ML20235E949
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. _ _ _ _ _ _ _______. 1 t ( t
/7(o je# '4 UNITED STATES e i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION )
I o WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 CATEGORY FnNyo g UM
***** JUN 7 1977 m:E :.-
General Electric Company ATTN: Dr. G. G. Sherwood, Manager c' 7 n. '- !! Si Safety and Licensing 125 Curtner Avenue l'i k.- ..M-San Jose, California 95114
].[;' 3 g s'd.'hDS" Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR TOPICAL REPORTS Since December of 1973 when the current General Electric densification model was approved, we have had several discussions with GE about their densification program status. These discussions have covered densifi-cation performance, proposed (minor) model changes and statistical procedures which need formal documentation. We therefore request that GE submit two topical reports on this subject. The first report should include (a) GE densification experience since 1973, (b) densification of gadolinia fuels, and (c) proposed densification model changes. The second report, which may be submitted after the publication of Regulatory Guide 1.126, should address statistical procedures for densification analysis (resintering) . , We expect that these reports will be referenced by all boiling water reactor facilities using GE fuel. Please notify us within seven days as to when you will supply the requested reports. . Sincerely, Olan D. Parr
- b. hief l
Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Project Management cc: Mr. L. Gifford ' l General Electric Company 4720 Montgomery Lane l Bethesda, Maryland 20014 [r j l 1 I ..- V * / 1 B707130148 FOIA 870o23 PDR l - PDR THOMASB7-40 t . - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7 14
~
N4Noper ' BY $EGULAT6RY NRW
/7164 $C4'$ !
3 - r- if I l GESSAR POST-PDA REVIEW ITEMS l l l 1) Further study of large motor performance to evaluate the effects of loss of cooling water to the recirculation pumps is planned. This is a generic confirmatory program. !
- 2) Design of the Mark III to accomodate the loads generated by Safety /
Relief Valve discharges. GE is performing tests to verify their , analytical model. We feel this is a generic confirmatory program I also.
- 3) Staff questions concerning the statistical analysis of reactor data i used in establishing and accounting for errors and uncertainties in power distributions (Appendix 4A of GESSAR) are being handled as part of our review of topical report NEDO-20340.
- 4) Testing of the Mark III containment concept will continue post-PDA.
- 5) Some minor questions to GE related to the ECCS are not required for l the PDA but.will be answered by GE post-PDA. These are for verification purposes.
- 6) Details of the design of the I and C area will be reviewed post-PDA.
- 7) Details of the design of the ESN system will be reviewed post-PDA to verify the ability to use ESW as makeup for the SFP.
, ]
I 1 l 8) GE will confirm the delay times of the Xe and Kr on the charcoal ) beds based on large scale tests at KRB. This is a generic item and the post-PDA program is confirmatory in nature. 1
- 9) Assumptions and analytical methods used in the containment vacuum f breaker analysis should be provided post-PDA. This is verifying i information.
- 10) GE will work with us to develop a surveillance program for the new S/R valves. )
- 11) Instrumentation and acceptance criteria for the structural and leak tests of the drywell will be developed post PDA.
8 s 4 gy-Qvr",U'>eu:
~
a-"
- w. .a t . _, ;
DMC3/3/75 - e.Y a c"t7i h# m,v e u L. q.,.aR* s 1 t
~ '
n[ n' "'s . I
ja' oour ay Reenomt Srwr
, GE.MR jy9 tb 8 CST i
J - f ~ 71~ COMPARISON OF GESSAR AND WASH-1361 Parameter WASH-1361 Value CESSAR Value
- 1) SSE 0.25 east of Rockies 0.3 g.
- 2) Tornado: Max Speed 360 mph 360 mph Pressure Drop 3 psi 3 psi Rate of Pressure Drop 2 secs. 2 secs.
Tornado Missiles 4" Wood Plank Same as WASH-1361 3" Steel Pipe Same as WASH-1361 1" Steel Rod Same as WASH-1361 6" Steel Pipe Same as WASH-1361 12" Steel Pipe Same as WASH-1361 13.5" Utility Pool Same as WASH-1361 Automobile Same as WASH-1361
- 3) Operating Basis Wind 130 mph Speed 130 mph, 30' 30' above ground above grade
- 4) Overpressure Resulting formulas given from Nearby Explosions To be handled on a for regions ca'se by case basis.
- 5) Flood Level l' or more below grade l' below grade
- 6) Local Probable 4"/hr with overflow Maximum Precipitation 4"/hr and capability capability to limit standing of 16"/hr water to 9.5 inches.
- 7) Snow Load 80 lb/f 50 lb/ft 2
- 8) Hazardous Chemical Use Reg. Guide 1.78
- Release To be handled on a case by case basis.
- 9) Differential and 1 ft. absolute To be handled on a Absolute Settlement 10". differential case by case basis.
of Principal Buildings
- 10) DBA-X/Q 2 x 10 ~3 sec/m at ~
1.4 x 10 ' sec/m O.4 miles for 2 hr X/Q at 2700 m. c. f' (0" m
! J\.
a r= = r T 7 a ^ nic a L.; L~ u ,m _ . 'y..
