identify (access control points to all vital areas in accordance with 10 CFR 73.55 d).
l l
l
3 11 *. OBE/ DYNAMIC ANALYSIS METHODS:
The staff agrees that the OBE should not control the design of safety systems as now required by 10 CFR 100 Appendix A.
The staff will take this issue under consideration as part of the design certification process.
19 TYPE C CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE RATE:
Containment leakage is acknowledged by the staff as being a function of containment pressure.
- 13. HYDROGEN GENERATION:
10 CFR 50.34(f) related to the issue of a 100% metal water reaction will be invoked for ALWRs consistent with Commission Policy and proposed 10 CFR Part 52.
I i
1
(
i f
I i
.