ML20248L288
| ML20248L288 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/05/1998 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9806110068 | |
| Download: ML20248L288 (99) | |
Text
e. -
t-..
UNITED STATES OF AM. ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
Title:
BRIEFING ON EPRI ON THE STATUS OF THEIR ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR (ALWR)
PROGRAM PUBLIC MEETING Location:
. Rockville, Maryland or
-e e, p
- 1
+
.~..
. +
y.
(n'.**'*.
g**'s.*3y.'.
. ~. Date: 4.,
Friday,. June 5,1998 5
., a. o <
..._, r.,
. c.
n.,
+.
~..
m; b[.[;,.,.,_.
,l k.
? '
'l
/;
a.
[. 'b * -
.L?i Y -f-50.
V'
?*"*
- 9
}f..,' &.,, ' g 'U n n,..,. '
,e-
,G
.-y^~~.
s.
w?.i?. i.c o.
a
,, L
. ~.g, (,(1. r,,; N'.:,. : 4., y,..; c a
w...=.
..e n
.t.,...c,'.~ %, p.{,s~ ~, ]N J
,.,,y, C y.' a].4. [-.
.r t**.('*a Q, -f,
~ c.4: ' ;, ;. 9 a. a_.-.
<; r m.
K ; 7.)Jt
q,... gy,; g, i.g.
e.
4 y,
.. Pages: e.... %..,,.e.4.1 - 5,5;l.m?.
,r w...,*h $s.m. n. s.,....v.'
v.,-
e
. '.A *
- &'.. ( Q'E$,$1 44.
,L
- '%*\\
-T;%..t@... pr f.w,hh'un.v F'V T4 # -)'.
'Q'.fi b a,%
A 4
y
' PJ..
- A i
w %. -/-
?
/
a w.-
- . b.. *?"
- .5df?* jy.NhN.hi.
- .!&.".WJ,QDh.::
h sn d:g. N,-Q.., gi.jG.,p~ Wa.~k. w.,.~.::k..... r.-, ;-
R y
~
r
.7., - <.,p. -
f,;.
- ,,, f4..,yp,.: n,.
- 9. -t,,;. g+.
p
,v*., ~_..,c, a
m y i?Q. A_.*f= a p. ~-+ _ u,' :-.
%',. t.~%~; y.:_4 x'
( ; g.y y.,.,,. +.*.,. ',,*'
y.#,
- e. -
- 3,.
- rw e
%L w
. ne.....~...m.
.. =.....
m. a c. n.,.e...
.. :,, m.; ;.
,,,,.;.c,. 4 *: 5 '~i.'f..,. Q.5 *. W,.o.,. q,a@. v.,..
nc.' g.n,,,,, S ',. A,.,,.,.:;,,,. ;
4 y L-
. ff W!
.W.
,,,y gf. M, eyf,_y,_a.) 9 A
- WW.6.,_v ;L_ _ '
. j, T.' * ' ;.2.~hM. 3S ::y-Qg#*. ;g 6_rs *.* q' a
.,,,.*,R cy
- 4.'
rr
=>v 1
..f
' js. h k'4 y+ $ 'b:. e. y,; 9,.. W --
a
%It 4 "*
.'..;.,.i, *, -
-~
r d.id"4
..-l S.-
h a
.e.. p.,. m.f.m
..,,.,;;,... m,.,,,.
fl** % * ' r= #. se ** dh ',{,,..,.
,.p,.:.....
p.fNgh '* *
"'r
- M u M $.M
& :: WM4tt@S: ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.,
~
k fgfM k
~ ' ~ - '
e.pa.Wr12se I R.,N.W. Sde 300 o
- '" y g j.llp!.(. MW%q4{;QP Washington, D C 20005
~ ^ -
a
.. w <...
y"g^.w h*4=.g? 4. igmMr n :eiz....ww. r. r. w. m.,..m..n.
>UIg, -
~
=
9306110068 900605 W',' Q~ '8 C '(h.' 'k) g,
.s I
L
'^
?"
PDR 10CFR i' ' s... : -
PT9.7 PDR
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of i
the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on June 5, 1998, in the Conunission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open.to public
. attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matte'rs discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paj or may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Consnission may authorize.
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON EPRI ON THE STATUS OF THEIR 5
ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR (ALWR) PROGRAM 6
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Room 1F-16 11 One White Flint North 12 11555 Rockville Pike 13 Kockville, Maryland 14 15 Friday, June 5, 1998 16 17 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 18 notice, at 10:06 a.m.,
the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, 19 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
20 21 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
22 SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission 23 GRETA J. DICUS, Member of the Commission 24 NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission 25 EDWARD McGAFFJGAN, JR., Member of the Commission ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
2 1
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE. COMMISSION TABLE:
2 STEVE BURNS 3
JOE COLVIN, CEO and President of the Nuclear 4
Energy Institute 5
GEORGE HAIRSTON, CEO and President of the Southern 6
Company-7 ROBIN JONES, Vice President for Nuclear Power, 8
EPRI 9
PAT MCDONALD, Executive Director, Advanced Reactor 10 Corp.
.11 JOHN TAYLOR, Vice President Emeritus for Nuclear 12 Power, EPRI 13 ANNETTE VIETTI-COOK, Assistant Secretary 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1
22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
a 3
o 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
[10:06 a.m.]
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Good morning, everyone.
I 4
would like to welcome EPRI and NEI to brief the Commission 5
on the status of the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program.
6 The Commission also appreciates receiving copies of the U.S.
7 Nuclear Industry's strategic plan for building new nuclear l
l 8
power plants and we look forward to your briefing the 9
Commission on any aspects of this topic that you wish as l
10 well.
11 The Advanced Light Water Reactor Program was 12 launched jointly by industry, the nuclear power industry, J
13 and DOE to revitalize the nuclear option.
The plant 14 designers undertook the responsibility of applying for NRC 15 certification of their advanced designs and implementing 16 utility-specified design and performance requirements.
17 In order to provide for a more predictable stable 18 process for licensing, the NRC issued 10 CFR Part 52 which 1
19 provides an opportunity to resolve siting and design issues I
20 before large commitments of resources are made to construct 21 and operate new nuclear power plants.
Early resolution of 22 licensing issues is achieved through the design 23 certification and licensing process under Part 52.
24 The NRC review and acceptance of the EPRI 25 utilities requirements document has provided a sound basis i
AIG R1 LEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
}
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
O 4
1 for NRC certification of standardized designs.
The 2
utilities requirements document specifies owner operational 3
requirements at a fundamental level covering all elements of 4
plant design and construction.
5 I would note that the NRC issue design 6
certifications in May 1997 for the 1350 megawatt General 7
Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and the ABB 8
Combustion Engineering System AD-plus standard plant 9
designs.
The NRC decision on the final design approval for 10 the 600 megawatt Westinghouse AP-600 is expected later this 11 year, this fall.
The final design approval is a 12 prerequisite for design certification.
A certification of a 13 fourth Advanced Light Water Reactor design has been 14 deferred.
15 My understanding is that copies of the slide 16 presentation are available at the entrances to the meeting 17 and so unless my colleagues have any introductory remarks, 18 Mr. Jones, I understand you are going to lead off the 19 discussion.
20 MR. JONES:
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning.
21 Thank you very much for this opportunity to review the 22 status of the industry's efforts to establish the option to 23 build new nuclear power plants here in the U.S.
Our main 24 focus today is on the technical elements of the effort.
25 I would like to start by identifying myself and my ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
5 1
fellow presenters.
I am Robin Jones, Vice President of 2
Nuclear Power at the Electric Power Research Institute, 3
EPRI.
The three fellow presenters are Joe Colvin, the CEO 4
and President of the Nuclear Energy Institute; George 5
Hairston, CEO and President of Southern Nuclear; and John 6
Taylor, my predecessor at EPRI.
With us is a key industry 7
leader who has been with us throughout the entirety of the 8
program, Pat Mcdonald.
9 Pat has two titles in this particular effort 10
.because part of the ALWR effort is directed by the Advanced 11 Reactor Corporation, of which Pat is the Executive Director, 12 and the rest is directed by EPRI's ALWR Utility Steering 13 Conmittee, of which Pat is the Chairman.
Pat is here to 14 answer all the questions.
15 Our efforts have been guided by a plan established 16 by INPO nearly a decade ago, titled "The Strategic Plan for 17 Building New Nuclear Power Plants."
The plan identifies the 18 technical institutional issues that have to be addressed to 19 establish this deployment option, and the final report on 20 the plan has just been issued.
Copies of that final report 21 have been sent to you recently.
22 As indicated in this overhead, Joe Colvin will 23 review industry's follow-up plan titled "A Strategic 24 Direction for Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century" a little 25 later on, and you have copies of that plan before you.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
6 1
Before Joe's presentation, John Taylor and I will
+
2 address the status of the technical elements of the 3
strategic plan and George Hairston will summarize the 4
utility support and involvement in executing the plan to 5
date.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me ask you a question.
Do 7
you have estimates of plant cost and construction cost for 8
the evolutionary and passive designs?
9 MR. JONES:
Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Are you going to talk about 11 that today?
12 MR. JONES:
I will give you a couple of numbers, 13 yes.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
15 MR. JONES:
We have them for the passive design as 16 well.
17 Your staff's feedback to us during preparation for 18 today's meeting indicated particular interest in the passive 19 designs and John Taylor's presentation will be devoted 20 entirely to what is being done in support of that design 21 concept.
22 Our program's other technical elements, all of 1
23 which are essentially complete, will be briefly summarized l
24 in my presentation.
25 Before I get to that, I would like to ' note that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 I
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l l
1 from EPRI's perspective at least, today's briefing provides 2
an opportunity for us to jointly celebrate the successful l
3 outcome of our collective efforts in this area.