.n ;
~
. n -.1 .
30 \Ot 20m0i'0 TiChl Eisa.i DMc3/3/75
i
=. . _ . . .
3 1-l l g- SER SECTION STAFF CONCERN STATUS
- 1. 3. 2.1 ' We will require the applicant to Applicant does not 3.2.2 commit to the seismic and quality conform.
, classifications of the liquid and
, gaseous radwaste treatment systems *
- l to Appendix B of our SER.
i.
'.* 2. 3.5- We will require specific velocities GE feels many velocities '
l, for the assumed tornado missiles. of the missiles are zero. ( We do not agree with GE's analysis , i that many missile velocities are. zero. I
- 3. 3.6 We will require GE to provide GE has not yet provided specific criteria that will be sufficient information to.
used to postulate pipe break the staff.
. locations and types of break for piping passing through containment.
. a .
- 4. 3.8.3 '
We'are requiring-the drywell to be Applicant opposes this
. ', structurally proof tested and leak requirement.
l tested at the design pressure of' 'i the drywell. l (J 5. 4.3.4 Prior to Amendment 21, all affected GE has provided this. I 15.1 transients and accidents had not information in Amendment .,~
. been analyzed by GE using the new- 21 and our review is not scram reactivity curve (D curve). yet complete. We will- , l -
report in a supplement i to the SER. !' 6. 4.3.7 GE has not provided enough descrip- We will pursue this
- tion of their phy. sics' analytical with GE as a post-PDA c methods nor have they presented item.
comparisons of measured reactor data with the analytical predictions.
'l 7. 4.4 Prior to Amendment 19, GE had not Amendment 19 provided t analyzed GESSAR using GETAB, since this information, We we had not completed our review of will report the results l GETAB. of our review in an W.R supplement.
~
h .. 3vgeQ*g
- 4. og -
l "x gsP
$$1
.4-..-...-...-
l
s 4
.. J
,. SER SECTION STAFF CONCERN STATUS
- 8. 5.2.2
- We will require GE to commit We need a commitment to perform a surveillance
{ - program on the new safety / from the applicant. { relief values for the BWR/6 ] and periodically report the results of that program.
- 9. 5.4.5 We require the RHR system GE feels that they to be single failure proof . can achieve a cold
', as required by GDC 34 of shutdown even if a 10 CFR 50 Appendix A. sini;;1e failure occurs )
in,the RHR system. j
- 10. 6.2.1.4 We have not had time to complete We will report our our review of the suppression results in an SER pool makeup system since GE has supplement.
only recently submitted this j information. J
. 11. 6.2.1.5
- As a result of GE's. increasing G.E is working on these
, the design drywell external items and we will report further in an SER
, pressure, the number and site ,
., vacuum breakers should be reduced supplement.
to reduce the potential sources of bypass leakage. In addition, GE needs to further justify the
! assumptions they used in the dry-(I well vacuum breaker ana,1ysis. ;
- 12. 6.2.1.7
- We will require GE to provide GE says the results of l all the assumptions used in these analyses will be the containment subcompartment ready by January 31, I pressure analyses as well as 1975.
provide the results of those l analyses.
- 13. 6.2.1.8 We will require further dis- GE is working with us d
cussion of how potential post- to resolve these con-LOCA steam bypass of the sup- cerns. We expect to be pression pool is prevented. able to report on l The identity of all potential resolution of this in
- paths needs to be addressed as an SER supplement.
l well as periodic surveillance of those paths.
l 4
1 I
,. n . . +.y we . -e, ---~ - ~ ~ . - - ---. .
p
f . . . (
- SER SECTION STAFF CONCERN STATUS 1
( 14. 6.2.3 We will require a pressure analysis of the fuel building GE needs to provide l further analysis to and ECCS and RWCV pump rooms demonstrate that to demonstrate that these negative pressure is
' areas remain at a negative maintained.
pressure of 1/4" w.g. following , , a LOCA.
- 15. 6.2.4 If GE wishes to purge the GE needs to provide 11.3.1 containment continuously, added information they will have to provide with respect to additional information their proposal.
related to filtration of the discharged flow and the
; design of equipment to isolate the flow.
- 16. 6.3.1 -
We will require GE to perform CE has not done the ECCS analysis assuming the two analysis assuming
, a
, , LPCI pumps are diverted to,,the two, LPCI pumps are spray mode after a 10 minute diverted.
, delay to demonstrate that the
- performance and acceptability of the ECCS is not adversely affected.
(' 17. 6.3.1 We will require GE to p'rovide GE has not provided the post-LOCA manual actions to a satisfactory assure that there are no unde- response to date,
~ sirable consequences'resulting ,
from improper operator ' actions. Information needed is listed in Section 6.3.1.
- 18. 6.3.2 We will require an analysis that GE has recently provided shows that the consequences of a such analyses. We will LOCA with a recirculation loop report on this in an
j.
valve closure will not cause the SER cupplement.
; peak clad temperature to exceed j acceptance criteria values.
1
; e _
_..s. .
