QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN JOHNSTON
Mr. Young, at the hearing, you and I had a discussion about
the timing of a demonstration of HTGR technology and,
specifically, your concern that a demonstration as envisioned
under S.341 would be premature. I am still not sure that I
understand your statements, and I hope that you will
elaborate.
Specifically, you expressed your hope that if the HTGR technology was used for the new production reactor, then the reactor could also be used as the demonstration necessary to obtain design certification from NRC for the HTGR.
I understand your concern that a utility would not be willing to order an HTGR until the design had been certified by NRC. But I am asking you a different question. I am asking you if the technology is sufficiently developed to build a reactor, and my assumption is that it must be, or else we would not be considering it for a new production reactor. Certainly, we would not be selecting a technology for a new production reactor that is just experimental.
So, assuming that the technology is sufficiently developed to
build a reactor, why couldn't you build a HTGR demonstration
project, under the provisions of S.341, prior to
certification? In fact, why wouldn't it be perfectly
appropriate and advantageous to do so? Why wouldn't this, in
fact, be the best way to push the technology along and ensure
that the design would make it available when a utility was
interested in ordering a new plant?
Further, it seems to me that there wouldn't be any need for a
demonstration of technology at a later date, after the HTGR
design had been certified. At that point, it would be more
appropriate for the private sector and the market place to
take over. At least that is what everyone is telling me
about the need for any demonstration of LWR technology.
Therefore it seems to me that instead of an HTGR
demonstration being premature, it would actually be quite
timely now.
Please elaborate on your comments made at the hearing.
I would agree with you that there would not be any need for a demonstration of technology at a later date, after the HTGR design had been certified by the NRC. I never intended to suggest such a sequence. The DOE HTGR development program is based on demonstration before certification.
I do not agree with your statement that the HTGR technology
is sufficiently developed for a commercial cost-shared
demonstration project to be undertaken at this time. The
private sector has recently advised DOE that it is not ready
to undertake such a project, after many years of preparation
for, and anticipation of, such a cost shared approach. DOE
is, therefore, exploring an alternative means of bringing the
HTGR technology to commercial status. (Even if a commercial
demonstration project were feasible, certification by NRC of
a commercial design that could be ordered by the private
sector would still come after demonstration project
completion.)
The development and construction of a New Production Reactor (NPR)-HTGR for tritium production is a highly attractive potential way to demonstrate HTGR technology for eventual application in a commercial HTGR. The NPR-HTGR is on an expedited schedule and many structures, systems, components,
and other features will be common to both reactors. Use of the NPR-HTGR for technological demonstration would be a cost effective way to conserve government funds in a time of budget restraints.
Within the constraints of their respective missions, the
Office of Nuclear Energy and the Office of New Production
Reactors have developed designs and schedules to maximize the
project infrastructure, technology development, and plant
design commonality. A plan is being developed to derive
maximum benefits for safety issue resolution including
potential demonstration testing with an NPR-HTGR module.
This plan will be coordinated in the Department and with NRC.
If this development approach is successful, a commercial HTGR
design could be certified by 2006, allowing time after the
initial NPR operation for preparation of commercial
demonstration features in NPR, operating experience,
commercial plant design and Safety Analysis Report
completion, and three years for NRC review and certification rulemaking.
If the NPR-HTGR is not selected for tritium production in December 1991, it will be necessary for us to reformulate our approach to HTGR commercialization.
I reiterate my point that the HTGR is about ten years behind the ALWR because of the need for an approximately ten-yearlong HTGR demonstration project to precede NRC design certification. Such a demonstration project is not required for the ALWR.
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Following up on the discussion at the hearing on the
possibility of a meltdown of HTGR technology, could you
please explain the Department's views on this question?
Also, I have been told that, with the HTGR, there would be a potential for release of radiation in the event that the graphite moderator caught on fire. Could you please elaborate on this risk? What would potentially cause the graphite to catch on fire? Under those circumstances, wouldn't it be appropriate to have a containment structure over the reactor to prevent any release of radiation to the accessible environment?
Your concerns about meltdown, graphite fires, and a
containment structure have been considered for many years by
the gas-cooled reactor community including the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and overseas high temperature
gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) developers. First, it should be
said that meltdown is not an appropriate description for the
HTGR concept, as HTGR fuel is fully ceramic and its failure,
which is at temperatures in excess of 1600 degrees C is
characterized by fission product diffusion through barriers
that maintain their geometry. The rearrangement of
fissionable material in the core or disruption of the core
itself does not occur. Of course, HTGR fuel failure
potentials and consequences are major concerns.
being addressed in the modular high temperature gas reactor
(MHTGR) by the passive decay heat removal configuration, use
|