ML20195G937

Provides Recently Developed Info Re Scope of Future Std Design Applications & of Staff Review of Advanced BWR

ML20195G937
Person / Time
Site:	05000605
Issue date:	11/22/1988
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Marriott P GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
References
NUDOCS 8811300135
Download: ML20195G937 (16)

Text

- _ _ _

\

oa4

• q o

g UNITED 8TATEs g n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

)

t. WASHINGTON D. C. 20666 l

November 22, 1989

• $g ....

Docket No. 50-605 Mr. P. W. Marriott, Manager Licensing and Consulting Services General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Business Operations Mail Code 682 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125

SUBJECT:

SCOPE OF DESIGN AND SCOPE OF STAFF REVIEW 0F THE ABWR This letter provides information recently developed by the staff regarding the scope of all future standard design applications and the scope of the staff's review for such applications. We believe you will find this guidance consistent with the agreements reached in the August 7, 1987 Licensing Review Basis.  ;

Scope of Design In the proposed regulation 10 CFR Part 52, the Comission has defined the desired scope of design for standard plants requesting certification. The proposed regulation states that "Ideally, the designs for which certification is sought will be for essentially complete plants." It also states that "the NRC will give priority in allocation of resources to support reviews and approval of applications for essentially complete plants." Therefore, an application for a design certification must be essentially corplete and consistent with the proposed 10 CFR Part 52 in order for us to provide the appropriate priority resources to review the application.

Scope of Staff Review The staff will be considering issues that may go beyond the Standard Review Plan involving such subjects as fire protection, electrical systems and others.

Some of these items are briefly discussed in the enclosure to this letter.

However, we believe these issues are consistent with those agreements reached in the Licensing Review Basis, sn9ns8n R

L PDC j

9 Mr.' P. W. Marriott November 22, 1988 It is the staff's understanding that the General Electric Company intends to expand the scope of the ABWR FDA ap>l1 cation to include balance-of-plant components and system, including tie turbine-generator and radioactive waste management systems. Bacause your intentions concerning expansion of the scope of the ABWR have not been formally documented, we request you provide this comitment, including a list of which items will be included in your application, within 30 days from receipt of this letter.

Sincerely, C 6h Acting Associate Direct r for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ encl:

See next page

O ,' e Mr. P. W. Marriott Docket No. 50-605 i

cc: Mr, Robert Mitchell i General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95114 Mr. L. Gifford, Program Manager Regulatory Programs GF Nuclear Energy 12300 Twinbrook Parkway Suite 315 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Director Criteria & Standards Division OfficeofRadiationPrograms U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460 Mr. Daniel F. Giessing Division of Nuclear Regulation and Safety Office of Converter Reactor (

Deployeent, NE-12 i Office of Nuclear Energy Washington, D.C. 20545

' ENCLOSURE POTENTIAL REVIEW SUBJECTS FOR STANDARD PLANT DESIGNS The staff met to discuss major issues related to the review of advanced light water reactor applications. Included in the discussions were issues in which the scope of the staff's acceptance criteria may go beyond that of the current Standard Review Plan to ensure improved design, construction, and/or operation of these advanced plants. The following are brief discussions of the staff's current views on some of these matters.

1. 60 YEAR LIFE:

For applications proposing a 60-year design life, the staff would review the designs for a 60-year life notwithstanding the fact that a 40-year license term limitation is presently in the regulations. It is the i

applicants' responsibility to identify the components and systems which are affected. Applications for design certification will have to provide information and programs to support design life, and the raviews for such

! issues as fatigue, corrosion and thermal aging.

2. FIRE PROTECTION:

Improved fire protection criteria are needed in view of the significant i contribution of fires to core melt probtbility. The current Appendix R

and BTP 9-5.1 requirements (e.g. 20 ft. separation) should be replaced by a requirement for safe shutdown capability in the event of a complete loss 1

of any fire area.

3. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS:

Thestaffconsidersthat(1)proposedTechnicalSpecificationsshouldbe

developed as early as practicable, but be submitted no later than the FDA application,(2)proposedTechnicalSpecificationsrepresentativeofthe design should be submitted for review and approval by the staff as part of the FDA submittal, and will be included in tie Design Certification J process, and (3) applicants should identify design features that are I necessary for testing and maintenance during operation without challenging safety systems.

The Technical Specifications should be developed, where practicable, based upon risk and reliability considerations.