We are very l
4 pleased at the way that the technical parts of this program 5
have turned out and we truly appreciate the support that has 6
been provided by this Commission and its predecessors and we 7
thank you very much for the dedicated efforts of the staff.
8 Starting with the top-tier goals of the program as 9
originally formulated, the overall top-tier goal has been to 10 define future standardized Advanced Light Water Reactor 11 designs.
The word define in the context means define in the j
12 depth necessary to obtain regulatory approval, including the 13 detailed supporting information necessary for that purpose.
14 We also mean by define the additional detail 15 necessary to support solid estimates of plant cost and 1
1 16 construction schedule.
And throughout, our intent has been
\\
17 to ensure that the designs include those features most 18 valued by the nuclear plant owner operators.
19 By standardize, we refer to the whole structure of 20 standardization, starting with the substantial degree of 21 replication that accrues from the regulatory process itself.
22 To build on that, our goal has been to develop industry 23 commitments, infrastructures and processes that extend 24 standardization through the design detail and through 25 subsequent construction, operation and maintenance of a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l
(202) 842-0034 l
A
8 1
family of plants.
We are convinced that a high degree of 2
standardization maximizes economic competitiveness, reliable 3
operation and management effectiveness.
4 Another top-tier goal has been to incorporate the 5
vast experience gained worldwide in the design, safety 6
evaluation, licensing, construction, operation and 7
maintenance of existing plants.
This has required pulling 8
together the experience of different entities, including 9
designers, regulators, constructors and operators.
You are, 10 of course, fully aware of the regulatory involvement and the 11 encompassed regulatory experience that we have brought 12 together in this effort.
You can also visualize the effort 13 needed to pull in the experiences of a large number of owner 14 operators worldwide and the other entities that are involved 15 in the nuclear industry.
16 Although our initial focus was on evolutionary 17 plants, quite early in our program we include the passive 18 design concept and established a goal to bring it to the 19 position of being an available and competitive deployment 20 option by the end of the program.
The technical work has 21 been underway since 1985 and it is nearing completion.
This 22 involved the expenditure of close to $1 billion by all the 23 participants, provided by the vendor design teams, the 24 utility industry and DOE.
The design team and the utility 25 industry expenditures have both included substantial ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
9 1
contributions both in cash and in kind from outside of the 2
U.S.
This is truly a global effort.
NRC has been deeply 3
involved in reviewing the content and results of this work 4
from the start.
5 The remainder of my talk breaks down into three 6
parts, the utility design requirements, some comments on 7
evolutionary designs, and the first-of-a-kind engineering 8
effort.
9 The foundation of the technical effort is detailed 10 in quantitative documentation of what the owner operator 11 wants in a future design.
The document that captures that 12 information is the Utility Requirements Document, or URD.
13 It has been developed under the direction of EPRI's ALWR 14 Utility Steering Committee which is composed of executives 15 from nuclear utilities in the U.S. and 11 other nations.
16 And George, I think, has a list of the other countries that 17 have been involved a little later.
1 18 NEI, INPO and DOE have participated in the 19 Committee's meetings and the development of the requirements 20 involved detailed consultation with plant designers.
The 21 resulting URD is comprehensive and detailed, it takes up a 22 bookcase all by itself.
It covers both evolutionary designs 23 and passive designs and, as you noted, Chairman, the 24 specifics for Boiling Water Reactors and Pressurized Waters 25 are both addressed, and these -- the URD has been reviewed ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
10 1
1 1
in detail by the NRC.
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Is it still in any way being 3
revised to reflect feedback from the design certification 4
process?
5 MR. JONES:
We have revised the document several 6
times during the -- to reflect the results of both ongoing 7
experience in existing plants and the results of the design 8
efforts, and we expect to continue a low level of further 9
revision in the future, as additional experience is gained.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Is there much variation in the 11 degree to which the three advanced designs comply with the 12 specifications?
13 MR. JONES:
No, they all comply in great detail 14 and we ensured that that was the case in the way that we 15 went forward with the process.
16 So the major program goals of obtaining NRC 17 blessing on the URD were achieved in 1992 for the 18 evolutionary design requirements and 1994 for passive design 19 requirements.
The NRC reviews were demanding and detailed 20 and resulted in some instances in higher standards than were 21 originally proposed by the industry.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Now, when will the final 23 version of the URD be issued and will the NRC be asked to 24 review that also?
25 MR. JONES:
For the present purposes, the version
(
)
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
O 11 1
that you have reviewed is sufficient.
When we accumulate a 2.
sufficient number of additional changes, we will be back to 3
you asking for a re-review of those changes.
4 Before I leave the URD, I'will just briefly 5
identify its top-tier requirements in very much a summary 6
form.
The intent is to provide greater operational margins 7
through conservative design of various types; to reduce the 8
demand on the operators through the use of state-of-the-art 9
I&C and man-machine interfaces; to provide a cumulative 10 probability of less than 10 to the minus 6 for severe 11 accidents and to mitigate'the consequences of any such 12 accidents; to ensure low occupational radiation exposure by 13 the plant works; to design in a core damage frequency of 14 less than 10 to the minus 5 per reactor year; and to assure 15 no fuel damage for substantial breaks in the coolant lines; 16 to' assure increased reliability of components, simplification of systems, use of proven technologies all 17 18 aimed at the goals of achieving 87 percent average plant 19 availability, 24 month refueling interval and a 60 year 20 plant life.
21 We also attempt to ensure minimal site-specific 22 differences by making sure that they are enveloped by site 23 envelopes requirements in the URD.
So that although there 24 will be some variation from plant to plant, they will be 25 minimal.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
12 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Given that you do have this 2
minimization of site-specific differences, what would you
-3 say for the record are the key design features that 4
contribute to the lowering of the core' damage frequency?
5 MR. JONES:
The key design features?
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, just, fundamentally, what 7
drives them down?
8 MR. JONES:
The use of lower coolant temperatures, 9
the use.of conservative design.
Basically, everything we 10 know about how to ensure that --
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So it's a cumulative thing?
12 MR. JONES:
Yes.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
I thought you were going 14 to tell me there is some one --
15 MR. JONES:
No, there is no object here.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
17 MR. JONES:
There are two evolutionary designs 18 that have been developed that comply with the URD, GE's ABWR 19 and ABBC's System 80-plus, and here is perhaps the answer to 20-your question, Chairman.
The evolutionary designs have 21 enhanced reactor coolant systems, containment 22 overpressurization protection and emergency core cooling 23 systems.
They.have reactor cavity flooding capability.
24 Reliability is improved by the use of materials that have 25' proved reliable in existing plant designs.
More robust ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
13 1
major component design.
Greater operational margins.
2 Modern-I&C systems, and consideration of human performance 3
factors throughout the design process.
These are more 4
forgiving plants that are easier to operate.
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I still have two more 1
6 questions.
Were modern I&C systems modeled into PRAs?
7 MR. JONES:
Yes.
8 CHAIRMAN JACTSON:
Okay.
Were shutdown PRAs 9
performed?
10 MR. JONES:
I don't know the answer.
I assume 11 they have.
12 Shutdown PRAs?
13 MR. TAYLOR:
Definitely.
Definitely.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
15 MR. TAYLOR:
Much more visible than in the past.
16 MR. JONES:
In order to ensure that the URD requirements were reflected in the designs, there was 17 18 detailed utility industry interaction with the two 19 designers.
The certified designs have a very high level of 20 conformance to the URD as a result.
21 The URD safety goals have been met with margin.
22 The PRAs show core damage frequencies down in the 10 to the 23 minuo 6 to 10 to the minus 7 range.
This includes seismic 24 events.
The PRAs indicate the cumulative probability of an 25 off-site whole body dose of 25 rem beyond a half-mile radius ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
14-1 site boundary is below 10 to the minus per reactor year.
2 NRC has certified both designs.
3 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
May I ask?
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Yes, please.
5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Is there an intent, if 6
one of these plants is ordered and the combined license 7
comes in, that emergency planning would be different for 8
these?
You know, you are saying 10 to the minus 7 9
probability.
Is there, in your discussions with the staff 10 over the years has there been any talk about pulling in some 11 of the emergency boundaries that are in the emergency plans?
12 MR. JONES:
We think the technical work that would 13 permit such a discussion has been done, but the discussion 14 hasn't been held yet and probably won't be until there --
15 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Until there is a real.
16 MR. JONES:
A real opportunity.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Steve, you look you have 18 something.
19 MR. BURNS:
No.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Just listening?
21 MR. BURNS:
Just listening.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
23 MR. JONES:
Finally, a brief summary of the 24 first-of-a-kind engineering effort.
I already mentioned 25 that our top-tier goals included defined designs to a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
.1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
15 1
sufficient level of detail to get robust estimates of cost 2
and construction schedule.
That's the process that is 3
encompassed by first-of-a-kind engineering.
It takes the 4
plant design from the level required for certification to 5
the level required to make such estimates, which is about a 6
95 percent complete design.
7 It entails the preparation of procurement 8
specifications for the major components and form-fit 9
function specifications for the rest.
First-of-a-kind 10 engineering unavoidably stops short of detailing specifics 11 that are site-specific, and that's the 5 percent that we 12 think is still to be done.
13 For this work, the Advanced Reactor Corporation, 14 which I will refer to as ARC, entered into a co-funding 15 agreement with DOE.
ARC undertook to manage the project and 16 in that activity was supported by loaned utility personnel The utility industry's funding share and 17 and EPRI staff.
18 in-depth intellectual participation has assured the details 19 defined in first-of-a-kind engineering also have a very high 20 conformance to the requirements of the URD.
21 The process used to decide which designs would 22 proceed to first-of-a-kind engineering was competitive and 23 it resulted in the selection of two designs co-funded by GE 24 on the ABWR and co-funded by Westinghouse on the AP-600.
25 John Taylor will cover the AP-600 first-of-a-kind ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 L
(202) 842-0034 l
l
16 1
engineering in his presentation in just a moment.