.s c .*
* ~ '
p ,
. SER SECTION STAFF CONCERN STATUS
- 19. 6.3.2 , GE will need to reanalyze GE recently submitted L . (. the LOCA using methods this information and we acceptable tu the staff are reviewing it arid and in accordance with. will report in an SER-l . Appendix K of 10 CFR 50. supplement.
- . 20. 7.0 CE needs'to provide the design GE is working to' -
'. 8.0 bases and criteria, functional prepare information
,. diagrams,'and an evaluation.
- for our review. We i
'. of the designs of the instrumen- will report on this in
. tation and control areas. In an SER supplement.
addition inconsistencies within . Chapter 7 of GESSAR and between i Chapter-7 and other chapters need to be ' corrected. ! 21. - 9.1.3 We require another source of . GE has proposed use of seismic Category I makeup the essential service f , water for the spent fuel- water system as this ! l pool other than RHR. - source. We are 1 d . -
. reviewing this and
^*
will report in an
, SER supplement.
- 22. 9.1.3 GE needs to demonstrate that 100'F' GE has recently provided j is the maximum station cooling such information. We have
. (- water temperature that could not'yet completed'our
- occur in the analysis of fuel review. We will report
, pool cooling capability even on this item in an SER i
in the event the normal heat supplement when our
; sink is unavailable.. review is finished.
- 23. 9.2 We will require further Same status as item 22.
discussion, P and I diagrams and safety' evaluations of various water systems
, discussed in Section 9.2 of our SER.
- 24. 9.3.1 GE needs to provide further Same status as item 22.
4 MSLIV leakage control system 1 discussion. 1 25. 9.4 There are several HVAC systems Same status as item 22. that are prone to single failures. I L
.(
.. .-.. . ~
~\
, . 1 3
a . . I e . : SER SECTION STAFF CONCERN STATUS ('
- 26. 9.5 GE needs to provide added GE needs to supply l information with respect added information. '
to the fire protection We will report in i system for it to be a supplement.. ' acceptable.
. . I
- 27. 11.3.2 Additional means to reduce GE is reviewing the activity of gaseous dhis item.
releases are required ) since the SGTS appears, to be too small to handle . exhausts from all areas directed towards it. *
- 28. 11.4 We require that space for GE is proposing a solid waste storage be one month storage provided to allow for more capability.
, than one month decay.
- 29. 11.4s GE should verify the,_ i
GE feels their waste '
' absehce of free water in prep'aration methods solid wastes. prevent free water.
- 30. 15.1 We will require fur;ther GE is preparing evaluation of transients information to
, with PRT, and what the address these -
l alternatives are to PRT: . concerns. t ,
}
I J
' id' y ._ -
- ]
l {' y.- t
l g-j n'
'4. +.
Y - 20 , j a
'E N
5 l V. OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION n j 1 INTRODUCTION The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) is composed of several - i groups which perform the licensing aspects of nuclear power plants. g l This Of fice is charged with the responsibility for reviewing applications , 9 e '9 ' for construction permits (CP), operating licenses (0L), changes to aJ operating licenses, and for the licensing of research reactors and # facilities of a critical nature. Functionally, the licensing effort is 'j $ divided among four major divisions. One division reviews the design and - 5 8 operational changes in operating reactors. Another division carries out ! ghe project management for reactor safety reviews of CP and OL applications. 3 A third division is responsible for the detailed safety reviews of 5 reactor applications through the operating license stage. The review and evaluation of all safety and environmental aspects of reactor sites is the responsibility of the fourth division. In addition to 'the above e areas, NRR is also responsible for the antitrust and indemnification - aspects of nuclear facilities. The licensing process is an involved one and will be briefly reviewed here. Af ter a utility decides to build a nuclear power plant, it must make application for a construction pennit. After the CP.is reviewed for completeness it is officially accepted and documented. A safety 3 review and an environmental review are performed in parallel. After both reviews are completed and public hearings have concluded, a construction permit is iss'ued. ,,, Approximately two years before the fuel loading date, the utility applies p for an operating license. After the application is reviewed for completeness, <
.c it is accepted for docketing. After the OL review is complete, an operating /% !
license is issued which authorizes the utility to legally load fuel into MpE i the reactor. Approximately six months later, commercial power is produced by the reactor. Six to ten years pass between the application L.$ for a construction permit to the time the plant is producing electricity. t ji Many people are of the erroneous impression that the licensing process stops here. In fact, the licensing and regulation process continues for the ,g approximate forty year lifetime of the reactor. For example, any ?t abnormalities in technical specifications of the reactor's operation $$ must be reported and corrected. Likewise, changes in technical specification,s / occur. Therefore,there is a need for a continual exchange of information . [t between the NRC and the licer.see. 1i Overall, the Office is expected to grow. The driving function is mainly I reactors presently on-line and those new reactors coming on-line during ? the planning period. Notwithstanding the present slowdown of new reactor j sales and some construction slippages in the nuclear industry, NRR's - i resource commitments do not lessen significantly. l t l
- a
- e
(- .