4 TESTING AND MAINTENANCE 1 Certification of a design will be based in part upon a probabilistic risk assessrent of that design. In that the validity of a PRA is highly dependent on the reliability of systems, structures and components, the staff requires assurance that programs will be implemented which will ensure that the reliability of those systems, structures and components (assumed in analyses) will be maintained throughout plant life. There-fore, a program to assure design reliability must be provided as part of

2 the FDA application. This program which will be certified as part of the designshouldaddressitemssuchas(11theTechnicalSpecificationsand ISI/IST, (2) the Maintenance Program, (3) Plant Procedures, and (4)

Security.

5. INDUSTRY USE OF MAAPJ Review of the MAAP code is unnecessar MELCOR and Source Term Code STCP) Package (y since codes the staff can apply its own in its evaluations.

6. STATION BLACK 0UT AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:

Future ALWRs should adopt improved electrical systems to ensure a safe shutdown of the reactor. These systems should provide, in part, for diverse sower sources in order to eliminate the concerns related to station slackout. General guidelines will be developed and finalized during the course of the ABWR review.

7. LEAK BEFORE BREAK:

Leak before break can be considered where justified. Where applicable, designs must address good practices in order to maintain steam generator tube integrity. Also, designs should address issues of material entrittle- j ment associated with current vessel materials and vessel supports.

A new rule and draft SRP Section 3.6.3 have been issued. The EPRI design requirements has adopted these criteria.

8. SOURCE TERMS:

The staff is concerned that the licensing basis source term "TID ,'844" is not consistent with current knowledge, therefore with EPRI input, realisticsourcetermswillbeestablishedtobeuniformlyappliedto future ALWRS.

9. $$1CALSECURITY:

Sabotage should be addressed in all future ALWRS applications. As a minimum, information should be provided to demonstrate the existence of adequate physical barriers to protect vital equipment in accordance with 10 CFR 73.55(c) in accordance and with 10 to 73.55 CFR identify d). (access control points to all vital areas

10. OBE/0YNAMIC ANALYS15 METHODS:

The staff agrees that the OBE should not control the design of safety systems as now required by 10 CFR 100 Appendix A. The staff will take this issue under consideration as part of the design certification process,

, 3

11. TYPE C CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE RATE:

Containment leakage is acknowledged by the staff as being a function of containment pressure.

12. HYDROGEN GENERATION:

10 CFR 50.34(f) related to the issue of a 1001 metal water reaction will be invoked for ALWRs consistent with Commission Policy and proposed 10 CFR Part 52.

l 2

e i

9 f

l l

M.. -

/ ....%oy UNITE 38TATES i  !" -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ WASHINGTON D. C. 20088 November 22, 1988 Docket No. 50-605 Mr. P. W. Marriott, Manager Licensing and Consulting Services General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Business Operations Mail Code 682 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125

SUBJECT:

SCOPE OF DESIGN AND SCOPE OF STAFF REVIEW OF THE ABWR This letter provides information recently developed by the staff regarding the scope of all future standard design applications and the scope of the staff's review for such applications. We believe you will find this guidance consistent with the agreements reached in the August 7, 1987 Licensing Review Basis.

Scope of Design In the proposed regulation 10 CFR Part 52, the Comission has defined the desired scope of design for standard plants requesting certification. The proposed regulation states that "!deally, the designs for which certification is sought will be for essentially complete plants." It also states that "the NRC will give priority in allocation of resources to support reviews and approval of applications for essentially complete plants." Therefore, an application for a design certification must be essentially coeplete and consistent with the proposed 10 CFR Part 52 in order for us to provide the appropriate priority resources to review the application.

Scope of Staff Review The staff will be considering issues that may go beyond the Standard Review Plan involving such subjects as fire protection, electrical systems and others.

Some of these items are briefly discussed in the enclosure to this letter.

However, we believe these issues are consistent with those agreements reached in the Licensing Review Basis.

!, Mr. P. W. Marriott November 22, 1988 i

It is the staff's understanding that the General Electric Company intends to expand the scope of the ABWR FDA application to include balance-of-plant components and systems, including tie turbine-generator and radioactive waste management systems. Because your intentions concerning expansion of the scope 2 of the ABWR have not been formally documented, we request you provide this comitment, including a list of which items will be included in your application, within 30 days from receipt of this letter.

! Sincerely, i

C dh Acting Associate Direct for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enc 1:

See next page I

I 1

l l

l l

l r

1

Mr. P. W. Harriott Docket No. 50-605 cc: Mr. Robert Mitchell General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95114 Mr. L. Gifford, Program Manager .

