ML18212A081

July 19 2018 Public Meeting - NuScale Responses to RAIs 9263, 9296, 9293, and 9286

ML18212A081
Person / Time
Site:	NuScale
Issue date:	08/08/2018
From:	Getachew Tesfaye NRC/NRO/DLSE/LB1
To:	Samson Lee NRC/NRO/DLSE/LB1
TESFAYE G/415-8013
References
Download: ML18212A081 (7)

Text

August 8, 2018 MEMORANDUM TO: Samuel S. Lee, Chief Licensing Branch 1 Division of Licensing, Siting, and Environmental Analysis Office of New Reactors FROM: Getachew Tesfaye, Senior Project Manager /RA/

Licensing Branch 1 Division of Licensing, Siting, and Environmental Analysis Office of New Reactors

SUMMARY

OF THE JULY 19, 2018, CATEGORY 1 PUBLIC TELECONFERENCE TO DISCUSS NUSCALE POWER, LLC RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE NUSCALE DESIGN CERTIFICATION APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a Category 1 public teleconference on July 19, 2018, to discuss responses to the NRC staff requests for additional information associated with the NuScale Power, LLC (NuScale) design certification application. Participants included personnel from NuScale and a member of the general public.

The public meeting notice dated July 19, 2018, can be found in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems under Accession No. ML18199A651. This meeting notice was also posted on the NRC public website.

Enclosed is the meeting agenda (Enclosure 1), list of participants (Enclosure 2), and overview (Enclosure 3).

Docket No.52-048

Enclosures:

1. Meeting Agenda

2. List of Attendees

3. Meeting Overview cc w/encl.: DC NuScale Power, LLC Listserv CONTACT: Getachew Tesfaye NRO/DLSE 301-415-8013

ML18212A081 NRO-002 OFFICE DLSE/LB1:PM DLSE /LB1:LA DLSE/RPAC DNRL/LB1:PM NAME GTesfaye MMoore RLavera* GTesfaye (signed)

DATE 7/31/2018 8/01/2018 8/07/2018 8/08/2018 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CATEGORY 1 PUBLIC TELECONFERENCE TO DISCUSS NUSCALE POWER, LLC RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE NUSCALE DESIGN CERTIFICATION APPLICATION MEETING AGENDA July 19, 2018 1:00 - 1:15 PM Introductions and Identification of topics 1:15 - 2:30 PM Discussion of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staffs Questions regarding NuScale Power LLCs Responses to Requests Additional Information 9263, 9296, 9293, and 9286.

2:30 - 2:45 PM Public Comments/Questions 2:45 Meeting Closure Enclosure 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CATEGORY 1 PUBLIC TELECONFERENCE TO DISCUSS NUSCALE POWER, LLC RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE NUSCALE DESIGN CERTIFICATION APPLICATION LIST OF ATTENDEES July 19, 2018 Name Organization Getachew Tesfaye U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Sean Meighan NRC Edward Stutzcage NRC Ronald LaVera NRC Michael Dudek NRC Andy Campbell NRC Carrie Fosaaen NuScale Power, LLC (NuScale)

Jon Bristol NuScale HQ Xu NuScale Jim Osborn NuScale Mark Shaver NuScale Sara Fields Member of the public Enclosure 2

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OVERVIEW OF THE JULY 19, 2018, TELECONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE NUSCALE POWER, LLC RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE NUSCALE DESIGN CERTIFICATION APPLICATION The purpose of this teleconference was to discuss the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs review of NuScale Power LLCs (NuScale) Responses to Requests for Additional Information (RAI) 9263, 9296, 9293, and 9286.

The following is the summary of the NRC staffs feedback and agreed upon next steps for the resolution of the remaining issues.

1. RAI No. 9263, Question 12.02-06, Low Reactor Coolant System (RCS) flow rate:

a. NRC Feedback: In RAI 9263 dated January 8, 2018, the NRC staff looked to understand how the design control document (DCD) will address the potential radiological impacts during crud burst of low flow RCS, specifically:

• Provide information on how the application factored in and addressed the aspects of design as it related to mitigation of larger than expected crud bursts due to low flow RCS during crud burst clean up.

