ML20246G144
| ML20246G144 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/10/1989 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2616, NUDOCS 8905150200 | |
| Download: ML20246G144 (6) | |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _
CERTIFIED COPY /MINllTES
,k IMPROVED LIGHT WATER REACTORS p
- 2P.Ff.1..,..A.
.T January 10, 1989 t
p; 4,]h U U L,. hhL; gg[]
cpf/
H. Aldennan
>a
"?
h,
[SA8//4/[f
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES Improved Light Water Reactors Subcommittee, January 10, 1989 Room P114, 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland The meeting was convened at 8:30 a.m.
Mr. Charles J. Wylie is the Subcommittee Chairman.
The other ACRS members in attendence were:
Mr. Carlyle Michelson Mr. David A. Ward, Dr. Chester P. Siess.
Herman Alderman was the Cognizant ACR S staff member for this meeting.
Mr. Wylie stated the purpose of the meeting would be a review of the draft final rule on standardization and licensing reform.
He noted that the sub-committee had previously reviewed the proposed rule on May 31, 1988 and the ACRS discussed the proposed rule at the 338th meeting on. June 2, 1988.
He remarked that its ACRS wrote a letter on the subject in June 1988, in which it commented on the proposed rule.
Mr. Wylie addressed the comments of the ACRS letter of June 1988.
He noted that one of the comments addressed the scope and the level of detail of informa-tion required by the staff for a design.
Another ACRS comment questioned how-changes to correct deficiencies and errors found.in a design which had been certified would be made since the design had been certified by the Commission by rulemaking.
A third comment was that ACRS questioned whether early site permits design certification and combined licenses should all be addressed in the same part of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
1 Mr. Wylie pointed out that the term Essentially complete is used and is not defined.
Mr. Michelson asked if there was another document, that goes along with the rule. that explains in more detail what is expected?
8905150200 890110 Ogg PDR ACRS 9
2616 PDC k
DESIGNATED ORIGINAL i
n.
u.
r:(H'
_ap 4
- e. 11,1.e e, hau a u ts
~~2-Mr. Malsch, EDO, explained that there would be a fairly extensive rule preamble which discusses the comments.
D_r. Siess noted that the basis for current licensing in the standard review plan.
He asked if'there would be anything comparable for review for this. rule.
Mr. Wilson, RES, said no.
Mr. Wilson noted that Part 52 refers back to Pa,rt 50 for the technical requirements and the standard review plan would still apply.
There was considerable discussion on the level of detail that would be available at the time of design certification.
The subcommittee members noted that at the FSAR stage the plant is essentially complete with layout drawings and procurement specifications.
The subcommittee members asked if that level of information would be available for design certification.
Mr. Michelson noted that the committee should see the statement of consideration before it comments on the rule.
Jerry Wilson, Office of Research, presented some of the background of the rule.
Mr. Wilson noted _that an applicant seeking design certification would
.have to notify the staff at the time of the FDA application that they were seeking design certification.
Mr.' Wilson noted that in the process of writing the 10 CFR 52 rule, they tried to include all possible future reactors.
That is the reason for inclusion of advance non-LWR reactors in the rule.
Mr. Wilson said they tried to set forth in the rule which plants can seek certification and which plants would require testing to obtain certification.
In order to define which plants would require prototype testing, the evolutionary LWR designs were separated from the advanced designs.
The advanced designs will require prototype testing or extensive analysis to demonstrate maturity.
l
b
. p L
Mr. Wilson defined maturity as two types. One is maturity that has been demonstrated through operating experience.
The other is maturity that has been demonstrated through rigorous prototype tests.
The subcommittee had difficulty with the definition of evolutionary designs and what type of prototype testing and analysis would be required for advanced plants.
Mr. Wilson noted that the staff will have to make a judgment as to what type of test program is going to be needed to convin,ce the staff that a design can be certified.
Mr. Nicholson asked what a full-sized prototype means?
Mr. Wilson replied it will depend upon a judgment that the staff makes.
He noted that the staff will decide whether a full-sized prototype is needed.
or if an appropriate test program will be sufficient.
Mr. Wilson noted that several commentors stated that only advanced designs should be certified.
The presumption was that if evolutionary plants and advanced plants could be certified, it would be more economical to certify evolutionary plants and advanced plants would never be certified.
Mr. Wilson noted that the staff disagrees with tr's position and retains the opportunity for all plants to be certified.