.2 The first-of-a-kind engineering was completed some 3
little time ago on the ABWR for the entire nuclear and 4
balance of plant scope.
Detailed cost estimates shows the 5
ABWR meets the 30 mills per kilowatt, our capital cost 6
target set in the URD.
The estimated construction time is 7
substantially less than the URD target of 54 months from 8
first concrete to commercial operation, and, indeed, we know 9
that the outcome -- that target can be met in reality as a 10 result of the construction of two units of very similar 11 design in Japan, which I think hit 49 months if I remember 12 rightly.
13 With the ABWR, GE went on to win a major share of 14 the twin unit project at Lungmen site in Taiwan and that 15 project is ongoing.
16 Unless there are questions, John Taylor will now 17 address the passive designs, which is by far the most 18 technically interesting part of the program.
19 MR. TAYLOR:
Thank you.
The Advanced Light Water 20 Reactors with enhanced passive emergency cooling features it arose primarily as a response to the strong utility desire 22 for a simpler, smaller Light Water Reactor.
The concept 23 fosters the use of natural driving forces such as gravity 24 flow, natural circulation and compressed gas, substituting 25 for the conventional electrically pcwered pumping and l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
1 17 j
l' control systems.
2 This substitution not only simplifies the overall 3
system, but counters the loss of economy of scale at lower 4
power outputs.
Both the Pressurized Water Reactor, the 5
Westinghouse AP-600, and the Boiling Water Reactor, the GE 6
SBWR, incorporated this concept and design and development 7
were initiated at a reference power level of 600 megawatts 8
electric.
l 9
This work has stimulated worldwide interest in the 10 greater utilization of passive safety features in nuclear 11 power reactors.
Many countries have initiated their own R&D 12 programs to investigate this approach.
These programs range 13 from more radical versions of the concept to incorporation 14 of additional passive safety features in the evolutionary 15 designs.
16 The difference on reactor and containment cooling 17 systems in the passive plant designs warranted the 18 preparation of a separate volume of the Utility Requirements 19 Document to parallel the evolutionary plant volume.
Since 20 there were also cany similarities, the Utility Requirements 21 Document safety goals and many other requirements were 22 common for both the evolutionary and passive plants.
23 For example, safety and reliability is similarly 24-enhanced for both by requirements for better choices of 25 materials, more robust major component design, greater ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
18 1
operational margins, modern instrumentation and control 2
systems and the application of human factors.
3 But a significant new feature in the passive 4
plants requirements arises from the difference in the 5
emergency cooling systems and it is the regulatory treatment 6
of non-safety systems, shortened to RTNSS.
RTNSS is a 7
process for defining regulatory oversight for active 8
pon-safety related systems incorporating both deterministic 9
and probabilistic criteria and evaluations.
A major goal 10 has been to set reliability standards so that the active 11 non-safety systems can be utilized effectively to minimize 12 challenges to the passive safety systems.
13 The RTNSS process has helped to identify 14 specifically the role of the non-safety related systens in 15 the PRA and in the regulations.
This treatment has been 16 applied to the AP-600 which meets the RTNSS criteria and the 17 Commission's safety goal guidelines, using. conservative 18 non-safety reliability bases for the non-safety systems.
19 Extensive testing has been carried out to verify 20 the design and analyses of the passive emergency cooling 21 features.
The testing and analysis plans were reviewed with 22 NRC before implementation and covered test facilities, test l
23 designs, data reduction methods, uncertainty evaluation, 24 formal quality assurance requirements and verification and 25 validation of computer codes.
ANN RILEY se ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 L
4 19 1
A disciplined test and analysis process called the 2
Code Scaling Analysis and Uncertainty Process was developed 3
by NRC Research in cooperation with the industry and 'iith 4
input from the ACRS to govern the implementation of the 5
testing and analysis plans.
NRC observed the work in 6
progress and reviewed all the results.
This process and the 7
accompanying NRC reviews were applied to both the AP-600 and 8
the SBWR Test and Analysis Programs.
9 Now, after over a decade of design, analysis, 10 testing, and NRC review, the 600 megawatt electric 11 Westinghouse AP-600 has received an advanced final safety 12 evaluation report from NRC.
The design complies with the 13 Utility Requirements Document and Westinghouse has 14 identified the following noteworthy characteristics.
15 Two systems are central to the design.
First, a 16 passive core cooling system which provides core residual 17 heat removal, safety injection and depressurization.
The 18 entire system is located within the containment building 19 requiring no circulation of reactor coolant outside the
{
20 containment boundary.
The system consists of a combination i
21 of cooling water resources -- or sources, gravity drain of l
l 22 water from two core makeup tanks and a large refueling water 23 storage tank suspended above the level of the core, as well 24 water injected from two accumulator tanks under nitrogen 25 pressure.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
l 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20005 l
(202) 842-0034 1
20 1
Second, a passive containment cooling system which a
2 provides the ultimate heat sink for the plant.
In a loss of 3
cooling accident, the natural circulation air cooling of 4
containment is supplemented by evaporation of water flowing 5
by gravity from a tank located on top of the containment 6
building shield.
Hydrogen control in design basis accidents 7
is provided by passive auto-catalytic recombiners.
8 Now, other licensing design basis accident 9
features are also included, which I will review very 10 briefly.
All safety-related electrical power requirements 11 are met by Class 1E batteries, eliminating the need for 12 safety-grade on-site AC power sources and greatly reducing 13 dependence on off-site power.
14 Hermetically-sealed canned primary reactor coolant 15 pumps requiring no seals have been adapted from highly 16-reliable naval nuclear primary coolant puops, thus obviating 17 a seal failure loss of coolant accident.
18 Passive cooling and piping configurations prevent 19 core uncovery for loss of cooling accidents up to an eight 20 inch pipe break.
As in evolutionary Advanced Light. Water 21 Reactors, the AP-600 design has reactor coolant system and 22 containment overpressurization protection and reactor cavity 23 flooding capability.
As a result, no operator action is 24 needed to meet the licensing design basis criteria for 72 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> and no off-site support is needed for seven days.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
21 1
Features that contribute to the mitigation of 2
severe accidents include a main control room habitability 3
system which provides passive fresh air, cooling, and 4
pressurization to the main control room through the use of a 5
compressed air supply.
A substantially reduced number of 6
containment penetrations.
And igniters are provided for l
7 severe accident conditions involving very large releases of l
8 hydrogen.
9 Probabilistic risk assessment evaluation shows 10 that the probabilities of core damage frequency and major 11 radiation releases from containment are in the same 12 extremely low ranges as for the evolutionary plant design.
13 And commenting on your earlier question, Chairman, 14 the contribution to the core damage frequency from shutdown 15 conditions is 25 percent of the total and very particularly 16 attention paid in the RTNSS process to equipment in che --
17 the active equipment in the shutdown condition.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
What is your view of 19 maintaining molten core within the reactor pressure vessel?
20 MR. TAYLOR:
We think from the work that was done 21 by NRC, very much the major sponsor, to do an evaluation of 22 the TMI-1 reactor vessel and the damage that occur to it, 23 combined with the greater assurances we see of availability 24 of water for breaks up to eight inches in the AP-600 case, 25 no uncovery of water, that the probability of getting into a l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
22 1
molten condition is small, and if it does, there's very 2
strong assurance that the vessel will contain it 3
.Now, we have -- in the design features of both the 4
evolutionr.ry and the passive plant have reactor cavity 5
cooling capability, being able to flood the reactor cavity 6
to further increase the chances of keeping that molten fuel, 7
if it ever did exist, within the vessel.
I think we have 8
gone as far as we know how to keep that material in the 9
vessel.
10 On the passive system testing for the AP-600, 11 separate effect.s and integral tests of various scales were 12 carried out, both under transient and steady state 13 conditions of the core makeup tank and refueling water 14 storage tank, the automatic depressurization systems and of 15 the passive containment cooling system.
Systems 16 interactions tests were also performed.
17 Now, these tests were carried out in Westinghouse 18 facilities, at Oregon State University facilities in the 19 United States, and in two RED laboratories in Italy.
In 20 addition, NRC sponsored confirmatory tests, an independent 21 integral test of the passive cooling features in a Japanese 22 facility, and additional tests at the Oregon State facility 23 after the industry testing was completed.
The NRC test 24 programs put more emphasis on exploring systems interactions 25 and perturbations that were postulated to leave the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
23 1
challenges imposed by beyond design basis accidents.
2 The test results confirmed the design and analyses 3
of the passive cooling features, confirmed that systems 4
interactions were self-compensating rather than adverse, and 5
showed the systems to be robust against postulated 6
perturbations beyond the design basis assumptions.
1 7
First-of-a-kind engineering was carried out on the 8
AP-600, has been essentially completed for the entire I
9 nuclear and balance of plant scope.
Full completion awaits 10 receipt of the NRC final design approval so that any 11 licensing related adjustments to the design can be 12 incorporated.
The cost and schedule estimates arising from 13 the effort show that a co-located twin unit AP-600 14 significantly compensates for the economy of scale 15 disadvantage and that it is economically competitive with 16 single unit evolutionary designs.
17 The simplification and a high degree of modularity 4
18 in the design gives the potential to reduce the construction 19 time from first concrete pouring to commercial operation to 20 about three years.
21 Now, the BWR passive design, GE 670 megawatt SBWR, 22 has features comparable to the AP-600, including a gravity 23 drain emergency core pooling system and condensing heat 24 exchangers in elevated pools to provide passive core decay 25 heat remoral and containment cooling.
In addition, the SBWR ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
24 1
can produce full power with natural circulation, eliminating 2
the water recirculation pumps.
3 GE pursued a design certification for the SBWR 4
until two years ago, when it decided to discontinue the 5
effort.