Regulatory Programs ,

GE Nuclear Energy 12300 Twinbrook Parkway Suite 315 Rockville, Man land 20852 Director Criteria & Standards Division OfficeofRadiationPrograms U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street S.h.

Washington, D.C. 20460 Mr. Daniel F. Giessing Division of Nuclear Regulation ,

and Safety L

Office of Converter Reactor Deployment, NE-12 . !

Office of Nuclear Energy Washington, D.C. 20545 l

i i

I i

l l

5 ENCLOSURE POTENTIAL REVIEW SUBJECTS FOR STANDARD PLANT DESIGNS The staff met to discuss major issues related to the review of advanced light water reactor applications. Included in the discussions were issues in which the scope of the staff's acceptance criteria may go beyond that of the current Standard Review Plan to ensure improved design, construction, and/or operation of these advanced plants. The following are brief discussions of the staff's current views on some of these matters.

1. 60 YEAR LIFE For applications proposing a 60-year design life, the staff would review the designs for a 60-year life octwithstanding the fact that a 40-year license term limitation is presently in the regulations. It is the applicants' responsibility to identify the components and systems which are affected. Applications for design certification will have to provide information and programs to support design life, and the reviews for such issues as fatigue, corrosion and thermal aging.

2. OREpROTECTION:

Improved fire protection criteria are needed in view of the significant contribution of fires to core melt probability. The current Appendix R and BTP 9-5.1 requirements (e.g. 20 ft separation) should be replaced by l a requirement for safe shutdown capability in the event of a complete loss of any fire area.

3. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS:

Thestaffconsidersthat(1)proposedTechnicalSpecificationsshouldbe developed as early as practicable but be submitted no later than the FDA application, (2) proposed Technical Specifications representative of the design should be submitted for review and approval by 'he staff as part of the FDA submittal, and will be included in tie Desigt. Certification process, and (3) applicants should identify design features that are necessary for testing and maintenance during operation without challenging safety systems.

The Technical Specifications should be developed, where practicable, based upon risk and reliability considerations.

4. TE$ TING AND MAINTENANCE:

Certification of a design will be based in part upon a probabilistic risk assessment cf that design. In that the validity of a PRA is highly dependent on the reliability of systems, structures and components, the staff requires assurance that programs will be implemented which will ensure that the reliability of those systems, structures and components (assumed in analyses) will be maintained throughout plant life. There-fore, a program to assure design reliability must be provided as part of

i the FDA application. This program which will be certified as part of the desifin should address items such as (1) the Technical Specifications and ISI/.'ST, (2) the Maintenance Program, (3) Plant Procedures, and (4)

Security.

5. INDUSTRY USE DF MAAP:

Review of the MAAP code is unnecessar MELCOR and Source Term Code Package (y since the staff can apply its own STCP)codesinitsevaluations.

6. STATION BLACK 0UT APO ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:

Future ALWRs should adopt improved electrical systems to ensure a safe shutdown of the reactor. These systees should provide, in part, for diverse power sources in order to eliminate the concerns related to station blackout. General guidelines will be developed and finalized during the course of the ABWR review.

7. LEAK _BEFORE BREAK:

Leak before break can be considered where justified. Where applicable, designs must address good practices in order to raintain steam generator tube integrity. Also, designs should address issues of material entrittle-ment associated with current vessel materials and vessel supports. (

A new rule and draft SRP Section 3.6.3 have been issued. The EPRI design requirements has adopted these criteria.

8. SOURCE TERMS:

The staff is concerned that the licensing basis source term "TID 14844" is not consistent with current knowledge, therefore with EPRI input, realisticsourcetermswillbeestablishedtobeunIformlyappliedto future ALWRS.

9. PHYSICAL SECURITY:

Sabotage should be addressed in all future ALWRS applications. As a minimum, information should be provided to demonstrate the existence of adequate physical barriers to protect vital equipment in acccrdance with 10CFR73.55(c)andtoidentify(accesscontrolpointstoallvitalareas in accordance with 10 CFR 73.55 d).

10. OBE/ DYNAMIC ANALYSIS METHODS:

The staff agrees that the OBE should r.ot control the design of safety systems as now required by 10 CFR 100 Appendix A. The staff will take this issue under consideration as part of the design certification process.

o 0, .

3 l

4

11. TYPE C CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE RATE:

Containment leakage is acknowledged by the staff as being a function of containment pressure.

12. HYDR 0 GEN GENERATION:

10 Cr'R 50.34(f) related to the issue of a 100% metal water reaction will be invoked for ALWRs consistent with Commission Policy and proposed 10 CFR Part 52.