,3,
'~$$
50
$7 Ta
- son for this is that NRR is not totally case oriented. Currently 43.erea
.,,e
- one third of the NRR workload is case related. Casework as used l$
j
,.er.is the work involved in the CP and OL area as will be elaborated l The other two thirds of NRR's workload is in the technical ; i l
,:sistance, technical support, and generic work resulting from the g'
m:rease in the number of and experience with operating reactors. , E j g; does not only concentrate its activity in the LWR area. There is .
,E \
i eiso a subset of work under advanced reactors that is a part of its responsibility. } l These reactors will not reach commercial operation or ; 8 i test operation until the middle to latter part of the planning period. .g 4 l 7 {
- s elaborated previously, this Office is expected to grow in the aggregate. 5 eever, sone remain different work efforts within the Office increase, decrease, and constant.
Consequently, an increase in one area can be somewhat accommodated by a decrease in another area. Changes in priorities can also -,
- ur and this could cause further increases and decreases in work effort. 1 ine personnel within NRR will be reallocated where possible (e.g. a physicist .
- annot perform a job of a chemist) among the work areas as their needs change.
inis Office's work and funding outl pg , partitioned into six program areas.ook over the planning horizon has been These program areas are Operating ' 4f jf ' . Standards, and Program Direction and Support, and each area elaborated on below. 5' f w PROGRAM AREAS - Operatino Reactors .i
.c h Tne licensing and regulatory activities for operating reactors center on + .
assuring public safety with minimum regulation and minimum economic S impact on consumers. This requires more thorough, comprehensive, and I c!Ij opert safety and environmental evaluations than were conducted in the b[ t j; past when overly regulatory requirements were often less balanced and sometimes restrictive. Operating reactors contribute directly to the g, energy supply of the nation and thus receive NRR's highest priority in pe l resource (manpower and dollar) allocation. More specifically, these ba activities include the following: 1.
$j$ 4 i Assuring plants are kept in safe operation by analysis and evalua-tion of operating experience, design information and inspection vf ee
\
and enforcement findings, and taking necessary ac, tion in the form ; & l 9 of licensing orders and changes in allowable operating conditions.
} l E
S Y a
lE2 I h i f l Preventing unnecessary restrictions in plant operation by rev ew o\ , l licensee requests for amendments to operating licenses. ' f , l i. Providing additional effort to be responsive to increased public ggE awareness of operating reactor events. l g Establishing procedures for the evaluation of all operating facilities 'i 4. against current licensing criteria and continuing to evaluate all$.g operating f acilities against new rules, guides, standards, andImpact/value t 4 licensing requirements as they are developed.are used ] to judg v> acceptable level of safety has been established. i. Developing a program to examine present rep This also 6rting will requirements of , licensees to ensure minimum effective regulation. include the evaluation of the annual reports submitted by licensees . p' to ensure that only necessary and useful information is supplied and that such information benefits the staff's future reviews. e 6
- l. Developing procedures to permit the collection of operating experience and data to provide a vehicle for a feedback of that information
]
into the licensing process. 7. degree of public protection and replacing inadequate a conservative safety margins with balanced requirements t factors. The Division of Operating Reactor's (OR) workload consists p three elements. is not proportional to either the number of operating reactors, This the number of operational events, or the number of OR personnel. effort includes such items as technical contract management. assistance coordination an This effort includes l proportional to the number of operating facilities. study of reactor operating exp'eriences, technical evalua The third category is quite large ment activities, and correspondence. and consists of effort which previously had not been treated in aThis systematic manner.
' - - - - - ~ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5 i "
]}Jh E j
],3l$l reactors: (1) to ensure that generic safety issues are appropriately $ )
addressed and (2) to review all operating reactors against present , requirements that have evolved over the last few years to ensure that ; the public health and safety continue to be adequately protected. I g { Examples of generic safety reviews that will require significant amounts i of manpower include reviews associated with fire protection; Mark I ' 'fa ! containments; Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS) considera- ! tions; seismic evaluations (paralleling 10 CFR Part 100; Appendix A); i i reactor pressure vessel supports, steam generator problems, and reactor j piping cracking. i . 3 The resource projection for this program area follows: 7
$ l FY 77 FY 78 FY 79 FY 80 FY 81 FY 82 Operating Reactors: .
s y \ Manpower 140 175 193 215 237 266 Total Budget 7.409 9.141 10.014 11.224 12.398 13.931 ($ Millions) ' gi { Operating Licenses i*
}
I Operating licenses constitute a major step in the licensing review. b About two years before the expected fuel load date, the applicant e i applies to the NRC for an operating license. The projected output of g OL's for the planning period is expected to fluctuate between 6 to 13 .& yearly. y These estimates are based on an analysis of information relating S to reactors that will be placed into commerical operation over the planning 3 period over and this the reactors that will be slipped in the construction phase period. If there is an electrical lg cill probably step up construction schedules. power demand surge, utilities jm Overall, the schedule as tI prescribed in the planning projections could be considered as conservative.
