NUREG-1368, Informs Commission of Intent to Publish Final Version of NUREG-1368, Preapplication SER for Power Reactor Innovative Small Module Lmr
| ML20059F985 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/23/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1368 SECY-93-356, NUDOCS 9401210002 | |
| Download: ML20059F985 (16) | |
Text
........................l RELEASED TO THE PDR
,/.# "4<,s O[9f
/
L/
g
~w m
.......... e u e.,.
5-3
....+
POLICY ISSUE (Information)
December 23, 1993 SECY-93-356 E0]l:
The Comissioners flQtl:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
$RIJJECT: PUBLICATION OF THE PREAPPLICATION SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT (PSER)
FOR THE POWER REACTOR INNOVATIVE SMALL MODULE LIQUID-METAL REACTOR PURPOSE:
To infonn the Comission of the staff's intent to publish the final version of NUREG-1368, " Preapplication Safety Evaluation Report for the Power Reactor Innovative Small Module (PRISM) Liquid-Metal Reactor."
EACKGROUND:
The staff reviewed the PRISM design at the request of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC's) advanced reactor policy statement (51 Federal Reaister 24643).
In August 1988, DOE selected the PRISM design for NRC's preapplication safety review.
A draft PSER (NUREG-1368) for the PRISM design was issued by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research in September 1989.
In 1990, DOE gave the NRC additional design information that addressed the issues identified in the draft PSER.
The staff informed the Comission in SECY-92-393, " Updated Plans and Schedules for the Preapplication Reviews of the Advanced Reactor (MHIGR, PRISM, and PIUS) and CANDU 3 Designs," that the PRISM PSER would be issued in December 1993.
In keeping with the guidance in SECY-92-393, the staff followed the same review process for approving the PSER as is used for the safety evalua-tion reports on the evolutionary light-water reactor (LWR) designs. The staff completed its review and submitted a draft of the final PSER to the Comission l
1 NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM TIIE DATE l
OF Ti!IS PAPER.
CONTACT:
Stephen P. Sands, NRR 504-3154 s
/
.1201.O t'
egs t
9401210002 931223
\\
1 The Comissioners in October 1993 (SECY-93-289). The staff also forwarded the draft of the l
final report to the preapplicant, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), and the NRC Public Document Room.
The staff met with the ACRS on November 4, 1993, and presented a discussion on the key safety issues, the guidance provided on applicable licensing criteria, and a discussion on the staff assessment of the adequacy of the preapplicant's research and development programs. Because the staff review was based on a conceptual design, the PSER did not lead to an approval of the design; however, the staff, with the ACRS agreeing, did conclude that no obvious impediments to licensing the PRISM design had been identified.
The staff has reviewed the preapplicant's comments and no new safety issues have been identified. These comments provide clarification on some design features and on the preapplicant's program to continue with the development of the design. The coments are considered mainly editorial and are being incorporated into the PSER.
Therefore, after considering the information from the public meeting with the ACRS and coments received from the preapplicant, the staff proposes that the PSER be published following incorporation of editorial coments from the preapplicant.
The ACRS letter and the preapplicant letter are enclosed.
DISCUSSION:
The staff is completing the PSER in accordance with the comitment it made to the Comission in SECY-92-393.
In responding to the Comission's staff requirements memorandum (SRM) of July 2,1991, for SECY-91-202, " Departures from Current Regulatory Requirements in Conducting Advanced Reactor Reviews,"
the staff comitted to identify those policy and technical issues that required Comission guidance or staff resolution for design certification.
The staff identified these issues during the preapplication review and included instances in which advanced reactor designs deviate significantly from current regulatory requirements.
In SECY-93-092, " Issues Pertaining to the Advanced Reactor (PRISM, MHTGR, and PlVS) and CANDU 3 Designs and Their Relationship to Current Regulatory Requirements," the staff sought Comission approval and guidance for those issues for which the staff proposed a departure from current regulatory requirements in the preapplication review of advanced reactors. The review criteria and policy issues discussed in this final PSER are consistent with the staff's positions in SECY-93-092, as affirmed by the Comission in an SRM of July 30, 1993.
