ML18264A122

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
September 13, 2018 Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Meeting - Slide Package
ML18264A122
Person / Time
Issue date: 09/13/2018
From: William Reckley
NRC/NRO/DSRA/ARPB
To:
Reckley W, NRO/DSRA/ARPB, 415-7490
Shared Package
ML18264A033 List:
References
Download: ML18264A122 (122)
v • d • e


Text

Presentations for September 13, 2018 Public Meeting Regulatory Improvements for Advanced Reactors In order of discussion, the meeting included the following topics and presentations

1) NRC Slides
2) Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon Constrained World (and potential insights to prioritize activities) - M Corradini (UWisc)
3) Consensus Codes and Standards - ASME Section III, Div 5
4) Fast Reactor Working Group, Metal Fuels Report - C Cochran (Oklo)
5) Licensing Modernization

Public Meeting on Possible Regulatory Process Improvements for Advanced Reactor Designs September 13, 2018 Telephone Bridge (888) 793-9929 Passcode: 2496308 1

Public Meeting

  • Telephone Bridge (888) 793-9929 Passcode: 2496308
  • Opportunities for public comments and questions at designated times 2

Outline

Introductions

Status of Activities: NRC, NEI Report on Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World and Potential Insights to Prioritize Activities (M. Corradini, UWisc)

Consensus Codes and Standards ASME Section III, Division 5 Fast Reactor Technology Working Group (C. Cochran, Oklo)

Licensing Modernization Project Guidance, Draft Regulatory Guide & Related Draft Commission Paper 3

Implementation Action Plans Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5 Knowledge, Skills Strategy 6 Computer Codes Flexible Review Consensus Codes Policy and Key and Capability Communication

& Review Tools Processes and Standards Technical Issues Identification & Regulatory ASME BPVC Siting near NRC DOE ONRL Molten Salt Assessment of Roadmap Section III Division densely populated Workshops Reactor Training Available Codes 5 areas Prototype ANS Standards Periodic Knowledge Insurance and Guidance 20.1, 20.2 Stakeholder Management Liability 30.2, 54.1 Meetings Non-LWR Design Non-LWR Consequence NRC DOE GAIN Competency Criteria PRA Standard Based Security MOU Modeling Environmental EP for SMRs and International Reviews ONTs Coordination Licensing Functional Modernization Containment Project Potential First Micro-Reactors Movers 4

NRC Status Developing Additional Staff Training (HTGRs, LMFRs)

Continuing Computer Code Assessments (Future Meeting Topic)

Interactions with Licensing Modernization Project (DG 1353)

Environmental Review Working Group ASME Div 5, ANS Design Standards, non-LWR PRA Standard Policy Issues Siting, PAA, Security, EP, Functional Containment, RIPB Licensing Micro-Reactors 5

NEI / ARRTF Updates 6

Report on Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World and Potential Insights to Prioritize Activities M. Corradini, University of Wisconsin Report Slides 7

Licensing as Part of Overall Development Programs From Dec 2017 Stakeholder Meeting 8

Break Meeting/Webinar will begin shortly Telephone Bridge (888) 793-9929 Passcode: 2496308 9

Consensus Codes and Standards ASME Section III, Division 5 ASME Slides 10

Technology Working Groups Fast Reactor Working Group C. Cochran, Oklo FRWG Report 11

Future Stakeholder Meetings Topics ?

TWG - Fast Reactors, Metallic Fuel Prioritization of Issues Considering Capital Costs Sept 13 Consenus Codes & Standards (ASME § 3, Div 5)

Licensing Modernization/DG 1353 TWG - HTGRs Policy Table Wed Oct 24 Licensing Modernization/DG 1353 TWG - ?

Seismic Isolation Dec 13 Strategy 2 - Computer Codes 12

Public Comments / Questions 13

Lunch Meeting/Webinar will begin at 1:00pm Telephone Bridge (888) 793-9929 Passcode: 2496308 14

Licensing Modernization Project DG 1353 Policy Paper 15

Break Meeting/Webinar will begin shortly Telephone Bridge (888) 793-9929 Passcode: 2496308 16

David Petti Executive Director, INL Jacopo Buongiorno Co-Director, MIT Michael Corradini Co-Director, U-Wisconsin John Parsons Co-Director, MIT

Key Questions Analyzed in the Study For the period present-2050:

  • Do we need nuclear to de-carbonize the power sector?
  • What is the cost of new nuclear and how to reduce it?
  • What is the value proposition of advanced nuclear technologies?
  • What is the appropriate role for the government in the development and demonstration of new nuclear technologies?