.j The actual timing of the decision concerning issuance of an operating -
A I license is determined mainly by the construction time after the CP has ~ ' , been issued. The NRR objective is to avoid having the OL review be on , l * ! l the critical path for fuel loading. There is little incentive to reduce l the scheduled time for such reviews because experience in FY 1974 and FY
- i
' 1975 has demonstrated that the OL has been ready for issuance prior to l readiness for fuel loading in each case. All OL safety reviews will still -{ l l e a
a
" k
- t dc -
i f'3' I. I I \
>e performed by NRR in-house; however, all OL environmental reviews will
>e performed at the national laboratories commencing in FY 1978. The $ f
,bove considerations are for all reactor plants and designs in the LWR t
- ategory. ,
There areperiod. a number of advanced reactors that will be licensed over the l
>1anning i i Some advanced reactors are under other agency controls -
ind will not be required to be licensed by NRC. The light water breeder l reactor falls under this category. Other advanced reactors such as the following are under NRC control for I licensing purposes. i I The Clinch River Breeder Demonstration Reactor (CRBR), the Loss of Fluid ' l Test Reactor (LOFT), and the Fast Flux Test Facility, (FFTF) are expected to be licensed during the planning period. No new licenses are expected to be issued for High Temperature Gas Reactors (HTGR's). Th'e only high temperature gas reactor in operation domestically is Fort St. Vrain. * { The CRBR and FFTF.are in the construction permit review stage and this I will be elaborated in the next section. l There is only a small amount of knowledge in the advanced reactor area E at the present time. The NRC is essentially charting new areas with . respect to licensing these novel reactors. A high degree of staff competence is needed in this area. ~ { The resource projection for this program area follows: - i FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 FY82 Operating Licenses: Manpower 51 62 69 62 74 74 Total Budget ($ Millions) 2.903 3.408 3.367 2.979 4.146 4.437 T Construction Permits Due to the complexity of this topic area, the work areas will be addressed as CP background, CP review types, CP review process outputs, and CP advanced reactors.
;&W W
,p . c !
[-
'u
.'h 5
CP
Background:
}
Construction permits are the key step in the licensing process for both the applicant and the NRC.that convert the design intent to project reality in the development of a power plant. Issuance of a construction permit confirms that the course selected by the applicant will provide , i assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety, meet the NEPA tests for preserving the quality of the environment, and comply with antitrust laws. The review is an intensive evaluation by NRR staff, advisory groups, consultants, other Federal agencies and states, and finally by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards. Key factors in the scheduling and execution of the involved review process are the ability to schedule not only the workloads but also the timely availability of resources to perform it. Within the staff there are available only limited numbers of reviewers for each discipline (e.g., core physics, structural engineers, seismologists). For any
- given input or in-process workload, the minimum achievable schedule depends on the total number of staff available, their availability at the time required, the " mix" of staff capabilities, and the timely response of all the external contributors to the process. The actual expenditure of resources per review is based on the minimum required i
time to carry out the intent of the Standard Review Plan (SRP). This is only a pan of the total time. The total time required to carry out the process, assuming timely external inputs, is the sum of staff review plus external response time. A primary cause of schedule slippage derives from sequencing problems caused by accumulated small slips and the resultant unavailability of the right resource when needed. Hence a small slip as described below in a schedule effort can expand to cause a number gated of associated through slips as the sequence perturbations are propa-the schedule. The only practical way to deal with this effect is to provide additional resources so that elasticity can be built into the licensing staff schedules. One must scrutinize every reactor when a slip occurs. The main causes of slips are utility delays due to financial problems and new revisions in their need for base station nuclear plants. Another cause of a slip or an is intervention plant-related in a hearing action by a group questioning some plant topic. An intervention is an example of an external response time. Most slips are not under the control of the NRC. C.P Review Types: ~ T ' The safetyCP andreview process contains two types of reviews performed in parallel-environmental. i were initially scheduled for a 14 month safety review.In FY 1974 and FY 1975, doc
-- A
j t.. 7 T,i d
- Edl i
l For plants docketed in FY 1974 and not experiencing major schedule
}}
j upsets by virtue of applicant delays, unexpected problems, or atypical i issues, the review time was about 18 months. For applications docketed : ! in FY 1975, none have yet been completed but the estimated time is about ' 17 months. In calendar year 1975 four applications have been docketed- M 2 were scheduled for 14 month safety reviews, the Clinch River Breeder i "g l initial estimate is 19 months, and Marble Hill (the fourth) has not yet ' e i been scheduled. Of the two scheduled for 14 months, one now is estimated 8 at 18 months and the other at 15 months reflecting the kind of slippage , i described above. The safety review period in FY 1982 is expected to be ; $ 14 months. ' j ; Environmental reviews also constitute a substantial fraction of the CP E review process. Most of the actual preparation of environmental state- A ments are carried out in contractor laboratories. For applications docketed in FY 1975, 6 environmental reviews have been completed and the average review time was 11 months. The range was from 8.7 to 14.9 *
- i months. It would be unrealistic to schedule 6 month environmental reviews at this time and expect to obtain them. The elasticity discussion
, i i
presented for safety reviews is also applicable to environmental reviews, j except that NRR staff effort is a much smaller fraction of the total < effort as compared to safety reviews. Funding of additional review . i' teams at the contractor laboratories is the only practical short term approach for reducing environmental review times externally. Limited
],
g additional resources in NRR to provide elasticity in schedule are also w ' required to achieve substantial reductions. The environmental review period in FY 1982 is expected to be eight months. s l ! i CP Review Process Outputs: 5
.c The outputs of the CP review process are Limited Work Authorizations, !