The review approach and criteria used by the staff are directed toward meeting the guidance given in the Comission's advanced reactor policy which states that advanced reactors must, as a minimum, provide at least the same degree of protection to the public and the environment that is required for current-generation LWRs. Accordingly, in the review of the PRISM design, the staff
1
- The Commissioners i; i
DISTRIBUTION:.
' Commissioners
- {
OGC i
Central Files EDO
+
ACRS 1
SECY s
L e
I I
t 1
-l l
.i 6
h I
s
.i
?
1
.i i+,.-,
,,r l-.,..
,,.. -, ~ _,, - - -,,+
l The Commissioners has used and built on the applicable existing regulations and guidelines for safety, and has developed additional criteria, where necessary, to address the-unique characteristics of this design.
The PSER presents the staff's evaluation of the PRISM conceptual design, identifies key policy issues, and provides an assessment of the designer's proposed criteria which, in the designer's judgment, are applicable to the design. Confirmatory research and development programs, as well as the pre-applicant's plans for prototype testing, were also reviewed. The PSER also identifies areas in which additional information will be required to support design certification. The approach of the PSER is focused on licensability issues and does not encompass all aspects of the full design.
The PSER does not constitute approval of the PRISM design; however, the staff, with agreement of the ACRS, has concluded that no obvious impedimente to licensing the PRISM design have been identified at this stage of review.
CONCLUSION:
The staff concludes that the final PSER for the PRISM design should be pub-lished, documenting the staff's findings and conclusions, and forwarded to D0E.
Accordingly, the staff will issue the document after it incorporates the DOE editorial changes, but no earlier than 5 work days from the date of this paper. At that time, the staff will place the document in the NRC Public Document Room.
COORDINATION:
The Office of the General Counsel reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The staff will forward the final PSER for the PRISM design to the preapplicant, 00E.
akM.Thflor ecutive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Ltr 11/10/93, J.E. Wilkins, ACRS to Chairman, NRC 2.
Ltr 11/29/93, J.E. Quinn, GE to S.P. Sands, NRC w/attch.
a nsu
! ['
,r, q
UNITED STATES
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
2
.E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS o,
'f.
WA5HINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
%,...../
November 10, 1993 The Honorable Ivan Selin Chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Selin:
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-289, " ISSUANCE OF THE DRAFT PREAPPLICATION SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT (PSER) FOR THE POWER REACTOR INNOVATIVE SMALL MODULE (PRISM) LIQUID-METAL REACTOR" During the 403rd meeting of the Advisory Committee' on Reactor Saf eguards, November 4-6, 1993, we heard presentations by represen-tatives of the NRC staff and General Electric Nuclear Energy on the subject SECY paper that proposes the issuance of a draft final Preapplication Safety Evaluation Report (PSER) for the Power Reactor Innovative Small Moduk (PRISM) Reactor for comment.
We also had the benefit of the documents referenced.
Consistent with the Commission's advanced reactor policy, the staff has, to the extent feasible, used existing regulations to formulate criteria and procedures for review of this design. Where necessary the staff has created additional criteria and procedures, following the guidance furnished by the Commission in the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated July 30, 1993, that dealt with key policy issues for advanced reactors.
Because the staff review was based on a conceptual design, the PSER did not, nor was it intended to, result in an approval of the design.
Instead it identified certain key safety issues, provided some guidance on applicable licensing criteria, assessed the adequacy of the preapplicant's research and development programs, and concluded that no obvious impediments to licensing the PRISM design had been identified.
Although our own review of the PSER was less detailed than would have been appropriate for a safety evaluation report on an actual application, we believe that the staff has satisfactorily fulfilled its role in the preapplication process.
We agree with the staff's proposal to provide the PSER to the U.S. Department of Energy.
EDo --- 0 09 518
The Honorable Ivan Selin 2
November 10, 1993 Dr.
William J.
