ML20215L212
| ML20215L212 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/12/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2439, NUDOCS 8610280531 | |
| Download: ML20215L212 (17) | |
Text
'
CERTIFIED MIhUTES DATE ISSUED; Sept. 12, 1986
,hY i
Y 2
' 5$
.. I Y
j3D /L /8l$0 Wb
/
.i s
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS WASHINGTON, D. C.
JULY 9, 1986 A meeting was held by the ACRS Subcommittee on Improved LWR Designs. Notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Register on June 24,1986(At-tachmentA). The schedule of items covered in the meeting is in Attachment B.
The list of attendees is in Attachment C.
A list of the meeting handouts is in Attachment D.
The handouts are files with the office copy. Herman Alderman was the Designated ACRS Staff Member.
The meeting was convened at 8:35 a.m.
Principal Attendees ACRS NRC C J. Wylie, Chairman T King D. W. Moeller D. Moran M. W. Carbon C. Neal C. P. Siess D. Scaletti F. J. Remick W. Kerr EPRI G. A. Reed K. Stahlkopf C. Michelson J. Devine J. C. Ebersole J. F. Lang R. Engle DOE II.~Giessing Introductory Remarks - Chairman Wylie D.
C b
- 1 h02 1 860712 y
I i
2439 bE DI'0IC::ATF.D ORIGIHAL Certified By i M
o i
e MINUTES / IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS 2
a JULY 9, 1986
- / 4 Mr. Wylie noted that the Committee will be briefed on the EPRI Advanced Light Water Nuclear Power Plant Program and the NRC Standardization Policy State-ment, and the proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.
Mr. Wylie asked if the Subcommittee had any comments.
Mr. Ebersole remarked that he hoped EPRI would be saying something not about the distant reactors on paper, but perhaps the first one that was constructed at the beginning of construction of new nuclear plants. He also noted he hoped the discussion would include the institutional barriers more than the technical barriers to new plahts. ~He concluded with the remark that "I certainly would like to get a broad view from them as to when we will roll out in the first piace and what basis, both an institutional as well as a technological or design basis."
Dr. Moeller commented about the NRC policy for regulation of advanced reac-tors. He noted that the Commission intends to require the same degrees of protection for the public and the environment in the future for advanced reactors as is required for current generation LWR's. He noted that he hoped that when EPRI speaks that they will address whether they are just seeking to ado, ass current standards of safety.
He also noted that the Staff stated that during the initial phase of advanced reactor developments, the Commis-sion particularly encourages design inovation which increase safety and reliability. Dr. Moeller noted the incompatibility.
e
~
MINUTES / IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS 3
(
JULY 9, 1986
./.
Dr. Siess asked if the advanced LWR qualifies as an advanced reactor under the advanced reactor policy statement. Mr. King responded that the Staff so far has considered the EPRI ALWR program as not falling under the envelope of the advanced reactor policy statement. He also noted that advanced plants fall under the envelope of the standardization policy.
Dave Moran, NRC, added that the EPRI's effort in advanced reactors has the context of being within the state of the art but taking advantage of lessons learned and new technologies which have been proven by operation.
It is advanced within the current state of the art.
K. Stahlkopf, EPRI Mr. Stahlkopf noted that he would discuss EPRI's Advanced Light Water Reactor
. Program. Two of the tenets of the program are:
o Regulatory Requirements - This is the determination of the set of regulatory requirements for the next generator reactor o
Utility Requirements Documents - This is a 13 Chapter document which will state the requirements for the next generation of lightwater reactors in the United States.
s.
MINUTES / IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS 4
JULY 9, 1986
.is Mr. Stahlkopf mentioned the contractors working on the program. These are:
Combustion Engineering, Duke Power, General Electric, Bechtel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology all on one team.
The second team is: Westinghouse, Sargent and Lundy, Commenwealth Edison, Stone and Webster and Yankee Atomic.
These organizations have specific responsibility for specific sections within the requirements document.
In addition to'the previously named organization, MPI Associates is assisting in PWR issues, and Saul Levy Inc. is assisting in BWR issues.
Mr. Stahlkopf mentioned that the NRC will do a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for each chapter of the requirements document and a final overall SER for the program. He noted that NRC might simply do an overall SER and eliminate the SER for each chapter.