(LWA's), Early Site Reviews (ESR's), Limited Early Site Reviews (LESR's), ! Preliminary Design Approvals (PDA) for standardized plants and the j issuance of construction permits. 4
- LWA's - e I
a The LWA procedures allow certain on-site construction activities to be i undertaken prior to issuance of a construction permit but only after . 2 issuance of the finci environmental impact statement and consideration - ' ' of that statement in the licensing review process including fonnal public hearings and issuance of a decision by the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. In addition, it must also be determined that the site is generally suitable and that there are no unanswered safety questions with respect to any construction work that may be gg . . . . , , , . . d
l f.
*n h
lE l O
!i- z l
safety related. The scope of work that may be undertaken is carefully { defined and limited. The work is undertaken at the applicant's risk. ! There is no assurance that the applicant will receive a CP by virtue W of the NRC issuing a LWA. Any cost incurred by the applicant on the ! assumption that a CP would be issued is the applicant's responsibility. iiy l Conversely, the LWA procedure enables applicants to start construction as ! g much as six or more months earlier than would be the case if construction g could not be started until the entire safety review process and related ;
}
public hearings were completed. The head start in construction is ! g reflected, at least on a month-for-month basis, in the total time to ! % , bring the plant on line. Since institution of the LWA procedure in I April 1974, it has resulted in an average improvement of seven months in ] initiation of construction for 18 projects repre.senting 33 nuclear s units. It is expected that the LWA step will be an integral part of the CP review process over the planning period. i
- ESR/LESR's - {
! l As part of NRC's effort to shorten the lead time necessary to license , l l nuclear power plants, the NRC has been encouraging the early review of a power plant sites. However, the absence of comprehensive legislation . 5 E
and the general economic downturn have resulted in industry action of deferring requests for new site approvals. If the NRC proposed legislation l should be enacted within the next year, the industry may'be encouraged { < to submit applications for siting. If no legislation is passed, an I 6 average of four per year is expected during the planning horizon. In addition, regardless of action on pending legislation, limited early site reviews (infortnal site) on the average of three per year over the planning horizon is expected. l i
- Standardization -
Another way to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the licensing process is through standardized nuclear reactor plants. Up to only a few years ago, every reactor plant was a custom design. The construction permit process was bogged down. Once a class of reactor is reviewed and termed standard, a preliminary design approval is given; subsequently, ' reviews would therefore be shorter in length. . , The procedure options available to applicants for standardization of nuclear power plants are: Reference System - a design of an entire facility or major portion thereof can be reviewed once and utilized repeatedly 'by reference without further staff review in individual applications for licenses. i
.,x ;
^ g.
' 6 I
l
,t. '
I E. l. : l E 8J : I
$1 I Duplicate Plants - the design for several identical plants that {i*
,z would be constructed within a limited time by one or more utilties at one or more sites can be reviewed once. !
l.icense to Manufacture - the design of an entire facility can be W l reviewed once for manufacture at a central location. The pre- p I approved facilities can then be moved to specific utility sites for g construction and operation. -.g As an expansion of the duplicate plant option, a policy for " replication" us established in 1974. Replication provides for the reuse of a f< recently approved design for a custom plant. NRC regards replication as ll . an interim approach to standardization until a sufficient number of I reference system designs are accumulated. Standardization is estimated jl ] to occur in two to four years. Each of these standardization approaches { is based on the reuse of approved plant designs. As one approach to standardization, in mid-1973, Offshore Power Systems . ; submitted an application for a licensee to manufacture eight identical l flo3 ting nuclear power plants. The plants would be fabricated in a i shipyard like facility in Jacksonville, Florida and towed to their c planned location for operation. The licensing process for the floating y nuclear plant concept, as for the Reference System option, involved t separate applications and reviews for the plant design and for the
! i proposed sites of operation. The first site undergoing review is for j the Atlantic Generating Station proposed by the Public Service Electric j and Gas Company of New Jersey. The first stage in the review of the !