Shack did not participate in the Committee's deliberation regarding this matter.
Sincerely, J. Ernest Wilkin, Jr.
Chairman
References:
1.
SECY-93-209, dated October 19, 1993, Memorandum from James M.
- Taylor, NRC Executive Director for Operations, for the Commissioners,
Subject:
Issuance of the Draft Preapplication Safety Evaluation Report (PSER) for the Power Reactor Innova-tive Small Module (PRISM) Liquid-Metal Reactor 2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1368, "Preapplica-tion Safety Evaluation Report (PSER) for the Power Reactor Innovative Small Module (PRISM) Liquid Metal Reactor," October 1993 3.
Staff Requirements Memorandum dated July 30, 1993, from S.
Chilk, Secretary of the Commission, NRC, to J. M. Taylor, NRC Executive Director for Operations,
Subject:
SECY-93-092 Issues Pertaining to the Advanced Reactor (PRISM, MHTGR, and PIUS) and CANDU 3 Designs and Their Relationship to current
-Regulatory Requirements l
i i
GE Nuclear Energy
,nm, n >
.m a.,
,., +. <
I '"
w e se November 29,1993 XL848-93358 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Advanced Reactors and Special Projects Advanced Reactors Project Directorate Attention:
Stephen P. Sands, Project Manager ALMR, M/S 11/D/23
Subject:
GE Comments on NUREG-1368 " Preapplication Safety Evaluation Report for the Power Reactor Innovative Small Module (PRISM) Liquid-Metal Reactor
Dear Mr. Sands:
GE comments on the subject document are listed in Attachment A. We have limited our comments primarily to factual errors and inconsistencies even though there are many areas where we disagree with conclusions reached, and positions taken, by the NRC staff. We would like to suggest that a dialogue between the staff and the reactor designers continue in 1994, as we enter the preliminary design phase, in order to achieve orderly resolution of such disagreements.
if you have any questions, please call Dick Hardy,408-365-6557.
Very truly yours, J. E. Quinn, Manager ALMR Projects i
t cc:
N. Grossman, DOE-HO, w atich J. W. Herczeg, DOE-HO, w attch S. El Safwany, DOE-SAN, w attch R. A. Becker, GE/RCK, w attch i
Attachment A GE Comments on NUREG-1368 "Preappilcation Safety Evaluation Report for the Power Reactor Innovative Small Module (PRISM) Liquid-Metal Reactor Eagn S1ction Location Comment xxii Preface 3rd paragraph Suggest changing the words "At the time the PRISM design is submitted for design certification,..." to "At the time an application is submitted to the NRC for preliminary design approval...."
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires DOE to submit an application to the NRC for preliminary design approval of a standard plant design by September 30,1996. This is many years prior to an application for design certification. We therefore suggest that the whole issue of general design criteria, regulatory guides, standard review plans, code cases, industry standards, required data, required analyses, confirmatory research, and program plans applicable to the small, modular, passive PRISM liquid metal reactor be addressed beginning in FY94. We further suggest that this process involve discussions back and forth between the NRC staff and the reactor designers, since we have opinions that differ from some of the NRC positions stated in the PSER, particularly conceming the applicability of some of the general design criteria.
1-1 1.1 It is suggested that an executive summary of the findings be included.
1-5 1.5 3rd paragraph Suggest changing the words " Seismic isolation is included in the ALMR..." to " Horizontal seismic isolation is included in the ALMR..."
1-5 1.5 3rd paragraph Suggest changing the words "The feasibility of the concept was demonstrated by testing..." to "The feasibility of the concept has been demonstrated in many civil structures as well as by testing.. " nmm
l i
Eagg Section Location Comment 1-20 Fig 1.7 Please change bumup reactivity swing (nominal) from "~$0.43" to "-$0.21". Please change breeding ratio from "1.1-1.2" to "1.05".
(Because of political sensitivity to breeding excess plutonium, the current core is designed for breakeven plutonium production).