GE closed out the program with a technical package 6
incorporating the design results, extensive test data and 7
documentation of the progress made in the licensing process.
8 Now, the SBW Test and Analysis --
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Excuse me.
How soon do you 10 think -- I mean how likely do you think that any efforts 11 with the BWR passive design are to be resurrected?
)
12 MR. TAYLOR:
Well, my own judgment is that they 13 carried out the Test and Analysis Program to the extent that 14 they did verify the design features and performance 15 characteristics of the passive safety systems.
So I think 16 we have that on the shelf and the technical package is 17 available to NRC.
We hope that one of these days GE will be 18 back at the table pursuing a design.
4 19 In fact, I'll jump ahead, a little ad libbing, 20 they are pursuing with their European partners a larger 21 power output version of the passive BWR, and they have made 22 some significant improvements.
Specifically, they have l
23 opened up the flow passages to reduce the pressure drops and l
l 24 increased the natural circulation flow also by enlarging the 25 head area to increase the chimney effect and have resulted 1
l
\\,
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20005 l
(202) 842-0034 w__
25 1
in being able to have a design at 1,000 megawatts electric, i
2 which fits into -- I am going to read this so I say it 3
correctly -- here we go.
It includes a reactor within the 4
same diameter pressure vessel as the ABWR, 1,000 megawatts 5
now, and the same containment size as the 670 megawatt SBWR l
6 design.
l 7
Additional testing and analyses have been carried 8
out in European facilities on these passive safety 9
performance at the higher power level.
The increased 10 natural circulation and other innovations give substantial 11 promise for the BWR passive plant and perhaps even at lower 12 power outputs.
13 In summary, the passive plant Utility Requirements 14 Document Final Safety Evaluation Report has been obtained.
15 The AP-600 Advance Final Safety Evaluation Report has been 16 issued, right on schedule.
The AP-600 first-of-a-kind 17 engineering has been essentially completed' and the SBWR 18 design, testing and licensing progress have been documented.
19 The AP-600 final design approval and design 20 certification are the final steps needed to complete this 21 program.
22 Without the support of the U.S. and international 23 utilities, the reactor manufacturers and the Department of 24 Energy, and the commitment of resources by the NRC, the 25 Advanced Light Water Program and its excellent results would ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
26 1
not have come to pass.
2 I would like now to introduce George Hairston, who 3
will summarize the specifics of the utilities' support.
4 MR. HAIRSTON:
Thank you, John.
Let me just thank 5
the Commission for giving us an audience to talk about the 6
ALWR Program and where we stand, and on a larger note, we 7
are here to thank you for the support and leadership that.
8 you, on your side, have given to this program, it has been 9
essential.
10 I want to talk just a very few minutes about what 11 the utilities' investments in the ALWR Program have been.
12 The U.S. utilities have both led and supported the technical 13 effort since the early '80s.
Their funding has been 14 primarily through EPRI.
Substantial utility manpower has 15 been expended in providing overall guidance to EPRI and in 16 establishing the technical specifics.
17 In the late '80s the utilities commissioned the 18 development of a strategic plan for building new nuclear 19 power plants to open the option for expanded nuclear 20 capacity in the U.S.,
a plan that Robin referred to earlier.
21 This plan moves the program along the broader 22 front, encompassing both institutional as well as technical 23 issues.
EPRI, INPO and NEI were asked to participate on
'24 this broader front.
Here, again, utility management devoted 25 substantial resources via participation in the committees ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court' Reporters 1250'I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
27 1
and the working groups formed by EPRI, INPO and NEI.
2 Loan-ins were also provided to these institutions.
3 Two elements of the plan were identified as 4
prerequisites to the option to build new nuclear power 5
capacity.
INPO took the lead on current nuclear plant 6
performance.
Major improvements have'been achieved in 7
safety, reliability and economics of our operating plants.
8 The improvement in reliability, along with license renewal, 9
will make a vital contribution to sustaining the nation's 10 nuclear capacity over the near term.
11 NEI took the lead on high level waste.
NEI is spearheading the legislation action to support the 13 development of interim management and permanent disposal at 14 Yucca Mountain.
15 Taking the main technical efforts one at a time, 16 the development of the URD was funded by the U.S. and 17 overseas utilities through EPRI.
The utilities also 18 provided executive and management personnel to serve on the 19 Utility Steering Committee that Robin Jones referred to.
20 Technical personnel were also loaned to EPRI.
21 Through EPRI, the utilities also co-funded the 22 design and analysis work done on the passive designs towards 23 NRC certification.
DOE, too, was co-funder to the design 24 teams.
The utilities also funded EPRI to assure design 25 conformance for the utility requirements.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
28 1
A significant portion of the first-of-a-kind 2
engineering was also funded by the utilities, again, along 3
with DOE and the design teams.
The utility contribution 4
came from 15 domestic utilities, one of which is my 5
affiliation, the Southern Company.
In addition, teams of 6
utility personnel provided project management, located at 7
the designer's office in Pittsburgh and San Jose.
8 Standardization is a key goal from a utility 9
standpoint.
A position paper on standardization for a 10 family of plants having the same design was developed by the 11 utility industry and formally endorsed by all nuclear 12 utilities.
But the paper provides policy guidance to 13 standardization at all levels, the URD, design 14 certification, first-of-a-kind engineering and the life 15 cycle of construction, operation, maintenance and 16 decommissioning.
17 Utility personnel also participated with NEI to 18 help define the detailed implementation of NRC's 19 Standardization Policy and Rule, that is the two-tier 20 approach and the ITAAC.
21 Let me talk for a minute about the global aspects 22 of this.
Utility participation has not been limited to just 23 the U,S. utilities.
As Robin mentioned, nuclear utilities 24 from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the 25 Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Switzerland and the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
)
(202) 842-0034 i
)
l 1
a 29 1
U.K. have helped fund both the URD and the passive designs.
2 They also contributed substantial personnel resources.
They 3
brought extensive knowledge and operating experience.
Much 4
of the passive design testing was performed overseas in 5
utility-sponsored facilities.
6 The URD represents a high degree of international 7
Jonsensus.
This is continuing to build as these countries 8
formulate their own specific requirements.
Through our 9
program, particularly the URD effort, the U.S.
industry has 10 achieved major international leadership in defining the 11 future characteristics of nuclear power.
This complements 12 the leadership the NRC has achieved on the international 13 regulatory front.
14 Our paramount near-term objectives are the final 15 design approval and design certification of the AP-600.
The 16 NRC's extensive reviews of the URD and the ALWR designs have 17 been essential to the success of this program.
We are most 18 grateful to you for this commitment and allocation of 19 resources.
Without your leadership, we would not be where 20 we are today.
21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
There's been several 22 references to the international cooperation, and I know the 23 Europeans themselves are developing a European pressurized 24 reactor.
Has there been talk regulatory in the industry 25 circles, whether these reactors would be certified and able ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
r- _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ -
30 1
to be built in Europe and whether there is a quid pro quo 2
where we have to look at the European pressurized reactor 3
when it is at a similar stage?
How is that -- how have 1
4 those sorts of discussions worked?
5 MR. HAIRSTON:
Let me ask Joe to take that one.
6 MR. COLVIN:
There have been number of 1
7 discussions, as you indicated, Mr. McGaffigan, on those 8
issues.
There are vast differences, however, in the 9
regulatory systems within those countries that cause design i,
differences.
For example, in the European reactor design 11 and the combination, the program Fromatome and Siemens, for 12 example, I mean that is designed to fit the regulatory 13 system within Europe and not necessarily the regulatory 14 system of the United States, because of issues like codes 15 and standards and ISO 4000 and other types of issues which 16 change the approach that we take.
17 I think that the key thing, though, that George 18 has mentioned, and has been discussed several times, is 19 there is a tremendous amount of technological exchange of 20 information on issues that affect safety, the design, the 21 engineering, the manufacturing techniques in these areas, 22 that allow -- that have been transferred into these concepts 23 that are now being -- have been reviewed by the Nuclear 24 Regulatory Commission are in fact being built overseas today 25 in Asia, and then will be, hopefully, be built in other ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
31 1
areas of the world.
2
. CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
In fact, I can actually make a 3
comment to you on that line, Commissioner.
The German and 4
the French regulators, in fact, have had to work out some 5
harmonization of regulatory approach for the EPR project 6
and, in fact, within the INRA, the International Nuclear 7
Regulators Association, there is discussion ongoing about 8
harmonization and to what degree that can occur between the 9
disparate regulatory systems generally, but also related to 10 issues such as the licensing of one country's reactor in 11 another.
12 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Could I just -- again, I 13 am learning, so forgive me. _But this codes and standards 14 and ISO 4000 issue, we basically designed -- we have 15 European standards and American standards and we have --
16 they follow ISO 4000, we don't.
How does that work?
17 MR. COLVIN:
I will let John Taylor and Pat give 18 you a number of details, but I will say that it sounds 19 simple and something easy to overcome, and in my experience l
20 it is extremely difficult.
A simple decision between l
21 petrification, English units and metric units, issues like 22 that become extremely difficult in the regulatory licensing 23 context and perhaps John or Pat could add their experience 24 because of their involvement.
25 MR.. TAYLOR:
There is a great deal of consistency ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Sctaet, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.-20005 (202) 842-0034 LE
32 1
in the standards we utilize and a great deal of consistency 2
in the regulation but there's a lot of detail difference and 3
the devil I'm afraid is in the details and the end result I 4
think will be that European designs will be developed by 5
European countries to those standards, to the regulation 6
that they would have to deal with in the country that is 7
involved.
8 Our companies will be designing to NRC 9
regulations, to our standards.
Now these NRC regulations 10 and standards have been accepted around the world to date 11 and I believe that a U.S. manufacturer meeting the U.S.