Mr. Stahlkopf discussed the regulatory stabilization program. He noted that EPRI has a need to define what those requirements are going to be and come to some way of stabilizing the requirements.
t 9
MINUTES / IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS 5
JULY 9, 1986 He stated that their intention was that the complete requirements document program would enable the NRC to certify that a plant built to EPRI require-ments will have no outstanding safety as licensing issues with its design.
J. Devine, EPRI Requirements Document Mr. Devine described the EPRI requirements document as a completion of design, construction and performance requirements for the advanced Lightwater Reactor.
It reflects both utility and NRC input on advanced lightwater reactor requirements.
The objective is to develop a hierarchy of requirements from the top down, and to implement th'ose requirements on a system by system and chapter by chapter basis.
As the work progresses it will probably be necessary to revise requirements because some objectives may be unachievable or objectives may have to be prioritized or traded off. The process viewed as being logical but iterative. Hopefully the end result will be an entire reactor with sensible individual portions.
Mr. Michelson asked when the Staff issues its SER, to what extent, if any, is that a commitment that the requirements are acceptable.
MINUTES / IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS 6
JULY 9, 1986 Mr. Devine replied the Staff's commitment to accept EPRI's requirements as appropriate and the burden will be upon the staff to verify that the design meets the requirements.
Mr. Devine remarked that the requirements document doesn't specify the size of the nuclear plant.
It will permit a small plant, a large plant or a mid-sized plant to be designed by the design group.
Mr. Devine stated that safety systems must be simple, primarily from the operators standpoint.
In response to Subcommittee questions regarding insider sabotage and its prevention, Mr. Devine responded that internal sabotage is addressed per NRC requirements.
Dr. Carbon asked if EPRI was going at it from the standpoint of whether the NRC has requirements or not.
He asked if you are going to approach it from the side of being sure that you are meeting the necessary safety require-ments.
l Mr. Devine replied that the fundamental basis of the program is to meet the necessary safety requirements. He noted they are starting from the needs and responsibilities of the owners and operators in trying to construct a logical, sensible plant from a safety standpoint and from all other aspects.
MINUTES / IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS 7
y JULY 9, 1986 c,
He remarked that they are not being slaves to existing words and assuming they are satisfactory and sufficient and need not be exceeded.
~
In response to Subcommittee questions regarding insider sabotage and fire protection, Mr. Devine noted those two areas will have to be dealt with.
Mr. Devine listed the fundamental acceptance criteria for the LWR.
o It must be economically attractive, i.e., competitive with alterna-tives, primarily coal o
Investment.. protection - this is achieved with a very low risk of accidents o
Assured licenseability - this is to be achieved by close coop-eration with NRC o
Predictable and controllable construction costs and scheduled and predictable and controllable operating costs and plant availability i
l D. Giessing, Department of Energy Mr. Giessing stated that he would talk about their licensing support activ-ities and the link to the EPRI program. He noted the goal for the DOE
{
MINUTES / IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS 8
f JULY 9, 1986 t/,
Advanced Light Water Reactor program is to foster development and certifica-tion of simpler, safer and more reliable light water reactors for the future.
He mentioned another broader objective, which is to support the removal of
~
technical licensing and institutional barriers for the operation and construction of future plants.
Mr. Giessing noted two principal areas of attention.
One deals with the large plant and looks at Advanced Boiling 8111ng Water Reactor and advanced pressurized water reactor design verification.
The second part of the prograhi deals with the mid-sized innovative LWR program, which is the 600 megawatt reactor.
He noted that there were some special applications programs dealing with constructability, improved construction techniques and advanced instrumenta-tion and control programs. These special applications all deal with these two main programs.
O Mr. Ebersole asked if DOE had considered the option of generating nuclear power by an organization other than the utilities but the utilities would market the product.
MINUTES / IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS 9
8 JULY 9, 1986
./.
Mr. Giessing replied that under the program of looking at institutional impediments, one task was looking at regional power generation with the utilities doing the distribution.
O Mr. Giessing remarked that the requirements document would be the controlling document.