1 design, manufacture, and operating features of the floating nuclear plant was completed with the issuance in October 1975 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report and a portion of the Final Environmental Statement for the design and manufacturing of the plant. The floating and sea-going aspects of a floating nuclear plant require interagency coordination to delineate respective responsibilities for the regulation I of safety and protection of the environment. I The industry's response to the Commission's standardization program has i been gratifying, particularly with respect to reactor manufacturers. By { the end of 1975, all five reactor vendors had submitted at least one j standard reactor design and three architect-engineering firms had { submitted balance-of-plant designs. Several additional architect- l engineering firms were either contemplating or preparing the submission of balance-of< plant designs. More than 18 utilities had applied for -
~
f~ permits to build " standard" plants. The number of applications for the issuance of a preliminary design l approval (NSSS/B0P tenders) is expected to fluctuate over the planning l period with an average of five per year expected. l 4 M
l f l
., jt U
2R
'0 j
- Issuance of Construction Permits - 2 a construction Demit enables the utility to A
The issuance of proceed on a massive effort in the construction of the powe f With the advent of recent new plant slowdowns and construc-i I for FY 1976. tion slippages, the CP issues are expected to taper off somewhat to an j l average of seven or eight towards the latter part of the planningH
; j c l period. '
years to build a nuclear power plant, this tapering off will not be - reflected in electrical power production until the mid-eighties. f i CP Advanced Reactors: Almost all of the NRR effort deals with Pressurized Water Reactors j (PWR's), Boiling Water Reactors (BWR's) However, theand stafftoisastill much lesser extent High devoting Temperature Gas Reactors (HTGR's). f a great deal of time and effort in the construction permit areas onThe Clin novel reactor types.with the intent of proving the commercial aspects of breeder . proceeding In conjunction with this, the Fast Flux Test Facility is also reactors. progressing. This reactor will test fuels and materials for the CRBR. For purposes of this FYP, these will be termed advanced reactors underA the construction permit category. Examples of these are the Light Water Breeder called "Other Reviews." An annual average of four Reactor (LWBR), Naval Reactors, and the like. These "other reactor reviews" are expected for the planning horizon.
"Other Reviews" are usually at the request of other organizations.
Although the law does not require these CP reviews and man another opinion on site analysis and/or reactor safety analysis. The resource projection for this program area follows: I FY80 FY81 FY82 FY78 FY79 FY77_ Construction Pemits: 268 247 235 279 255 282 Manpower Total Budget 17.889 17.270 17.004 19.043 16.838 18.023 ($ millions) \ (
i. T s-2 i t' Technical Projects $ Technical Projects are analyses and studies carried out in direct support of the NRR licensing effort. An example is the development of ' new dose models for reactor siting. Others will be elaborated below. The topics for these analyses arise because of matters involving more i than one plant (e.g. several reactors of the same type from one utility), one common to a group of similar plants (e.g. Mark III BWR's), or one common to a type of plant (e.g. BWR's). Many of the topics are suggested by the ACRS or the ASLBP after their recognition of a common consideration arising in repeated reviews. Environmental and siting questions give rise to another class of technical projects. The development of new or improved analytical or review methods represents the last major general group of technical projects. The ability to predict the topics for technical projects for a year in ' advance or for the entire planning period is limited because the topics are suggested by the review process itself. Hence,any prediction of j resources required or workload is dependent on the experience of past years extrapolated to the future. l To aid in the assessment of priorities for allocating resources, techni, cal projects may be described as belonging to either of two general groups:
- 1. Projects directly related to a specific plant or plants currently under review.
- 2. Projects related to improvements in the review process or the development of solutions that are generally applicable to a reactor type or broadly occurring problem.
Examples of group 1 and 2 technical projects are as follows: 9froup1
. Development of new dose models for reactor siting
- Reviews of Topical Reports submitted by manufacturers and Architect / Engineers that are referenced in applications. .
- Development of a staff position on protection against station blackout.
- Devel'opment of new computational methods for evaluation of vent flow and corresponding pool responses in Boiling Water Reactor containments.
l
]
lik D
; 2 dl i II j~
Evaluation of use of computers in reactor protection systems, Group 2 + Review of Topical Reports documenting methods of analysis used by g > E designers. g Study of improvements in noise analysis techniques. } 6 Development of bases for evaluating consequences of postulated 4 x accidents along liquid pathways. I Development of in-hottse Pressurized Water Reactor Physics calculation capability. Standard Problem Program for comparing vendor calculational methods. 1 Overall. Technical Projects rank fourth relative to other workloads. i The internal reallocation of resources proposed to accomplish the workload l in operating reactors, OL, and The CP's willthis delay of minimize, effort doesstop not or postpone work i identified in Technical Projects. impair the nearIfterm objectives, but could cause significant negative a Technical Project does come up that is of a ) long term impact. l major safety issue, then it will have first priority; consequen Within the technical projects area, resources are allocated in order of Groups 1 and 2. Many of these projects include in their review impact Gue assessments to assure that conclusions of the particular Project properly balance the estimated impact or cost against predicted value. The resource projection for this program area follows: FY81 FY82 FY79 FY80 FY77 FY78 Technical Projects: 125 130 115 120 Manpower 81 106 Total Budget 8.406 8.787 9.155 l 6.745 7.546 8.029 ($ millions) l l l
. . - -- . :=, :u_
r-- l
l f li
.e s iU
; 2J l
. *s I, 8
Standards _ 7 The development of standards for licensing of nuclear power reactors is a major factor in developing stability and predictability in the review l process. Participation in industry and international standards develop- r ment activities provides the best vehicle for getting NRR input to such .' external groups. NRR participates in the internal Standards and Guides l development through the development of draft Regulatory Guides and ~ through the review process for generating guides. ; t The NRR effort is one of assistance. NRR has the expertise in many areas - of licensing that the Office of Standards utiliics. All standards are in . l the long run the responsibility of the Office of Standards. i Beginning in FY 1976 and continuing through the initial segment of the planning period, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews will be developed. As the name implies, thcre will be a standard environmental review format. These plans should add discipline to the environmental review process and provide an opportunity to review the scope and i content of the reviews. This process will have as a key objective the . I evaluation of the scope and content on an impact /value process and . l assurance that tne mandate of minimum regulations is being pursued.