12 standards can sell and build and have in operation a plant I
13 in Europe as well as they are doing coday in Asia.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
To what extent do these kinds 15 of issues come up vis-a-vis building the two ABWRs in 16 Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Japan or to what extent have they come 17 up with the Taiwan, the project in Taiwan, do you know?
18 MR. TAYLOR:
Both Japan and Taiwan are very 19 closely geared into NRC regulations and positions and in 20 fact as I saw the history, it wasn't until NRC indicated 21 some reasonable approval of an FDA level that they really 22 wanted to proceed.
They wanted to be sure that NRC was 23 satisfied, and so I think in Asia there is less potential 24 conflict than would be the case in Europe.
I 25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Could I also ask, are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
33 1
there any other reactors -- if you are looking the next 15 2
years ahead, say -- aside from the three designs that we 3
have worked on and hopefully the last one will get across 4
the finish line soon -- is there -- you know, occasionally 5
in the Congress you hear about the Russians get sold HDGRs 6
and more proliferation-proof reactors, although I don't 7
think any of these have any proliferation problems, properly.
8 safeguarded, but is there anything else out there that 9
realistically the utilities are interested that can cross 10 the finish line in the period that is relevant to a utility 11 executive trying to buy a reactor?
12 MR. HAIRSTON:
Speaking of the Southern Company, I 13 think you are looking at what is on the table.
14 I would like to add one thing in this.
As I 15 mentioned earlier in my remarks, we were all together 16 though, the international body was together on the utility 17 requirements document.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
19 MR. HAIRSTON:
And that is what is very important, 20 that even though the Europeans may be moving ahead on their 21 reactor, the specific designs flow from that basic utilities 22 requirements document.
23 MR. JONES:
Similarly, the science and technology 24 base -- there is a very good level of agreement on what is 25 proved and what is proved and what is not.
It's the way l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
34 1
that that is used in responding to local regulatory 2
requirements that the difference start to emerge.
3 MR. MCDONALD:
And along that same line, assuming 4
that continued interest overseas of our designs, we would 5
hope as those designs get built that any variations in our 6
design certifications that are brought about by new 7
information or what have you or improvements, that we get 8
those updated our U.S. design certifications to take 9
advantage of --
10 MR. TAYLOR:
Perhaps I could give a technical 11 answer.
There are, as you well know, very promising 12 gas-cooled and liquid metal designs and substantial amounts 13 of development work has been done on them.
14 The light water system, however, is blessed by a 15 tremendous amount of operational experience and a tremendous 16 development of regulation and in the near, reasonably 17 near-term future that base is essential as a way to expand 18 nuclear capacity.
19 Having taken that step, I can see these more 20 advanced designs coming into play and substantial enhancing 21 the potential and value of nuclear power energy generation.
22 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
By the time I make a comment, 23 it will be a lot more difficult to design a European reactor 24 the way it is designed in France and Germany and have it 25 licensed in the United States than having one in here and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202).842-0034 t
t l
35 1
have it licensed in Europe.
l 2
MR TAYLOR:
Yes.
I think you're right.
3 MR. HAIRSTON:
The industry continues to be 4
convinced that the future expansion of nuclear power is 5
essential to meet the country's energy needs.
The 6
conviction has just been reaffirmed through the issue of a 7
strategic direction for nuclear energy in the 21st century.
8 Joe Colvin will now review that document.
9 MR. COLVIN:
Good morning.
As George and Robin 10 have indicated and Chairman, as you have indicated, we 11 created that strategic plan for building new nuclear plants 12 in about 1990 and revised that on eight occasions, anG that 13 plan contained 24 building blocks that we felt necessary to 14 address to ensure that we were prepared to build new nuclear 15 plants in the United States.
16 We made tremendous progress in that entire effort 17 and we do thank you, the Commission, for working in a 18 partnership in principle in the areas of the licensing and 19 the reviews as well as the development of the basic rule 20 infrastructures for both license renewal and Part 52.
21 Through that whole process, and I participated in 22 that process from the beginning along with several of the 23 gentlemen at the table, I believed and I am even more 24 convinced today, as Mr. Hairston indicated, that we will 25 build new nuclear plants in the United States in the future ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,' Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
36 1
because they are needed.
2 We have to look at what is occurring in the world 3
and we see a tremendous confluence of positive change 4
looking at nuclear and that is being driven by an increased 5
amount of support from the policy arena, the policy makers, 6
opinion leaders, as well as the public, and that is what 7
really led the industry to move forward to set out the 8
strategic direction, which in essence is really a shared 9
vision for what we as an industry need to do to move forward 10 into the 21st century.
11 Shown on this second slide, the strategic 12 direction has eight compass points that will try to lead us 13 into the future and I will be happy to discuss any of those 14 in detail.
I would really like to focus on three which are 15 particularly germane to this discussion today, and those are 16 the business conditions and policies that position nuclear 17 plants for a competitive marketplace.
18 Secondly is the recognition of the environmental 19 benefits of nuclear and how we take advantage of the 20 intrinsic economic values of the emission-free nuclear 21 energy.
22 Lastly, I would like to end on the real subject of 23 this meeting, which is the next generation of new nuclear l
24 plants.
25 I want really to start a little bit on the l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
I Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 L
i 37 1
economic picture because there is a tremendous amount of 2
misinformation, assumptions and assertions and allegations 3
by people as to whether nuclear will be or can be l
4 competitive in the marketplace as we move forward, and I 5
would like to provide some information on that.
6 I think it is important when we do that to look at 7
the economic picture from two perspectives -- one, whether 8
we are operating existing generation sources, in this case 9
nuclear, or whether we are constructing new nuclear plants 10 or new generation of any type, and it is important to keep 11 that distinction in mind.
They are very much inter-related 12 and yet the decisions and the questions one must address are 13 sometimes vastly different.
14 The economics will be a deciding factor on whether 15 we build nuclear plants in the country and how well the 16 plants operate today, how competitive they are, and will I
17 attract the buyers and decide whether you look at that from 18 a business standpoint whether those are viable sources of 19 generation.
20 I would like to just talk today -- because I'll 21 tell you that from everything we look at, we see that most 22 plants today are well-positioned for competition and in fact 23 that is largely because the industry undertook tremendous 24 efforts over the past 10 years to make improvements in those 25 various reductions'in refueling outage lengths and other ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
38 1
major initiatives, increases the availability and capacity 2
factor, reduction of automatic scrams, and all that l
3 information really came about with an integrated focus on 4
safety and how we do that in a more efficient and effective l
5 way.
6 I would like to show this next slide, which you l
7 likely have seen before.
This slide shows the average cost 8
of production, producing electricity, from the various fuel 9
sources, and this production cost is the operating cost, the 10 maintenance cost, and the fuel cost.
11 As you can see from this, although the graph is a 12 little bit hard to see from here, the solid line on the 13 bottom is nuclear and the other dotted line, the dashed line 14 that is next to that is coal, and what that shows is that 15 nuclear and coal are fairly competitive right today.
They 16 are certainly much more competitive than alternative 17 sources.
18 There is a lot of discussion about natural gas.
19 Natural gas on average in the United States is about one and i
20 a half cents per kilowatt hour of generation -- more l
21 expensive than generating through coal, large coal or large l
l 22 nuclear.
The myth that gas is cheaper is not correct when 23 done in the context of operating existing plants.
24 This slide shows the cost performance by quartile l
1 25 and an important distinction on this slide, as you can see, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 s
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
39 1
is no matter which quartile we are talking about all the 2
plants have continued to improve over time.
Certainly the 3
lowest plants, the lowest quartile or the first quartile, 4
the plants with the lowest costs, show tremendous ability to 5
compete ~in the marketplace and I think it is more important 6
to realize that for nuclear units in the United States we 7
internalize all our costs, so the costs for the nuclear 8
waste fee, the cost for decommissioning, the examination of 9
the gaseous diffusion plants, the cost of user fees for NRC 10 and other activities are paid for and they arc internalized 11 within these figures.
12 That is certainly not true in alternative sources 13 of generation, although there are efforts by organizations 14 like the Federal Accounting Standards Board and others to 15 try to balance that out from a business perspective and so 16 forth.
We'll see some of that, but as you can see, there is 17 tremendous improvement.
18 Our challenge is to get the plants in the second, 19 third and fourth quartile moved into the first quartile and 20 have the first quartile continue to move down.
21 When you look at that and what we are going to 22 compete on, however, we need to look at the competition in 23 the electricity sector on a marginal cost basis, and in 24 essence we have a number of issues such as potentially 25 stranded investment, and other associated fees that -- and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
' Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 o
40 1
taxes and other things that you have to take into account, 2
but those are being dealt with properly by the states so far 3
and we believe that the Federal Government through whatever 4
actions are taken, any comprehensive legislation will in 5
fact deal with those responsibly.
6 Then when you get to this at the end of the day, 7
once those are dealt with in whatever manner they are, you 8
need to look at operating costs at the margins.
The 9
marginal costs when you look at it from a business l
10 perspective has to include not only the operating, 11 maintenance and fuel costs, but also the "to go" cap -- the 12 capital that you need to put in the units to maintain the i
13 units efficiently and effectively and reliably and also some 14 types of general administrative costs.
15 What this slide shows is you can see the bottom 16 line, the bottom set of bar graphs, the gray bars are really 17 the fuel costs fore the units and as you move across the 18 page the second bar is operating and maintenance costs, the 19 light color, and the next bar is an estimate -- it is an 20 estimate of the to go capital costs and the G&A, the general 21 and administrative costs.
22 The two lines that we have shown on there, the 23 horizontal lines, there is a solid line at 2 cents per 24 kilowatt hour and a dashed line at 3 cents per kilowatt 25 hour2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br />.
What is going to be determined in each region of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
41 1
country is a market clearing price for electricity and the 2
ability to sell electricity into that sector is going to be 3
determined by what the costs of electricity are and what 4
your margin is on that to make a profit and that is going to 5
be very basic business type decisions in this area.