It is anticipated that the majority of the issues will be handled in the dialogue between EPRI and NRC on the requirements document. There will be interaction with the NRC on this program to document specifically what are the final licensing bases.
ThenextstepwillbesubmittslofkheSafetyAnalysisReport.
The SAR will be prepared under the, requirements of the Standard Review Plan. A PRA will be provided and completed under this program.
Resolution of the severe accident issues is going to have to be an important part.
Mr. Giessing stated that there were two sets of requirements. There is the regulatory set of requirements and the utility' set of requirements. They are committed to meet the regulatory requirements, but above and beyond those are utility requirements that may change the present systems.
K. Stahlkopf, Small Reactor Design i
MINUTES / IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS 10 d
JULY 9, 1986
< l',
He noted that this effort started about a year ago with a conceptual design.
Three designs teams were asked to participate.
~
Two of the teams, Westinghouse and Burns and Roe, and G. E., Bechtel, MIT were selected to carry out 3 years of design work. The emphasis of the designs is toward passive safety systems.
The BWR design is an all natural circulation, 600 megawatt reactor. Under consideration are both top or bottom entry drives, using the suppression pool as a source of water for gravity drain and fill for potential loop situations.
For the PWR, consideration is being given to the possibility of horizontal steam generators. The elimination of boron was considered but this would result in about double the number of control rods.
The PWR system will have a passive safety system which involves a primary system blowdown through a reactor water storage tank; and then using the contents of that reactor water storage tank for gravity drain feedback into l
the loop.
Mr. Stahlkopf noted that they were pursing the leak-before-break concept in terms of snubber reduction and jet impingement shields.
They felt that within the time and dollar constraints they probably could not resolve the l
I
MINUTES / IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS 11 JULY 9, 1986 L
larger issue of containment and ECCS LOCA requirements. He remarked that they were keeping the double-ended guillotine break as the design basis.
D. Moran, NRC Mr. Moran discussed the staff review of the EPRI ALWR program plan. He noted that the ALWR cooperative program is supported out of NRR.
NRR is in the process of issuing NUREG-1197 which explains the ALWR program, management and review methodology.
The original, concept was to ave the chapters of the requirements document h
be issued one at a ti.me.
In actual practice, combination of chapters have been issued.
It ha'd been planned to review the incoming chapters at the rate of six months per chapter. The schedule for reviewing the combined chapters has to be determined.
Mr. Moran emphasized that the requirements document is a performance speci-fication or a design envelope, but not a design.
During the review, NRR will review each chapter, state what the acceptance items in that chapter are, and list any open items.
l Mr. Moran remarked that the requirements document will list an engineering rationale next to each requirement. The rationale should clarify any i
i i
i
MINUTES / IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS 12 JULY 9, 1986 a e questions that a reasonable designer would have. The NRC reviewers will look at the requirement and if they have any questions regarding the requirement, go to the engineering rationale.
If the rationale doesn't answer the ques-
~
tion, that EPRI will be contacted to provide further explanation in the rationale.
Mr. Stalkopf noted that prior to the submission to the NRC of the design information for FDA, the information will pass through EPRI, for EPRI's assessment as to whether or not it meets the requirements laid down in the utility requirements document.
A subcommittee member asked how this review process differs from the present PSAR/FSAR process,'where you produce a PSAR with commitments to do things and a FSAR where you show how you have carried out your commitments.
C. Neal, NRC, replied that in the past what was done was to generate designs, look at that design and see how it meets certain requirements.
This procedure generates the requirements first and then generates the designs.
I The question was asked as to whether the severe accident would be considered j
in the design of the containment.
l l
l
- MINUTES / IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS 13 JULY 9, 1986
'i Mr. Scaletti responded that all future plants will have to meet the severe accident policy statement.
~
There was some discussion regarding new issues to the requirements document.
Mr. Neal noted that screening criteria will be established to provide some sort of criteria as to whether or not a new issue applies to the requirements document.
Mr. Moran stated that the staff would like to meet with the ACRS during the course of their review. The'first such meeting would be following the staff reviewofChapter1inabout'Iixmonths.
The meeting was adfcurned at 12:20 p.m.
NOTE:
A transcript of the meeting is available in the NRC Public Document Room 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., or can be purchased from ACE-Federal Reporters, 444 N. Capitol Street, Washington, D.