He said he meant by all plants that all future plants would be capable of certification.
Regarding scope of design, Mr. Wilson noted the rule states that evolutionary plant shall have a complete scope of design proposed.
For advanced plants, they may apply for certification with a reduced scope of design.
However, the testing of the prototype must demonstrate that the
' ron-certified portion of the plant cannot significantly affect the safe operation of the plant.
p I'
-42
- L
'Mr. Wilson' pointed out that the evolutionary LWRs and passive LWRs would provide' a complete scope of design for certification and the advancea' non-LWRs have the option.to justify a major portion of the plant.
Regarding the level of detail to be supplied for design certification,
.Mr. Wilson said it would include' performance requirements and design speci-fications specifically. detailed to prepare preparation of procurement specifications and acceptance and inspection requirements.
Mr. Michelson asked if actual design specifications will be available at' p
the time of certification or would it be a body of knowledge containing the same' information?
Mr.- Wilson replied that it wasn't the staff's intention to ask for design
-specifications.
Dr. Siess asked if t' hat the time of the design certification, must the results of all research and development and significant safety questions be resolved?
Mr. Wilson replied that was the staff's intention.
Mr. Ernie Kennedy, Combustion Engineering, said he had worked on the NUMARC comments.
He said that NUMARC had objected to submitting design specifications to the staff.
He said that was beyond the information normally submitted to the staff.
The subcommittee questioned %w a PRA would be done without-knowing the exact parameters of equipment down to name plate data.
Mr. Scaletti said the components will have to meet the criteria spelled out in the PRA.
There was some discussion about how the construction is reviewed? What was the documentary basis for review?
l 1
e Mr. Scaletti responded that the information in the FDA must be sufficient to enable the Commission to judge the applicant's proposed needs of assuring the construction conforms to the design.
Mr. Wilson nnted the commentors had objected to. inclusion in 10 CFR 52 of provisions of the Commission's severe accident policy statement. 'NUMARC commentel that " incorporation of these provisions in the Part 52 appears'to anticipate the Commission's decision in this area and is' premature." Mr. Wilson noted the staff is considering whether or not to keep these provisions in the' rule as it goes out in final form.
Mr. Michel son asked what level of PRA would be required and would that include external events?
Mr. Wilson replied it would be a level 3 PRA and include external events.
Mr. Michelson said he understood the depth of design to be expected was of the FSAR level and asked if that were true, Mr. Wilson assured him that that was true.
Mr. Wylie asked about essentially complete?
Mr. Wilson said for evolutionary LWRs that meant the complete design except' for site-specific elements.
Mr. Wylie suggested that the definition of essentially complete should be defined somewhere.
1 Mr. Wylie noted that he understood how big changes were made to the design l
after certification but Londered how small changes were made.
l-4 Mr. Wilson pointed out that it depended on what was in the certified rule.
If what you wanted to change was not in the certified rule, then rulemaking would not be necessary.
If it was in the certified rule, then rulemaking would be necessary.
l-
m_. - _,
i
} "
Mr. Malsch discussed the rulemaking.
He said the relevant question was
- i how much.would be incorporated by reference into the rule of particular parts of
- l the' certification application.
He said~ the staff would have to go through a rule-making before they would know how much detail would be included in a rulemaking.
)
-1 I
'The staff po'inted out that-you could have a certified. design by rulemaking..
and then make exceptions for individual licenses without-rulemaking. These-
~
would be exemptions to the design and would probably be site specific.
The changes would have to' satisfy the criteria in 10 CFR Part 50.12.
Mr. Malsch said changes to a rulemaking could take'from 6 month's to' a L
year.
If it was a change that involved a dire safety need there could be an L
immediate change through design certification that would apply to everybody.-
This would probably be by publishing a rule effective immediately asking for-comments after the fact.
The subcommittee discussed what should be presented to the full committee.-
Some suggestions werei define maturity e
give a synopsis of the rule discuss the three kinds of plants e
Mr. Mic helson asked if the ACRS intends to write a letter without seeing the statement of consideration. Mr. Wylie said that should be a committee i
decision.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:33 p.m.
NOTE: A transcript of the meeting is available at the NRC Public Document. Room, Gelman Blda. 2120 "L" Street, NW., Washington, D.C.
Telephone (202) 634-3383 or can be purchased from Heritage Reporting Corporation,1220 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20005, Telephone (202) 628-4888.
= _-
l