6 I think you can see if you pick 3 cents per 7
kilowatt hour that we have a majority of plants in the 8
United States that are competitive today under these 9
conditions and given that we internalize those costs we 10 believe that we can be even more competitive in the future 11 as we move forward.
12 These costs do not take into account any aspects 13 of the economic values that attribute to the emission-free 14 quality of nuclear generation, and that really leads me to 15 the next subject, which is the compass point on recognizing what these -- I'll characterize them hidden values.
16 17 I would like to separate in the discussion the 18 issue of environment and think about it in two ways -- Clean 19 Air Act Requirements and separately the Kyoto protocol and 20 climate change issues, although I think that because we had 21 the Kyoto meeting in December, we have the Bonn meeting 22 ongoing, and in preparation for Buenos Aires coming up in 23 November that most of the focus tends to be on CO2 but the 24 reality is that under the Clean Air Act, first of all, as 25 you know, nuclear does not emit any pollutants to the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
42 1
environment and under the Clear Air Act it regulates sulfur 2
dioxides, nitrous oxides, particulate matter, and ground 3
level ozone, and the key I think that we see as to how to 4
take advantage of this intrinsic value with nuclear 5
generated electricity that does not pollute.
6 This next slide shows the emissions from utilities 7
from 1996 in carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, and sulfur 8
dioxide and as you can see -- well, I'll just make a couple 9
points.
10 One is that in 1996 alone nuclear generated l
11 electricity prevented emissions over 147 million metric tons 12 of carbon, a little over 5 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 13 and 3 million tons of NOX.
14 If you look at that another way, that is the 15 equivalent'of taking 100 million automobiles off the road, 16 avoided emissions or not burning 50,000 railroad cars of 17 coal.
It's a significant benefit to our nation and the 18 reality is our Administration is being to realize more and 19 more that we can't meet the targets for emissions even under 20 Clean Air Act without nuclear energy.
21 Let me give you an example of that.
The next 22 slide builds on nuclear energy and if you notice in the 23 benefits, this slide shows the location of nuclear power 24 plants, something that you are very well aware of, but the 25 point that I would like to make is that these plants are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
I 43 1
typically in fairly densely populated areas or provide 2
electricity service to those areas where there is a high 3
concentration of activities that generate pollution.
l 4
In addition, most of these areas are 5
non-attainment -- they are non-attainment zones under the 1
6 Clean Air Act for ozone or regulated pollutants and that is 7
shown on the next slide, which builds on the first, which 8
shows that these are the areas of the counties in blue, and 9
I agree is it a little difficult to see on the screen but 10 those are the counties that have taken action to reduce 11 Clean Air Act under EPA's emission controls and those 12 actions, they are in compliance with that, and under the 13 current standards, and they have had to take action such as 14 restricting industrial development and expansion, regulating 15 stationary sources and even emission controls on mobile 16 sources like COM in California with their automobile 17 standards, as you are well aware of.
18 The next slide really shows in yellow and builds 19 on that the counties that will not meet the EPA's 1997 20 revised standards for ozone.
The real impact on this to the 21 states of not being in attainment, if you want the hammer 22 from that, is loss of Federal highway funds.
This is a 23 major issue for the state and these counties that are --
24 that have this difficulty and it makes a compelling 25 argument, one that is becoming more and more aware -- these ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
f 44 1
policymakers, state legislators and others are becoming more 2
aware of that from the standpoint of their own particular 3
situation.
l 4
This really makes a compelling case for license 5
renewal when you think about it because the license renewal l
6 aspects not only tie into economics but they tie into the 7
emission-free generation of electricity and into the helping 8
the states meet their restrictions.
9 But the third point that I want to talk about was 10 new nuclear plants in the United States, and as you are well 11 aware, the DOE Energy Information Administration, EIA --
12 I'll get it straight here in a second -- has said we will 13 need over 400,000 megawatts of new generating capacity 14 between now and 2020, and this is shown on this slide, and 15 broken down year to year.
16 If you look at that, it shows both in the white 17 bar, the new capacity that will be needed but this is based 18 upon increases in demand and the darker colored bar really 19 retirements of plants, and if you look at those between 20 those windows that are shown on the slide, you have to add 21 up the white-colored bars to really get to that but that is 22 400 gigawatts, 400,000 megawatts, and obviously if we 23 increase it, we take advantage of the license renewal, which 24 we are intending to do, and with the Commission's leadership 25 and support on that, we are going to offset some of that, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
45 l
1 but we are not going to offset the whole amount by a long 2
shot.
We are not going to make up that amount of I
3 electricity by renewables and by solar and by wind and other 4
things.
We are going to have to build new capacity, and we 5
believe that nuclear must be in the mix, and in fact it has 6
to be in the mix.
7 There is really no choice when we move forward and 8
look at this.
9 Without even taking into considerations of energy 10 diversity security and other factors, if you just look at 11 economics versus demand versus environment and try to 12 balance those, it is pretty clear.
13 This slide shows that if you --
14 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Excuse me --
15 MR. COLVIN:
I'm sorry --
16 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Yes, I'm sorry.
Did the 17 retirements shcwn on the graph, did those include the 18 nuclear power plant if they do not renew their license?
19 MR. COLVIN:
Yes, sir.
These are the EIA numbers 20 and in fact they predict that no plants will renew their 21 licenses and that by 2020 we will be at half the capacity in 22 the United States, so the retirements of nuclear plants are 23 cuilt into that graph 24 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Thank you.
25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Can I also ask a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l
(202) 842-0034
46 1
question about this graph?
In the current five-year period, 2
we have, we are apparently adding over 100 gigawatts of 3
capacity.
I know the nuclear component is zero, but where 4
is it all coming from?
Is it mostly gas and coal?
5 Well, first of all, I think you understand that 6
these are the EIA projections and they go into a lot of 7
models and assumptions of what we need and I think what we 8
are seeing is those numbers will be adjusted by what really 9
takes place over this period.
10 We are seeing an improvement in efficiency.
I 11 mean just in the past five years in the nuclear industry we 12 have made improvements in the production, the availability 13 or capability factors of these units such that it is 14 equivalent to putting 11 new 1000 megawatt. nuclear plants on 15 the line.
16 Those were not built into DOE's assumptions that 17 are shevn in that graph and that is true not only in the 18 nuclear arena but it is true in the fossil arena.
We are 19 operating those facilities better.
20 We are building some new generation.
Most of that 21 is combineG cycle gas turbines.
l 22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Could I just ask, we are 23 most of the way through this period, how accurate did that 24 first bargraph prove to be?
25 MR. COLVIN:
I don't know but I will be happy to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
L
i I
47 1
look~at that because we do have some information and I will 2
try to provide that to the Commission but I really can't 3
comment other than to make a total guess at this point, but 4
I will give you some feedback.
It is an important question 5
as to whether the validity -- I will say that we do not 6
agree with the assumptions that the EIA uses in their models 7
and predictions.
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
9 MR. COLVIN:
We have our own, but I will try to 10 give you some information on that.
11 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
That's fine.
I just 12 recall when I was a student almost 25 years ago at Kennedy 13 School getting totally outrageous projections about the 14 future of energy at the time of the oil crisis --
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Did you compare these to what 16 you got then?
17
[ Laughter.)
18 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I'm sure the numbers 19 were much larger.
We probably needed to have 1000 gigawatts 20 a year if you believe what we were believing then.
21 MR. COLVIN:
And I agree totally, but I think if 22 you say that the EIA projects 400 gigawatts, if we are off 23 by a factor of four we are still talking 100 gigawatts and 24 no matter what we try to build, it's a significant amount of 25 generation, and when you try to balance that with the l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
48 1
environmental issues I think that is where it really comes 2
into play.
3 I will say -- I was going to make a point later, 4
but I will make in now, and that is that even the 5
environmental groups are believing that meeting the nation's 6
environmental needs and the generation of electricity will 7
add between three-quarters of a cent and one cent per 8
kilowatt hour to the cost of electricity that emits 9
pollutants, so you go back to that market clearing price 10 that I was showing, 2 cents and 3 cents.
If you add a 11 penalty to generation that emits or you add a benefit or 12 give a credit to generation that does not emit, whichever 13 convention you would like to choose, then -- I mean we have 14 a tremendous value that has not been recognized, and I think 15 when we look at that together, that is why we see that we need these plants.
16 17 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Could I ask another 18 question outside of our regulatory framework?
I read in 19
" Nucleonics Week", which is not a good source of information 20 most of the time. that even Electricity de France, when it 21 thinks about capacity, you know, when they need capacity, 22 which isn't anytime soon, they have people from EDF quoted 23 that they will look hard at combined cycle gas, and there 24 probably is not a more pro-nuclear nation and utility.
25
'So how does that square, you know, with what you ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l=
49 1
are saying?
That they haven't caught up to EPA in terms of 2
NOX and sulfates and all that and when they do, they will 3
make -- or will that 4
MR. COLVIN:
Well, I guess, first of all, let me 5
make sure that I am clear on one point.
I am not saying 6
that we ought to build nuclear and not build anything else.
l 7
In fact, as a nation, we are going to need everything we can 8
build upon in new generation for the future if we are going 9
to compete in the global marketplace and other.
I mean just 10 look at it from a national perspective.
In fact, we try to 11 recognize this in the strategic direction.
12 I think they are doing the same thing.
I mean 13 when a utility in the United States, and I'll let Mr.
14 Hairston speaks, they run all the scenarios for all their 15 generation mix and how you meet all these various 16 requirements and how it fits into your economic planning 17 features and so on.
And I think the EbF and others are 18 doing the same thing.
19 You can build a combined cycle gas turbine plant 20 with a fairly low capital cost, about $400-$450 per kilowatt 21 installed.
And yet you are subject to significant swings in 22 fuel costs.
