ABSTRACT A team of electric utility representatives conducted an in-depth, independent evaluation of the current Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (MHTGR) design. The emphasis was on the fuel design with respect to safety, the licensability of the proposed containment concept, refueling operations and equipment, spent fuel storage capacity, staffing projections, and the economic competitiveness. Specific comments and recommendations are provided as a contribution towards enhancing the MHTGR design, licensability and acceptance from a utility 's view. EPRI FOREWORD EPRI sponsored three nuclear utilities in an evaluation of the current modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR) design from the viewpoint of potential utility owner/operators. The specified contents for the evaluation report included a definitive assessment of the MHTGR's strengths and weaknesses, prospects for successful licensing, prospects for utility acceptance and deployment, and recommendations addressing the near- and long-term R&D necessary to ensure successful licensing and deployment. The evaluation was required to address, but not be limited to, the main issues raised in the EPRI report specific to the MHTGR (report NP-6676) resulting from a 1987-88 utility industry team evaluation of the nation's advanced reactor designs. The MHTGR is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor design developed as part of the DOE advanced reactor program. The main participants in the design team are Bechtel, Combustion Engineering, General Atomics, and Stone & Webster, with R&D support by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Prospective owner/ operator input to the design is provided by Gas-Cooled-Reactor Associates. The Utility Review Team consisted of eight representatives from three utilities. Independence in the evaluation was achieved by assigning the evaluation to utilities that do not currently participate in the MHTGR development program. The independent evaluation was supported by additional utility contributions from Philadelphia Electric Company and Public Service of Colorado in the form of reports summarizing their MHTGR operating experience. The members of the utility review team are listed below: Michael R. Crews (Team Leader) Henry E. Bliss Director of Advance Technologies R. Thomas Fernandez Principal Engineer Yankee Atomic Electric Company Christopher A. Grier Senior Staff Engineer Commonwealth Edison Company John W. Heard Senior Core Components Engineer Yankee Atomic Electric Company William D. Hinkle Assistant Project Manager Yankee Atomic Electric Company David M. Pschirer Nuclear Generation Reliability Engineer Duke Power Company Robert 0. Sharpe Compliance Manager, McGuire Nuclear Station The method of conducting the evaluation consisted of reviewing presently available MHTGR design, licensing, and progress report documentation and attending technical presentations made by the MHTGR program participants. Appendix A is a composite listing of all MHTGR documentation provided to the utilities before and during the evaluation process. Following review of that documentation, the Utility Review Team identified, in question format, those subtopics on which more information or discussion was needed to enable the review team to complete their evaluation. The questions were provided to the MHTGR participants, who provided associated technical literature and attended a four-day meeting that included presentations and discussions with the Utility Review Team. Appendix B is a copy of the agenda for the four-day meeting. Following the meeting, the Utility Review Team developed draft evaluations of the information provided in their respective assigned areas. Commonwealth Edison had lead responsibility for the economic competitiveness evaluation. Yankee Atomic was lead on the fuel design evaluation. Duke Power was lead on containment licensability, spent fuel, refueling, and staffing evaluations. The drafts were exchanged among the Utility Review Team members. Meetings were held to integrate the drafts into a preliminary report and to agree upon conclusions and recommendations from the team. The integrated preliminary report was then reviewed by Philadelphia Electric Company, Public Service of Colorado, Consumers Power, and the MHTGR participants, coordinated by the Plant Design Control Office. Comments given to the Utility Review Team were reviewed and incorporated as the review team considered appropriate. Ed Rodwell, Project Manager |