C. 20001 (202) 347-3700.
l t
l l
& 7~7?fC W N1 $ Y ?
lf
' %Q' F:deral R; gist:r / Vol. 51, No.121 / Tuesday, Jun? 24, 1986 / N:tices 23013 I
cctivity cnd proposed topics for October 2.1985 (50 FR 191). In De gntire meeting will be open 13 -
j consideration. This session may in lude accordance with these procedures, oral public aticpdance.
,l e briefing *regarding a postulated or written statements may be presented
%e agenda for the subject meeting..
scenario for the nuclear power plant by members of the public recordings shall be as followsz, cccident at the Chernobyl Nuclear will be permitted only during those tc Station.
./ e portions of the meeting when a Wednesday.fuly 9.1986-&30 A.Af.
l Portions of this sesston will be closed transcript is being kept, and questions unul12mNoon - -
r cs required to discuss classified may be asked only by members of the f
information related to matters being Committee,its consultants, and Staff.
The Subcommittee will be briefed and.
discussed.
Persons dairing to make oral discuss the following topics:(1) The J.W P.AI.-5:30 P.Af.: B& W Nuclear statements should notify the ACRS Standardization Policy Statement,(2) l Power F/ ants (Open}-The members Executive Director as far in advance as proposed changes to 10 CFR 50, and (3) will hear reports for representatives of practicable so that appropriate g
.the NRC Staff and the B&W Owners arrangements can be made to allow the the EPRI Advanced I.ight Water Croup regarding proposed plans for the necessary time during the meeting for Requirements dgcuments.
such statements. Use of still, motion Oral statements may be presented by gvaluation of the long term safety of
" g the members of the public with the l
f 5ONAf aP.$f Ne c'tivation of hs$'ee*t ng )a - e im e i fo sjec e " '"
[
Deferred or Cancelled Nuclear Power (ortions of the meeting as determined Plants (Open)-The members will hear y the Chairman. Information regarding accege and made avadaMe to b e briefmg regardmg factors to be the time to be set aside for this purpose Committee. recordings will be permitted considered in the reactivation of may be obtained by a prepaid telephone nly during those portions of tl.e deferred or cance!!ed nuclear power call to the ACRS Eiecutive Director, meetmg when a transcript is being kept, R.F. Fraley, prior to the meeting. In view and questions may be asked only by plants.
6 Jo P. AL-7.00 P.Af.: Nomm.otion of of the possibility that the schedule for members of the Subcommittee,its ACRS Afember (Closed)--The members ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the consultants, and Staff. Persons desiring will discuss the qualificaSon of Chairman as necessary to facilitate the to make oral statements should notify candidates proposed for appointment to conduct of the meeting. persons the ACRS staff member named below as.~
the ACRS.
planning to attend should check with the Ws session will be closed to discuss ACRA Executive Director if such far in advance as is practicable so that rescheduling would result in major appropriate arrangements can be made.
h d
pre e t a cleaf! un a ed mc nVemence-During the in!tital portion of the invasion of personal privacy, I have determined in accordance with meeting the Subcommittee, along with Saturday. July 12. Ims subsection 10(d) Pub. L.92-483 that it is any ofits consultants who may be B 30 A.AL-12.N Noone /kpara//on of. necessary to close portions of this present, may exchange preliminary v
ACRS Reports to the Nuclear meeting as noted above to discuss views regarding matters to be.
Propnetary Information (5 U.S.C.
considered during the balance of the Regulatory Commission (Open/
552b(c)(4)) applicable to the facilities meeting.
Closed)-The members will discuss being discussed. information the release proposed reports to the NRC regarding of which would represent a clearly The Subcommittee will then hear matters considered during this meeting.
unwarranted invasion of personal presentations by and hold discussions Portions of this session will be closed privacy (5 U.S.C. 552b[c)(b)), classified with representatives of the NRC Staff, as require 1 to discuss Proprietary daia (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)).