23 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
24 MR. COLVIN:
I mean those are all trade-offs.
Low 25 capital cost, low construction time to get on line.
Low ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Streat, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
50 1
staffing levels.
But yet you have got some other factors.
2 So I think it is more of that.
3 I will say that the other countries do not have 4
the restrictions on the Clean Air Act in the same way that 5
we do.
And they have environmental laws, and if you start 6
looking, I mean it is intriguing in the context of the Kyoto 7
protocol to talk to other countries, and when we talk clean 8
air, they really are not on the same sheet of music.
They 9
are thinking CO2.
And I think that is going to change 10 around the world.
11 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Is NEI thinking of 12 subsidizing Carol Brenner trips to Europe?
13 ILaughter.]
14 MR. COLVIN:
I would prefer not to comment on that 15 one or answer that question.
16 But I just wanted to make -- if I can, go back to 17 that slide and comparison just to make a point here.
And 18 that's -- these are -- no, not that one, the one on 19 generating, costs of new generation.
You have to look at, 20 as I indicated, not only the cost to operate it, and how you 21 are going to compete, but you have to look at the cost of 22 what it costs to install it, new capacity, and those are I
23 DOE's numbers, those are EIA's projections that they have
[
24 had.
25 One that is not on there is the cost to renew the j
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
I Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
l
O 51 1
license.
If you think about it as compared to generating 2
new capacity and that range is in our estimates between $10 3
and $50 per kilowatt.
And if you just think that Baltimore 4
Gas and Electric has, in round numbers, 2,000 kilowatts --
5 2,000 megawatts of capacity at Calvert Cliffs, the estimate 6
for NRC licensing, and this is round numbers, $10 million if 7
you assume that they have to make other changes to the plant 8
and so on, call it, say it's $50 million total, that $50 per 9
kilowatt.
I mean that -- you can't compare that.
10 So I think, you know, if you start to think about 11
-it in those ways, you can see quickly why people are moving
)
12 in that direction, and especially as we move into a 13 competitive marketplace.
14 As was indicated about the GE APWR at Kashiwazaki, 15 an important point.on that was that that was a -- those were 1350 megawatt plants.
They were put on line, in operation 16 17 in under four and a half years, you know, ahead of schedule, 18 under budget.
I mean it is obviously do-able if we set in 19 place the proper framework to accomplish that.
And I think 20 besides that we are going to make a tremendous improvement 21 as the learning curve, as was indicated by Mr. Taylor.
22 I would like to just close on the slide that --
23 the last slide, which really makes the points, in summary, 24 that I think, as I have indicated, most of our units are 25 highly competitive today.
We certainly are going to see a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20005 l
l (202) 842-0034 l
52 1
change in the business structure of our industry as we go 2
through competition.
Some companies are going to be in the i
3 generating business and other companies are not.
And that's 4
going to change how we move forward.
There's going to be 5
consolidation, there's going to be new business entities 6
come about and it's going to be pretty exciting to work 7
through a lot of that.
8 We are going to see more increased emphasis on 9
emission-free electricity.
I mean just to give you one 10 quick example, if you add new control technology to a fossil 11 plant, for example, a scrubber, you get a tax credit today.
12 Yet if you don't generate it in the first place, there is no 13 credit.
There is something basically flawed with that 14 concept, and there are a lot of initiatives in the policy 15 arena to look at that from a national perspective.
16 As I also indicated, we have, as you know, 17 certainly, that our fuel price, our low fuel price and the e
18 relative sensitivity of that is -- and sensitivity to the 19 fuel price changes is very important.
So I think that as we 20 move forward we are going to see, certainly, the licenses 21 renewed and we are going to see new nuclear power plants 22 built in the United States, and the question is when and 23 what pace, and we'll look forward to working with the 24 Commission to ensure that we do that safely and effectively.
25 Thank you.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, L'ID.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
}
53 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Any further comments, 2
questions?
Commissioner Diaz?
Commissioner McGaffigan?
3
[No response.]
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I would like to thank 5
EPRI and NEI for this status briefing today.
The Commission 6
appreciates the joint cooperative effort of industry, DOE, 7
others and the NRC in the two design certifications that 8
have been completed.
We anticipate a continued cooperative 9
effort on the AP-600 final design approval and design 10 certification process.
11 As you know, an Advanced Final Safety Evaluation 12 Report was issued to the Commission this past month, and it 13 is currently review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor 14 Safeguards, the ACRS.
The staff still expects to issue the
]
15 final design approval in September of this year.
- However, 16 maintaining this schedule will depend on timely, high 17 quality responses, and I have made this point to them, by 18 Westinghouse to issues or items identified by the t
19 Commission, the staff or the ACRS.
It also depends on 20 timeliness in terms of the staff continued activity.
And 21 the NRC will continue to examine its regulatory structure, 22 bearing in mind our responsibility for protecting public 23 health and safety, but in a manner to ensure that our 24 requirements are not an impediment to bringing about new 25 nuclear plant orders in the United States.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
54 1
And unless there is any further comments, we are 2
adjourned.
3 (Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m.,
the briefing was 4
concluded.)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,'D.C. 20005' (202) 842-0034
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached description of a meeting, of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
BRIEFING ON EPRI ON THE STATUS OF THEIR ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR (ALWR) PROGRAM PUBLIC MEETING PLACE OF MEETING:
Rockville, Maryland DATE OF MEETING:
Friday, June 5, 1998 was held as herein appears, is a true and accurate record of the meeting, and that this is the original transcript thereof taken stenographically by ne, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company Transcriber:
b
'\\d --
, G% I
\\
Reporter:
Jon Hundlev
\\
\\..
Advanced Light Water Reactor Prograni (ALWR)
Accomplishinents and Status l
A Utility Industry Executives' liricting to tiie NRC Commissioners l
NRC Headquarters Rockville MD June 5,1998 1
Sequence ofIndustry Presenters Robin Jones Completed Technical Elements Jolm Taylor Passive Designs George Hairston Utility Investments Joe Colvin Strategic Direction l
2
)
i e
Top-Tier Technical Goals Define future standardized ALWR designs
- Througli to regulatory approval
- Plus tiirougli to detailed plant cost and construction schedule estiinates
- Standardize froni certification through operation
- Incorporate worldwide plant experience
- Designers
- Regulators
- Constructors
- Operators 3
Top-Tier Technical Goals (continued)
- Establisti evolutionary and passive design alternatives Underway since 1985 and nearing coinpletion Expenditure of ~$111. including in-kind efforts Industry-DOE cost sharing program NRC deeply involved froin the start 4
i L
f l
i 1
i Utility I)esign Requirements
- Under the direction of EPRI's ALWR Utility Steering Committee
- Operating executives from nuclear utilities:
US and eleven other nations
- NEl.INPO and DOE participation
- Detailed consultation with the plant designers
- Comprehensive and detailed requirements
- For evolutionary designs (-1350 Mw) and passive designs (~600 Mw)
- For boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors 5
Utility Design Requirements (continued)
- FSERs issued
- For the evolutionary-design requirements - 1992
- For the passive-design requirements - 1994 6
6
l l
1 l
Top-Tier Utility Design Requirements l
Greater operational margins through reductions in coolant temperature and core power density and through increased coolant inventory State-of-the art I&C and man-machine interfaces directed to transparcat monitoring and reduced demand on the operators A large, rugged containment building such that the whole body dose is less than 25 rem at the site boundary for severe accidents with cumulative frequency greater than 10-6 per reactor year 7
i Top-Tier Utility Design Requirements Occupational radiation exposure less than 100 perstm rem per year A core damage frequency ofless than 10 5 per reactor-year and no fuel damage for up to a 6-inch coolant line break
- Increased reliability of components, simplification of systems and the use of proven technology to assure 87% average plant availability, a 24 month refueling interval and a sixty-year life Minimal site-specific differences, controlled by
" site envelope" requirements 8
?
1*
System 80+ ( ABil-CE)
- Enhanced:
- Containment overpressurization protection l
- Emergency core cooling
- Reactor cavity flooding capability
- Improved reliability:
- Better choices of materials
- More robust major component design
- Greater operational margins
- Modern I&C systems
- Application of human factors 9
EvolutionaryDesigns (continued)
System 80+ (AllH-CE)
- Very high level of conformance to the Utility Requirements Document (URD)-
Safety goals met
- Core damage frequencies below 10-6/ reactor-year
- Cumulative probability of 25 rem beyond half-mile below 10 7/ reactor-year
- Design Certification obtained
'10 i
f First-of-a-Kind Engineering To sus,.
' detailed estimates of plant cost and const:
- an schedule
- Ta6 s the level of plant design completion from that required for design certification to that required to support these estimates.
- Includes these estimates
- ARC project management
- Supported by on loan utility personnel and EPRI staff Assured very high level of conformance to the URD 11 i
First-of-a-Kind Engineering (continued)
- Competitive selection
- AP-600, co-funded by Westinghouse
- ABWR completed
- Meets the URD's capital cost and construction schedule targets
- Won major share of Taiwan plant
'12
r t
i i
The Passive Design Concept Arose from utility desire for a simpler. smaller LWR
- Substitutes natural driving forces (gravity flow, natural circulation, and compressed gas) for conventional electrically powered pumping and control systems Substitution not only simplifies overall system but counters loss of economy of scale at lower power outputs
- Difference in reactor and containment cooling systems warranted a separate URD volume
- Safety goals and many other requirements same as in evolutionary plant URD volume
- As for evolutionary ALWRs, safety enhanced and reliability improved by better choices of materials, more robust major component design. greater operational margins, modern I&C systems, and the application of human factors
- A significant step: Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety Systems 14
/'
Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety Systems A process for defining regulatory oversight for active non-safety related systems incorporating both deterministic and probabilistic criteria and evaluations Active non-safety systems reliability standards set to minimize challenges to the passive safety systems 15 Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety Systems (continued)
The RTNSS process has helped to identify j
specifically the role of the non-safety related systems in the PRA and in the regulations i
The AP-600 meets the RTNSS criteria, including l
a the Commission's safety goal guidelines based on conservative non-safety-related reliability bases for the non-safety-related systems
'16 A
D Passive Safety System Testing
= Extensive testing to verify design and analyses Testing and analyses plans reviewed with NRC before implementation
- Disciplined process developed by NRC Research to govern implementation
. NRC observation of work and review of results 17 PWR Passive Core Cooling System Provides core residual heat removal. safety injection, and depressurization.