3-8 3.1.2.1 Last paragraph Suggest changing frequency labels from "per reactor year" to "per plant year" to reflect the i
modular PRISM design and to be consistent with the terminology used elsewhere in this section.
t 3-23 3.2.2 Table 3.1 Suggest changing the words "GDC for which the NRC staff requests the preapplicant to address changes to its position on the GDC" to "GDC for which the NRC staff will request the preapplicant during the preliminary design phase to address changes to its position on the GDC".
t 3-42 3.2.3 GDC 19,4th line Suggest changing the words "...(1) design capability for prompt hot shutdown of the reactor, including necessary instrumentation and controls to maintain the unit in a safe i
condition during hot shutdown, and (2) potential capability for subsequent cold shutdown of the reactor through the use of suitable procedures" to "...(1) design capability for hot standby (critical at zero power) of the reactor, including necessary instrumentation and controls to maintain the unit in a safe condition during hot standby, and (2) capability for subsequent cold subcritical shutdown of the reactor through the use of suitable procedures".
3-54 3.2.3 6th paragraph The words "The preapplicant is not taking credit for leak before break in the design of the PRISM reactor coolant system" are incorrect. The design does rely on leak before break for the reactor vessel leakage instrumentation.
Because of the low pressure system, this characteristic is very beneficial and applicable to the design. umm
P3J;ta
_Se_ction Lonatinn Comment 3-87 3.2.8 Last sentence Suggest changing the words "Where GDC for an LMR design in the standard were relevant to the PRISM design and not part of the criteria proposed by the preapplicant, the preapplicant was requested to address why these criteria are not included in the GDC for the PRISM design" to "Where GDC for an LMR design in the standard are relevant to the PRISM design and not part of the criteria proposed by the preapplicant, the preapplicant will be requested during the preliminary design phase to address why these criteria are not included in the GDC for the PRISM design".
i 4-1 4.1 3rd line Change the words "... stainless steel alloy HT9,..." to "...ferritic steel alloy HT9,..."
l 4-2 4.2.1 2nd bullet Please delete bullet reading " Breeds plutonium". Because of political sensitivity to breeding, the current core design does not breed excess plutonium.
4-12 4.2.4 3rd paragraph Suggest changing the words "A 500-MJ energy release is currently being used in the PRISM design studies" to "A 500-MJ energy release is currently being used in the PRISM design studies as a conservative upper bound for primary boundary assessment. The actual energy release expected in the PRISM reactor is much smaller than 500-MJ".
4-25 4.3.4 4th sentence The current schedule for startup of the prototype 1
is the year 2005, not 2000.
4-37
- 4. 5.5.1 1st sentence Suggest changing the words "The NRC staff j
position on the design of the USS is that it should be safety grade if it is to be considered 3
as the second diverse means of reactor
{
shutdown. The integrity..." to "The design of the j
USS is safety grade, complying with the NRC j
staff position if it is to be considered as the second diverse means of reactor shutdown.
However, the integrity..."
l
.l q 337,,,3
Eagg Section Location Comment 4-39 4.5.6 Both paragraphs Suggest changing the words "... application for design certification." to "... application for preliminary design approval of a standard plant I
design." The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires DOE to submit an application to the NRC for preliminary design approval of a standard plant design by September 30,1996. This is many 4
years prior to an application for design certification. (There may be other places in the i
document where this change should be made).
4-44 4.6.5.4 1st sentence Suggest char.ging the words " Concerns about the adequacy of the inherent core characteristics as a backup to the control sod scram led the preapplicant to incorporate an additional active shutdown system in the PRISM design" to " Concerns that the inherent core characteristics, while placing the core in a safe hot standby but still critical condition, would not take the core to cold shutdown led the
)
preapplicant to incorporate an additional active 1
shutdown system in the PRISM design".
52 5.1 uh bullet Change the words "The outlets of the EM pumps are connected to two manifolds..." to "The outlets of the EM pumps are connected to four manifolds..."
54 5.1 2nd paragraph Change the words "The ACS removes heat by venting steam when water is available in the steam generator" to "The ACS removes heat by air circulation past the steam generator outer shell when sodium is available in the steam j
generator".