TAKE-AWAY MESSAGES

  • Nuclear is an important option to keep average electricity costs reasonably low in a decarbonized economy
  • The bulk of capital costs of new nuclear is in civil works, structures and buildings and indirect costs
  • Innovative design/build approaches (not necessarily new reactor designs) have potential to reduce cost of nuclear
  • Advanced reactors offer enhanced safety and are positioned to take advantage of the innovative approaches
  • New government policies that level the playing field for all low-carbon energy technologies are needed

Five Major Themes

1. Opportunities
2. Cost
3. Advanced Reactor Evaluation
4. Policy and Business Models
5. Regulatory Assessment

What is not in the study

- Fuel Cycle -

Results from the MIT 2009 study on the future of the nuclear fuel cycle remain valid today:

  • Fuel utilization is not a significant cost issue given current resources,
  • Technically viable options exist for the HLW disposal challenge, but must be implemented in a socially and politically acceptable manners, which has not happened in most countries with few exceptions (Finland, Sweden),
  • There are approaches (e.g. centralized spent fuel repositories) that can make civilian fuel cycle an unattractive path to proliferation.

Solutions to these political problems will be found if society will decide that nuclear technology is essential. If the value of nuclear as a central contributor to deep decarbonization is not recognized, waste and proliferation will continue to be issues used to reject nuclear energy.

The big picture The World needs a lot more energy Worlds electricity consumption is projected to grow by 45% by 2040

The key dilemma is how to increase energy generation while limiting global warming Low Carbon Fossil fuels CO2 emissions are actually rising we are NOT winning!

Should nuclear play a role in decarbonizing the power sector?

The scalability argument Nuclear electricity can be deployed as quickly as coal or gas at a time of need

The economic argument Excluding nuclear energy drives up the cost of electricity in low-carbon scenarios (U.S., Europe and China)

New England ISO Nominal - 5500 $/kWe Low - 4100 $/kWe Tianjin-Beijing-Tangshan Nominal - 2800 $/kWe Low - 2100 $/kWe Simulation of optimal generation mix in power markets MIT tool: hourly electricity demand + hourly weather patterns + capital, O&M and fuel costs of power plants, backup and storage + ramp up rates

The economic argument (2)

New England ISO Nominal - 5500 $/kWe Low - 4100 $/kWe Tianjin-Beijing-Tangshan Nominal - 2800 $/kWe Low - 2100 $/kWe Capital cost matters!

(markets can expand for nuclear even at modest decarbonization)

ERCOT and Europe Results are similar To meet constraint w/o nuclear requires major build-out of renewables By contrast, installed capacity is relatively constant with nuclear allowed

ERCOT Dispatchable Generation Competition

  • Coal with CCS is never selected
  • NG with CCS is selected over nuclear until 10 g/kWhr
  • <10 g/kWhr, nuclear is chosen over NG with CCS
  • Renewables add 10% to energy generated

T-B-T Province Results To meet constraint w/o nuclear requires significant build-out of renewables By contrast, installed capacity is relatively constant with nuclear allowed

T-B-T Dispatchable Generation Competition

  • NG with CCS is only selected in Tianjin between 10 g/kWh and 1g/kWh
  • Nuclear is always selected at 100 g/kWh and below
  • Renewables add

~5% to energy generated

The cost issue Nuclear Plant Cost An increased focus on using proven project management practices will increase the probability of success in execution/delivery of new nuclear NPPs

  • Complete design before starting construction,
  • Establish a successful contracting structure,
  • Develop proven NSSS supply chain and skilled
  • Adopt a flexible contract administrative labor workforce, processes to adjust to unanticipated changes,
  • Include fabricators and constructors in the design
  • Operate in a flexible regulatory environment that team, can accommodate changes in design and
  • Appoint a single primary contract manager, construction in a timely fashion.

Nuclear Plant Cost (2)

Sources:

AP1000: Black & Veatch for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Cost and Performance Data for Power Generation Technologies, Feb. 2012, p. 11 APR1400: Dr. Moo Hwan Kim, POSTECH, personal communication, 2017 EPR: Mr. Jacques De Toni, Adjoint Director, EPRNM Project, EDF, personal communication, 2017 Civil works, site preparation, installation and indirect costs (engineering oversight and owners costs) dominate

Why are nuclear construction projects in the West particularly expensive?