- The resource piojection for this program area follows:
l FY 77 FY 78 FY 79 FY 80 FY 81 FY 82 Standards: Manpower 22 22 22 22 22 22 Total Budget (5 Millions) 0.881 0.803 0.799 0.803 0.807 0.809 Program Direction & Support - General support consists of routine activities needed for the orderly and ,
~
l efficient operation of the Office. These activities include both technically-related work and management-related activities. Specific activities include technical direction of contracts, training of employees, review of research performed by industry and by the Office of Research, handling of correspondence, participation in international programs (IAEA), and certain other activities required by Regulations (Freedom of Information Act).
il v lEi l V l
-ine NRR Director's Office will continue to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of resource utilization throughout NRR. Added emphasis
)
will be placed on essential regulation of nuclear power plants in the public interest. Non-essential requirements will continue to be /, eliminated and new requirements will be scrutinized to assure that they are essential to the protection of the public and that the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. In addition to expanding the Standard Review Plans (SRP's) to cover NRR's environmental and antitrust reviews, the in-house use of SRP's will be stabilized and a fresh balanced look taken to assure that the proper level of safety will be reflected. The Regulatory Requirements Review Committee will continue to review new requirements, including modifications to the SRP.'s for essentiality and appropriate implementation. Better organizational framework to review operational problems will be - examined and implemented as appropriate. A re-evaluation of the proper scope of a CP review and OL review will be made. The Management Information and Program Control system functions studies will eliminate ) any non-essential reporting and decrease the lag time to expedite timely corrective actions when needed. , The resource projection for this program area follows:
, l FY 77 FY 78 FY 79 FY 80 FY 81 FY 82 1
Program Direction and Support: j
\
Manpower 40 43 47 47 49 50 l l Total Budget I ($ Millions) 1.904 2.015 2.158 2.176 2.278 2.338 1 I
\
l The resource projection for this Office follows: n_____ _ _______- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- d E n 7l 7i Y M 2 ol To D 3 1 4 7 1 9 0 2 7 4
, F n 8
- 1. ht i Y r 6 4 5 0 2 0 7 r F e 6 7 3 3 2 5
- et ns ngar nw 2 2 1 7 7 ant a ao Mp mesl rrnl s 8 6 0 7 et oo l r 9 7 8 6 4 7 8 0 7 8 - PSCD aa 3 1 2 7 8 2 - tl . 6
- ol
- - 2 4 7 8 0 2 5 - To 1 1 - r D $ 4 - e s 1 $ - w r 8 - o a Y r 7 4 7 5 2 9 p l F - e 3 4 n 7 4 2 2 a l o nw 2 2 1 4 5 7 M D ao Mp s 4 9 9 6 3 6 7 l r 2 7 8 0 0 7 7 aa 2 9 8 4 8 1 4 tl ~. S ol 1 2 7 N To 1 8 0 2 3 1 O D $ 4 I 0 , T 8 C Y r E F - e 5 2 8 0 2 7 _ J O nw ao 1 2 6 6 2 2 4 4 3 R 2 1 7 . Mp P s E l r 4 7 3 9 9 C aa 6 8 0 R 1 2 2 9 5 9 _ tl 0 3 0 0 7 U 1 3 ol O To 0 3 8 8 0 S D 1 1 2 2 E 9 $ 4 R 7 r $ Y - e 3 9 2 5 2 2 8 F nw ao 9 6 8 1 2 7 4 2 8 1 2 1 7
- Mp .
8 7 Y s l r 1 8 8 6 3 5 F aa 4 0 3 1 tl 4 0 1 5 1 4 8 5 8 0 7 ol . N To 9 3 6 7 0 2 9 D 1 A 8 $ 3 L 7 $ P Y F R r A - e 5 2 5 6 2 3 E Y nw ao 7 6 5 0 2 4 3 6 1 2 1 6
- Mp E
V I F s l r 9 3 3 5 1 4 5 N aa tl 0 0 4 4 8 0 8 O 4 9 0 7 8 9 8 I ol T To 7 2 9 6 0 1 8 D 1 A 7 $ $ 3 L 7 U Y r G F - e R E nw 0 1 9 1 2 0 3 ao Mp 4 5 7 8 2 4 1 1 2 6 . R O T C A E R s t & R , s s i s A r e m t n E m o s r c o L a t n e e i C r c e P j t U g a c o c . N o e i n r e r R L o P r F P i i l O / g g t s y n n c l Dt a r a d r t E C o i t i t u r i c r a mo ap o I g a a t n d rp T F e r r s h n gu F t e e n c a oS O a p p o e t r C O O C T S P _
- }}