5-13 5.3.1.1 2nd paragraph Change the words "Two sets of restraint rings are provided" to "One restraint ring is provided at the top of the assemblies". Change the plural word "... rings..." to the singular word
" ring..." elsewhere in this paragraph.
5 i4 5.3.1.4 Last line Change the words "...not from the hot leg of the primary system" to "...not from the cold leg of the primary system". n nsees
Eagg Section Location Comment 5-15 5.3.1.6 1st sentence Change the words "The EM pumps discharge to two manifolds..." to "The EM pumps discharge i
to four manifolds..."
5-15 5.3.1.6 Lest sentence Delete the words "...that has a stellite surface".
Stellite was eliminated prior to the 1990 design, but the original PSID was not revised to reflect this change.
5-15 5.3.1.7 Last sentence Prior to the last sentence, suggest inserting the l
sentence "The IHX flange is also seal-welded to i
the reactor closure to produce a hermetically a
sealed pressure boundary".
5-18 5.3.4.6 Delete this section since stellite is no longer used in the reactor design. Stellite was eliminated prior to the 1990 design, but the original PSID was not revised to reflect this 1
change.
5-21 5.3.5.6 Delete this section since stellite is no longer j
used in the reactor design. Stellite was l
eliminated prior to the 1990 design, but the original PSID was not revised to reflect this i
change.
5-47 5.7.4 1st paragraph Suggest changing the words in the last sentence from "This limit is 978 *K (1300 *F)"
to "This limit is 1099 *K (1500 *F) although the preapplicant has used 978 *K (1300 *F) in the conceptual design to allow for uncertainties".
6-7 6.3 3rd paragraph The containment vessel is currently being designed to ASME Section Ill, Division 1, Class
- 1. There has been some confusion on this which will be cleared up during preliminary design.
7-8 7.1.5.4 Suggest deleting this whole section and q
replacing with the following: " Penetrations of the reactor closure that require isolation are '
limited to two 3" sodium processing lines and one 1-1/2" cover gas processing line. During
" iiersees i
P_ags Section Location Comment reactor operation, these lines are closed with redundant manually operated valves that are located immediately inboard and outboard of the containment dome shell. Position sensors are mounted on these valves that provide position information to the RPS. RPS logic prevents startup of the reactor if the position sensors indicate these isolation valves are open. These valves are prevented from opening during reactor operation by mechanical locking mechanisms and strict administrative procedures. An alarm will sound in the control room if these valves are inadvertently opened during reactor operation. The positions of these valves are also monitored following an accident.
The applicant is expected to meet IEEE standards for Class 1E electrical equipment associated with the position indication function of these valves".
7-11 7.2.1.2 1st paragraph Suggest deleting the first paragraph and replacing with the following: "The intermediate heat transport system (IHTS) main loop isolation valves automatically close upon detection of steam generator tube leakage to protect the intermediate heat exchanger (IHX) from the effects of a sodium-water reaction.
Actuation signals are generated from redundant safety-grade IHTS pressure sensors."
7-12 7.2.1.3 2nd paragraph Suggest deleting the last sentence and replacing with the following: "The drive-in motors continue running until deenergized by a signal from the end-of-stroke limit switches".
7-12 7.2.1.3 4th paragraph Suggest deleting the sentence " Differential temperature across the spent fuel bundles is measured". These temperatures are not specifically measured.
l 7-21 7.3.6.4 2nd sentence Suggest changing the words "These detectors
?
are withdrawn from the core area during normal i
operation" to "These detectors are shutoff during normal operation'.
, iirref93
Pace Section Location -
Comment 8-5 8.2.5 1st paragraph The statement " PRISM does not satisfy either of these LWR requirements using RVACS as the only residual heat removal system" is misleading. The two requirements san be satisfied with RVACS only, albeit it could take a long time.