• Provide information related to the radiological conditions of the refueling pool area (including refueling bridge) shortly after disassembly of the NuScale Power Modules (NPM) and throughout the refueling activities.

• Provide information related to NuScales ability to meet the Electric Power Research Institute, Pressurized Water Reactor Primary Water Chemistry Guidelines, guideline of 5mr/hr @ 1m above pool (refueling pool area) shortly after disassembly of the NPM, prior to adequate mixing of refueling pool area.

• If the pool dose rates were higher than expected and would significantly impact outage occupational radiation exposure (ORE), would the refueling bridge be able to structurally support addition of temporary shielding?

b. Next Step: NuScale understood the NRC staffs question and provided clarification.

• NuScale indicated that they had thought that there were interlocks provided in DCD Chapter 9, associated with restricting the movement of the refueling bridge when dose rates were high.

1 Enclosure 3

• NuScale also stated that they would just clean up longer and that the operators would have to wait to initiate fuel movement, until the pool clean up obtained the target dose rate.

• The staff asked if there was anywhere in the DCD that discussed the limitation of 5 mR/h @ 1 meter and 2.5 mR/h on the refueling bridge.

NuScale pointed to ANSI/ANS-57.2.

• NuScale stated that they did not have the right people on the call to discuss the adequacy of the reactor coolant system mixing for taking sample to project the dose rate above the pool in accordance with DCD section 12.2.1.8.

• The NRC staff found the clarifation helpful and took action to review interlocks associated with the refueling bridge movement and direct dose measurement. The staff will discuss this issue further with NuScale in a future meeting.

2. RAI No. 9296, Question 12.03-60, Reactor Building Pool Rad Zone:

a. NRC Staff Feedback: In RAI 9296 dated January 8, 2018, the NRC staff looked to understand how the DCD obtained dose rates to support radiation zoning assignment. The response to RAI 9296, Question 12.03-60, dated June 11, 2018 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems Accession No. ML18162A353), stated that an analysis was performed for an operator standing on the refueling bridge that determined that the operator would be exposed to a dose rate less than 2.5 mrem/hr, specifically:

• Provide input variables and assumptions for the Monte Carlo Neutron Particle (MCNP) analysis used to obtain dose rate above pool.

b. Next Step: NuScale understood the NRC staffs question and provided clarification. The NRC staff found the clarifation acceptable and took action to continue its evaluation of the RAI response.

3. RAI No. 9293, Question 12.03-16, Dose Assessment:

a. NRC Staff Feedback: In RAI 9293 dated January 8, 2018 the NRC staff looked to understand how NuScale is addressing ORE reduction in the design phase.

Explain any design features that were initially incorporated or subsequently made as a result of dose analysis, specifically:

• Describe any design features to be utilized in the drydock area to reduce outage ORE during high dose activities such as Control Rod Drive Mechanisms (CRDM) work, in-Core instrumentation, and steam generator work activities.

• If component dose rates were higher than expected and would significantly impact outage ORE, is there adequate space in the drydock area to support the installation of temporary shielding around the disassembled NPM, or other components?

2

• Some of the activities time estimates appear to be significantly different than expected (such as time associated with activities on refueling bridge). Do any of the activity time estimates need to be reviewed?

b. Next Step: NuScale understood the NRC staffs question and provided further clarification. The NRC staff found the clarifation acceptable and took action to continue its evaluation of the RAI response.

4. RAI No. 9286, Question 12.03-12, Cobalt Reduction:

a. NRC Staff Feedback: In RAI 9286, dated January 8, 2018, the NRC staff looked to understand how NuScale is addressing cobalt reduction, specifically:

• Explain/justify the difference between the NuScale stated goal of minimizing cobalt concentrations in materials with proposed 0.15 w/o values specified in Design Certification Application, Table 12.3-4, with is a factor of 7.5 higher than established industry goals, and 3 times higher than the user requirement(s) document (URD) standard.

b. Next Step: NuScale understood the NRC staffs question and will submit a supplemetal response to address the NRC staffs question.

3