- Located within containment building; no circulation of reactor coolant outside the containment boundary.
- Combination of cooling water sources:
- gravity drain from two core makeup tanks
- gravity drain from large refueling water storage tank suspended above the level of the core
- injection from two accumulator tanks under nitrogen pressure
'18
l l
l l
PWR Passive Containment Cooling Containment system provides the ultimate heat sink for the plant.
In a LOCA, natural circulation air cooling of containment is supplemented by evaporation of water flowing by gravity over containment from a tank located on top of containment building shield Hydrogen control for design basis accidents is provided by passive auto-catalytic recombiners 19 Other PWR Licensing Design Ilasis Accident Features
- All safety related electrical power requirements are met by Class IE batteries, eliminating the need for safety-grade on-site AC power sources and greatly reducing dependence on off-site power
= Hermetically-scaled canned primary reactor coolant pumps requiring no seals have been adapted from highly reliable naval nuclear primary coolant pumps, thus obviating a sea' failure LOCA 20
1 i
Other PWR Licensing Design Ilasis Accident Features (continued Passive cooling and piping configurations prevent core uncovery for LOCAs up to an eight inch pipe break.
As in evolutionary ALWRs, the AP-6(H) design has reactor coolant system and containment overpressurization protection, and reactor cavity flooding capability For LDBAs. no operator action is needed to assure safety for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> and no off-site support is needed for 7 days 21 PWR Severe Accident Mitigation A passive main control room habitability system j
provides fresh air, cooling, and pressurization to main control room through compressed air supply Containment penetrations have been substantially reduced Igniters are provided for severe accident conditions involving very large releases of hydrogen
- Core damage frequency and major radiation releases from containment in the same extremely low ranges as for the evolutionary plant PRAs t
22
PWR Passive System Testing
- Separate effects and integral tests carried out
- In Westinghouse and university facilities in the U.S.
- In industrial laboratories in Europe j
- NRC sponsored tests of the passive cooling l
features carried out in Japan and Oregon State U l
- Test data has confirmed the design of the passive cooling features 23 First-of-n-Kind Engineering I
AP-MN) first-of-a-kind engineering essentially completed
- Covers entire nuclear and balance of plant scope
- Full completion awaits receipt of the FDA, to Incorporate new licensing related adjustments to the design 24
_m
I AP-600 Cost and Schedule Estimates l
- Compensation for the economy-of-scale disadvantage
- Twin-unit AP-6M plant economically competitive with large single unit evolutionary plant
- Simplification and modularitylead to potential for less than three years from pouring first concrete to commercial operation 25 BWR Passive Design GE 670 MNe SilWR has features comparable to the AP-600
- Condensing heat exchangers in elevated pools provide passive core decay heat removal and containment cooling
- Operates at full power with natural circulation, el!minating water recirculation pumps
- Technical package was produced incorporating the design results, extensive test data and analytical code comparisons, and documentation of the progress made in the licensing process 26
1 IlWR Passive System Testing Component. separate effects and integral system tests were conducted
- at GE in the U.S.
- at industrial laboratories in Italy, Japan, and Switzerland
- included full,1:25.1:400, and 1:500 scales with non-dimensional analysis for comparison of results
- both transient and steady-state conditions Test data confirmed the performance of the a
passive emergency core cooling and containment cooling systems 27 Large Passive IlWR CE-European cooperative effort to design and develop a 1350 MWe version of the SUWR Natural circulation flow rate increased with a
potential for the same diameter pressure vessel as the ABWR and the same containment size as the 670 MWe SBWR design
- This and other innovations give substantial promise to the BWR passive plant
'28 I
c i
Passive Plant Status Suniniary
- AP-MH) First-of-a-Kind Engineering essentially completed SBWR design, testing, and licensing progress documented
- AP-MN) FDA and Design Certification the final steps to be completed in the ALWR prograin j
i
- Without the support of the utilities, DOE and NRC. these excellent results would not have come to pass 29 i
Utility Investments in the Prognun US utilides led and supported:
- Technical effort since early '80s
- Utility funding primarily through EPRI
- Utility manpower for guidance and technical specifics
- Institutional effort since late '8th
- Utility manpower for guidance, working groups. Ioan-ins l
l l
4 Prerequisites to New Nuclear Capacity
- Current nuclear plant performance
- Major improvements in safety, reliability, i:conomics Spent Fuel Management a
- NEI lead
- Spearheading legislative action re: Yucca Mountain 31 Utility Investments Specifics URD funded by US and overseas utilities
- Plus personnel to serve on the Utility Steering Conunittee
- Plus technical personnelloaned to EPRI
- Utilities co-funded the passive design work towards certification
- Including funding EPRI to assure conformance to the URD t
' 32 i
I t
Utility Investments Specifics (continuedi Utilities also co-funded the first-of a-kind-engineering
- From fificen domestic utilities
- Plus teams of utility personnel for project management
- Utilities sponsored the Position Paper on Standardization
- Formally endorsed by all the nuclear utilities
- Provides policy guidance to standardization at all levels
- Also participated with NEI to help define the detailed implementation of NRC's Standardization Policy and Rule 33 Glolm! Aspects
- Participation by overseas utilities
- Belgium, France. Germany. Italy, Japan, the Netherlands. Sou th Korea. Spain. Taiwa n, Switzerland, the UK
- Funding for the URD and the passive designs
- Plus personnel resources
- Extensive knowledge and operating experience
- Passive design testing at overseas facilities.
- The URD - a high degree ofinternational consensus
O 1
l l
Glolm! Aspects (continued)
US industry - major international leadership in defining the future cliaracteristics of nuclear power
- Complements NRC globalleadership Paramount near-term objectives. FDA and DC of AP-600 Gratitude for allocation of NRC resources 35 i
l 1
l 1
l l
I 1
2000 and beyond 0
, e-
~
,4
/
4 e
l A Strategic Direction NucleaMrgy.
3 21st Century EPRI Briefing for the NRC Joe Colvin President and CEO NEI June 5,1998 1
o A notional The next one gn,,
l generation d I
diversity and reliable nuclear l
UA nuclear reliability of powr plant Power piants
.n.rgy suppiy workWde
\\
l
/
8ac' * *d Compass points that EngNIa$, _ v/ill set the direction ~1 $Z 7,','*Y"*'*'
for nuclear energy in nucwr eaerer the 21st Century
/
'N Business An integrated conditions and used fuel policies that management I
l Recognition system and I position nuclear plants i
for a competitive of theintrinsic effective lowhl electricity I
oconomic value l
weste disposal indusi,y of e mission e systern nuclear energy Toward I
business conditions and policies that position nuclear plants for a Competitive electricity industry 2
l U.S. Electricity Production Costs (1996 cents /kWh) e a
a e
a e
e a
=
=
12 -
10 - s 1996 i
-'s s.
_ - c.
_ - o..
8
\\,,, g Coal j
- 3 b,. c 4-l 2
7
~
O teos sees tear toes U.S. Nuclear Industry Production Costs (3-year rolling averages by quartile) m a
a e
a e
a a
a m
I 2.5 3,
E190244 W
- MW 32 g
I B19944$
188 SM 2<
m 134 (A8 (As i
l 1
I 3
'To Go' Costs Per Plant (1994-96 Production Costs + Estimated Capital + G&A)
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
i sm-4 Am.
l.
WW muya
&,Jl
=
~em,
,mw I
Toward recognition of the I
intrinsic economic value of emission-free nuclear energy 4
Nuclear. The Clean Air Energy (1996 electric utility emissions) m a
a e
e e
a e
e a
"a "E
"E-100%.
80%.
80%.
40%.
20%.
0%
1- =,
m Nuclear Energy and Attainment
=
m a
e e
a e
a e
a "g A f.
i M
(! = T,, "y,
- e mue rpo wpene.
5
O Nuclear Energy and Attainment N"?N a '
)
L.'s h.' Ut ? '
e E = Count 6 veth control progr.m. In pl.c. und.r current ozon..t.nd.rd (Source: EPA 1993-06 dat.)
Nuclear Energy and Attainment M
. &,hp
\\
+. x E - co i m n.e e i era. iter,evi d o d.,d (Sourc.: EPA 1993-05 d.ta) 6
Toward i ei.next generation
- U.S. nuclear power plants J
j New Capacity Will Be Needed to Replace Retirements, Meet Demand New generating capacity and requirements,1996-2020 (megawatts) a a
a a
a a
e a
a m
12 c,000 E
E ki s 00 80,000 E
i.
RI is
.0.000 0
19964000 2001 4 006 2006-2010 2011 2015 20 4 2020 7
Capital Costs:
New Generating Options e
a a
a a
e a
a
=
Combined-cycle natural gas plant: $440 per kilowatt Pulverized coal: $1,079 per kilowatt Integrated gasification combined-cycle coal plant: $1,206 per kilowatt New nuclear: $1,550 per kilowatt Solar plant: $3,185 per kilowatt Nuclear Energy Today...
e e
a e
a a
e a
a m
... and in the 21st century
'fjg(
g,
,, f '
a License renewal truitalaihicnini2/ r
> New nuclear agar-p 1.
-4.a ; -
Power plants
~e
- g f y f i g g hj }
$a< 24:nr,Nng.i J
. __. a
.. ~, -..
8