Its consultants, and other interested Information applicable to the matters Further information regarding topics persons regarding this review.
being discussed.
to be discussed, whether the meeting Further information regarding topics I:m P.Af-2:30 P.AT: Activities or has been cancelled or rescheduled, the to be discussed, whether the meeting ACRS Subcommittees (Open)-ACRS subcommittee chairmen will report to Chairman s ruling on requests for the MMm deM h the Committee regarding the status of opportunity to present oral statements b b,a ruling on requests for the Chairman und the time allotted can be obtained by opportunity to present oral statements desigr.ated subcommittee assignment, L
indudmg proposed resisions to NRC a prepaid telephone call to the ACRS and the time allotted therefor can be Executive Director, Mr. Raymond F.
Regulatory Guides. NRC activities Fraley (telephone 202/634-3265).
obtained by a prepaid telephone call to regarding chilled water systems in between 8:15 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
the cognizant ACRS staff member, Mr.
nuclear power plants, and the reliabilit) lierman Alderman (telepohne 202/634-and performance of nuclear power plant Dated: lune 19.1986 14 3) between 8.15 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
control room heating, cooling, and John C. Hoyle, Persons planning to attend this meeting Sentilating s3 stems.
Adt isory Comminee Atanagement Of//cer.
are urged to contact one of the above 2:30 P.AT-3:30 P.AL Preparation of Doc. es-14230 Fded 6-2m 8:45 em) named individual one or two days 1
ACRS Rep ris to the NRC(Open/
""** COM **-*
- before the scheduled meeting to be e
Closed)-The members will complete advised of any changes in schedules.
discussion of matters considered during etc., which may have occurred.
this meeting-Advisory Committee on Reactor
[
Portions of th,is session will be closed Safeguards, Subcemmittee on Dated: June 17,1986.
l l
cs required to discuss Propnetary improved LWR Designs; Meeting Morton W. libarkin.
Information applicable to the matters The ACRS Subcommittee on Irnproved A ssistant L ecutive Director for Project 2
bring discussed.
Re m l [
Procedures for the conduct of and LWR Designs will hold a meeting on July partitipation in ACRS meetings were 9,1986. Room 1486,171711 Street, NW.,
(FR Doc. 8M4231 Filed 6-23-e6; 8.45 sm) mumo coot roeo-man 3
published in the Federal Register on Washington, DC.
i H
//-7 iM44d*78 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
,/
ACRS IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS SUBCOMMITTEE t
JULY 9, 1986 WASHINGTON, D.C.
8:30 a.m.
Introduc. tory Remarks - Subcommittee Chairman 8:35 a.m.
EPRI Advanced Light Water Requirements Document 10:35 a.m.
BREAK 10:45 a.m.
Standardization Policy Statement 11:15 a.m.
Proposed Changes to 10 CFR 50 11:30 a.m.
Subcommittee Discussion x
12:00 N00N Adjourn
~?
e
ACR5 5UBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON IMPROVED LWR DESIGNS (OCk ID:
ROOM 1046, 1717 H ST. NW., WASHINGTON, D.C.
I:
DATE:
quly9,1986 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE H0.
AFFILIATION
$<e 5 -0773 Sec 5 #
"D IMLn,
<= -or o6
% (; dad E rl 8 1 E -e> 9??
- c. N e s r, e.. * -
W l ( m <wi 5 a cv
/W
& N. fbnneM E -0962 0- 15E.
k
4 T't S F. L %
e -onP eft -t k.
GoAunn
. E otrc1 Os ry K. _%k\\ke d ' -
P-of7/4 P Ptr M 350 6
$dfs 1 M(
s t we e_o m rra ca Gem, W s E-ocl<c, c'-E CAa e two gn,
(}0{%rzEum Gos PdYt J k5 GO To9 lC vtQ 6A-Sc__
evr7<,
sa l
l 1
1
~
APPENDIX D 4
I LIST OF HAND 0UTS ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVED LWR DESIGN JULY 9, 1986 WASHINGTON, D. C.
1.
EPRI Presentation on the Advanced Light Water Reactors Program K. E. Stahlkopf EPRI J. C. Devine, Jr.
EPRI 2.
Additionai Slides on the ALWR by EPRI K. Stahlkopf 3.
DOEAdvancedlightwaterReactorProgram D. Giessing 4.
Staff Review of EPRI - ALWR Requirements Document D. Moran, NRC l
..