87 8.2.7 2nd paragraph The statement "The design does not satisfy current LWR regulatory guidance because it cannot establish cold shutdown during a loss of offsite power"is misleading. Cold shutdown can be established during loss of offsite power with RVACS only, albeit it could take a long time.
8-14 8.3.6 1st paragraph, Suggest changing the words "If one EM pump is lost, for example, it is important to ensure coastdown of the remaining three EM pumps to avoid sodium boiling during an unprotected loss-of-flow transient" to "If one EM pump and its coastdown are lost, it is important to ensure coastdown of at least two of the three remaining EM pumps to avoid sodium boiling during an unprotected loss-of-flow transient". Coastdown of three EM pumps is required in this event only if all three gas expansion modules are also lost.
i 13-8 13.2.3 4th paragraph Suggest changing the words "...the preapplicant did not state if a manual scram was available in the RPS vaults" to "... manual scram is also available in the RPS vaults as are the scram breakers which can be manually opened".
13-9 13.2.4 3rd paragraph Suggest changing the words "...three licensed operators and a senior operator as shift supervisor..." to "...three licensed operators, a senior operator as assistant shift supervisor, and a senior operator as shift supervisor...".
Suggest changing the words "There would be five roving operators but they would not be licensed operatons" to "There would be three licensed roving reactor operators plus other roving non-licensed operation and maintenance.
l personnel on the site". unsfes
Epaq S2111QD Location Comment 14-15 14.5.5 2nd line The statement "...there appears to be (1) no.
testing of the pump coastdown mechanism to determine its in-service operability during reactor power operation..." is ' misleading. We plan to perform loss-of-flow tests with scram and without scram during prototype testing to demonstrate pump coastdown capability.
14-15 14.5.5 3rd line The words "...(2) no development of instrumentation to monitor RVACS performance in the control room during reactor power operation" are incorrect. Instrumentation will be developed to monitor RVACS air flowrate, inlet.
air temperature, outlet air temperature, and air outlet radiation. These readings will be continuously displayed in both the control room and the remote shutdown facility.
14-15 14.5.5 5th line Suggest changing the words "In addition, loss-of-flow events are not included in tests at EBR-Il to determine inherent reactivity reduction during transients" to "In addition, loss-of-flo' events w
are not included in future tests at EBR-il to determine inherent reactivity reduction during transients, although such tests have been previously performed at both EBR-Il and FFTF".
1 1
14-19 14.6.1.6 6th line The words "...(2) no consideration of instrumentation to monitor RVACS performance in the control room during reactor power operation" are incorrect. RVACS air flowrate, inlet air temperature, outlet air temperature, and air outlet radiation are all continuously monitored and displayed in both the control room and the remote shutdown facility.
i 14-19 14.6.1.6 7th line Suggest changing the words "In addition, loss-of-flow events are not included in tests at EBR-Il to determine inherent reactivity reduction during transients" to "In addition, loss-of-flow events are not included in future tests at EBR-il to determine inherent reactivity reduction during transients, although such tests have been previously performed at both EBR-ll and FFTF".
j
-8*
H/29/99
1 Pme
.Sniion Location Comment 15-2 15.1.2 3rd paragraph Change the words " Additionally, the containment vessel and reactor module closure assembly..." to " Additionally, the reactor vessel and reactor module closure assembly..."
15-29 15.6.8.2 Last sentence Suggest changing the words "The purpose of i
this analysis was to confirm the 500-MJ assumption used by GE for the maximum energy imparted into the PRISM coolant system following the HCDA" to "The purpose of this analysis was to compare the HCDA potential with the 500-MJ assumption used by GE for the maximum energy imparted into the coolant system in the PRISM HCDA capability analysis".
15-35 15.6.8.7 3rd paragraph Change the words " Independent examination, by Batelle at GE's request...." to " Independent i
examination, by Batelle at Brookhaven National Laboratory's request,..."
B-18 B.3.4.1 ist line This line should be relocated to be the first line of Section B.3.4.3, and the phraso "...with the M pumps..." corrected to read "...with the EM pumps..."
l l
l I 3,,,,,3