ML20235S998
| ML20235S998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1989 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Novak M ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| PROJECT-672A NUDOCS 8903080103 | |
| Download: ML20235S998 (2) | |
Text
.__
3 X ;G f **e%,
( '-
1 UNITED STATES
' J5 Eg}:
+
(
~
NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION '
l F
wAsmNGTON, D. C. 20665 t
L..
FEB 2 81989 673 j
~
Ms. Mary Ar.n Novak,
. Acting Assistant Secretary-for Nuclear Energy.
l
- Department of Energy -
Washington, D.C.
20585-
Dear Ms; Novak:
I am writing in response to Mr. Garrish's letter. of September. 16, 1988 to.
Mr. Stello.. In..that letter, the Department addressed the issue of a containment.
structure on the proposed New Production Reactor (NPR), version of the Modular-HighTemperatureGas-CooledReactor(MHTGR)versusnocontainment'structureon the. proposed civilian version of the MHTGR and requested that.the Commission
' issue, as soon~as possible, a report that documents the results of the NRC staff review to date'on the civilian MHTGR.
Subsequent to. receipt of the September 16, 1988 letter, Mr. Stello 'and'I have had. follow-up discussions with members of your staff and members of the Department's Defense Programs staff on the MHTGR containment issue.. In the interim, we have. deferred our actions directed toward finalizing our safety evaluation of the MHTGR,. including establishing a Commission position on the acceptability.of the' civilian MHTGR without a containment structure. 'We have taken this step because the technical and policy considerations which led the Department' ao the apparently different. containment positions on two similar MHTGR designs are still not clear.
Currently, it is our understanding that the Department plaris'to do engineering
. studies on -the civilian MHTGR design which will include evaluating the-containment issue and improvements in decay heat removal.
Before we resume our actions on the.MHTGR, I request that the results of these studies and any supporting information be provided for Commission review. Also, I request that the apparent policy difference in the Department between a containment structure-on the NPR-MHTGR versus.no containment structure on the civilian MHTGR be addressed. The Energy Research Advisory. Board (ERAB) gave its advice to the Department on the containment question for the NPR-MHTGR, and it would be very useful to the Commission to know what advice' the ERAB has to offer o~n this subject.for the civilian MHTGR.
Upon receipt and review of the new information you have been requested to provide, we will resume our activities directed toward finalizing o'ur safety evaluation and providing guidance on the acceptability of the MHTGR.
It is our understanding that this new information i
will be made available to us in June 1989.
I do, however, agree that in conducting further engineering studies on the L
MHTGR, the Department may find it useful to have the results of our safety evaluation done to date. Therefore, I am enclosing with this letter five copies of our draft Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the MHTGR conceptual design for your use. Copies are also being sent to Gas Cooled Reactor Associates and the l
NRC Public Document Room. However, I wish to emphasize the limitations and reservations which accompany use of this draft SER.
[
8903080103 890228 PDR PROJ
^
672er PDC 8 0
___-_-__a.,---_---__a'--__-_x------___
Ms. Mary Ann Novak 2
FEB 2 81989 First, this draft SER has not been approved by the Commission nor has the Commission taken a position on the policy issues associated with the MHTGR design (i.e. use of a mechanistic siting source term, accident selection, containment and emergency planning).
Therefore, this draft SER does not include nor should it be interpreted as implying any overall conclusions on the acceptability of the civilian MHTGR design or a Commission position on the policy issues associated with it.
Second, the information in this draft SER should not be used to draw conclusions regarding the NPR-MHTGR design since there appear to be some design differences between the two designs and the NRC staff has not reviewed these differences.
Third, in order to resolve the containment issue the Commission will need thorough and detailed justification to suppurt any design proposal that does not include a containment structure.
Finally, in proceeding with the civilian MHTGR design and development it is important to recognize that our review done to date indicates that much research and development (R&D), including prototype testing, needs to be done to support certification of this design. Table 1.6 of the draft SER summarizes the staff evaluation in this area. Due to the extensive nature and potential i
long lead time associated with this R&D you may want to pay particular l
attention to these items in your long range planning.
In the interim nty staff is available to discuss the draft SER further and the details and needs of the new information expected in June 1989.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
l Sincerely, d
EricS.Beckjordhirector Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j
Enclosure:
5 copies - Draft NUREG-1338 Draft Preapplication SER for the MHTGR l
\\
)
\\
)
1