I

, CO-6W l 1 ', i Mr. P. W. Marriott November 22, 1988 it is the staff's understanding that the General Electric Company intends to expand the scope of the ABWR FDA appitcation to include balance-of-plant components and systems, including the turbine-generator and radioactive waste -

4 management systems. Because your intentions concerning expansion of the scope l j of the ABWR have ilot been formally documented, we request you provide this l j commitment, including a list of which items will be included in your application, t l within 30 days from receipt of this letter.  !

l Sincerely, l l

I l l /s/  !

j Dennis M. Crutchfield  ;

] Acting Associate Director for Projects  !

j Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l j

Enclosure:

j i

4 As stated r l

I cc w/ encl:

See next page l

) ,

) !$TRIBUTION: .

t

. m tet F ue '

t {

i NRC PDR  !

I PDSNP R/F l EHylton

) TKenyon l EJordan  !

BGrimes I i

OG".Rockville ACd5(10)

DScaletti LRubenstein

, GHolahan DCrutchfield -

i I

i ,

1 I

l  !

1 t l

l l

l,

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE 1 (GESCOPE) f

! *LA:PDSNP *PM:PDSNP *PM:PDSNP 50:PDSNP *ADR4 *A:D:DRSP p l l

EHylton DScalletti:cw TKenyon CMiller LRubenstein GHolahan Ddutchfield l 1_1/15/88 11/16/88 11/15/88 11/16/88 11/16/88 11/16/88 _

11/4/68 __

l

a

. I I

Mr. P. W. Harriott  !

Because your intentions concerning expansion of the scope -' the ABWR have not l been formally documented, we request you provide this ( w m..nt, including a list of which items will be included in your application, v i.'.in 30 days fron. i

! receipt of this letter.

l Sincerely, l

l l l l Dennis H. Crutchfield >

Acting Associate Director for Projects j Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  :

1 Enclosme,:

j As stated ,

i i

! cc w/ encl

• i See next page t i

DISTRIBUTION:  !

. Docket File  !

I hRC PDR PDStiP R/F i EHylton l J TKenyon  ;

i EJordan

• j BGrimes l 1 OGC-Rockville j i ACRS(10) ,

DScaletti i LRubenstein GHolahan  !

, DCrutchfield l r

]

i r

I i

! (

i  !

I f l

i

, t (CESCOPE) *SEE PREV 10VS CChCURREf4CE

! f

• LA:PDShP *PM:FDShP *PM:FDSNP D:PDSNP *ADR4 *A:0:CRSP A: APP l EHylton DScalletti:cw TKenyon Chiller LRubenstein Cholahan DCRutcf,fiel)

11/15/88 11/16/66 11/15/E8 11/16/88 11/16/88 11/16/88 11/ /ES i I

l l

w.

Mr. P. W. Harriott, Manager Because your intentions concerning expansion of the scope of the ABWR have not been fonnally documented, we request you provide this comitment, including a list of which items will be included in your application, within 30 days from receipt of this letter.

Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield Acting Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File NRC PDR PDSNP R/F EHylton TKenyon EJordan BGrimes OGC-Rockville ACRS (10)

DScaletti LRubenstein GHolahan DCrutchfield /

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE h

• LA:PDSNP P DSNP

• PMhWP D S ADR4 > ( RSP (A)ADP Ellylton DScalletti:cw TK6 Won CMiller LRubens161n GHolahan DCRutchfield 11/15 /88 11/)c, /88 11/15 /88 11/4/88 11/ /f /88' 11/p/88 11/ /88

//)'l9 # I 1

L

,c .

Mr. P. W. Marriott, Manager Because your position regarding your intentions concerning expansion of the scope of the ABWR has not been formally documented, we request you provide this commitment, including a list of which items will be included in your application, within 30 days from receipt of this letter.

Sincerely, Dennis H. Crutchfield Acting Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File NRC PDR PDSNP R/F EHylton 1 TKenyon EJordan BGrimes OGC-Rockville ACRS (10)

DScaletti LRubenstein GHolahan DCrutchfield

/ s s .11< 8, \i MP PM:PDSNP P OSNP D:PDSNP ADR4 ( A)D:DF.SP (A) ALP LA;Rp'on h apcw TK ryon Chiller LRubenstein GHolahan DCRutchfield EH)lt 11//!I/88 11/ /88 11/IS~f 88 11/ /88 11/ /88 11/ /88 11/ /B8