Construction labor productivity has decreased in the West

Why are nuclear construction projects in the West particularly expensive? (2)

Construction and engineering wages are much higher in the US than China and Korea Estimated effect of construction labor on OCC (wrt US):

-$900/kWe (China)

-$400/kWe (Korea)

Source: Bob Varrin, Dominion Engineering Inc.

What innovations could make a difference?

Emphasis should be put on cross-cutting technologies that can reduce the indirect costs Reduce Boost Boost Reduce Capital Cost O&M and Revenues Efficiency Fuel Costs Modular Advanced Energy Hydro-phobic/hydro-Robotics Construction Concrete Storage philic Coatings Advanced Seismic Informatics and Accident Tolerant Isolation, I&C (AI, Brayton Cycles Fuels Embeddment machine learning)

Oxide 3D Printing Advanced Dispersion- Chemicals Supercritical CO2 Decommissioning Strengthened Production Alloys Must focus:

Shift labor from site to factories reduce installation cost Relentless push towards standardization reduce licensing and engineering costs Shorten construction schedule reduce owners costs

A shift away from primarily field construction of highly site-dependent plants to more serial manufacturing of standardized plants (True for all plants and technologies. Without this, inherent technological features will NOT produce the level of cost reduction necessary)

Standardization on multi-unit sites Seismic Isolation Advanced Concrete Solutions Modular Construction Techniques and Factory Fabrication

Advanced reactors Advanced Reactors (Generation-IV)

High Temperature Sodium Fast Reactors Fluoride High Gas-Cooled Reactors Temperature Reactors Gas-Cooled Fast Reactors Lead-Cooled Fast Reactors Molten Salt Reactors

What is the value proposition for advanced reactors?

Engineered No need for Demonstrated inherent safety passive safety emergency AC attributes:

systems: power

  • No coolant boiling

- Heat removal Long coping

  • High thermal capacity times
  • Strong negative - Shutdown temperature/power coefficients

+ = Simplified design and operations

  • Strong fission product retention Active Emergency in fuel, coolant and moderator Safety planning zone
  • Low chemical reactivity limited to site Systems boundary Leading Gen-IV systems exploit inherent and passive safety features to reduce the probability of accidents and their offsite consequences.

Their economic attractiveness is still uncertain.

We judge that advanced LWR-based SMRs (e.g. NuScale), and mature Generation-IV concepts (e.g., high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and sodium-cooled fast reactors are now ready for commercial deployment.

What is the value proposition for advanced reactors? (2)

FHR Cost ($/kWe) HTGR SFR FHR (Small) MSR (Large) 4 x 600 4 x 840 12 x 242 2275 Machine Size 3400 MWth MWth MWth MWth MWth Conceptual Conceptual Early Early Early Design Stage approaching approaching conceptual conceptual conceptual Preliminary Preliminary Direct Cost 2400 2500 2100 2300 2500 Indirect Cost 1400 1600 1400 1300 1700 Contingency 800 800 1100 1100 1200 Total Overnight 4600 4900 4600 4700 5400 Cost Interest During 600 700 600 700 700 Construction Total Capital 5200 5600 5200 5400 6100 Invested Independent cost estimates for advanced reactors confirm importance of civil works (buildings and structures) and indirect costs, and do not suggest significant cost reduction with respect to LWRs

Uncertainty in cost estimates for large, complex projects Conventional View Reality Early-stage cost estimates are unreliable predictors of the eventual cost of mega-projects. This is valid across large non-nuclear mega-projects and also for all nuclear technologies.

What is the value proposition for advanced reactors? (3)

There exists a small (but not insignificant) potential market for nuclear heat Methodology:

  • EPA database for US sites emitting 25,000 ton-CO2/year or more
  • Site must need at least 150 MWth of heat
  • Nuclear heat delivered at max 650°C (with HTGR technology)
  • At least two reactors per site for assured reliability
  • Heat from waste stream not accessible
  • Costs not evaluated

Can we accelerate commercialization of the less mature advanced reactors?

  • Aggressive use of M&S in early stages, to be confirmed by demonstration machine (jet engines and automobiles model)

By combining the engineering demonstration machine (traditionally a small-scale machine) with the at-scale performance demonstration machine, and using the NRC prototype rule at a forgiving site, it may be possible to accelerate the commercial deployment of the less mature advanced reactors (i.e. molten salt-cooled and lead-cooled designs) by over 10 years

Can we license advanced reactors?

Early Site Early Site Finding: Current Permit Permit NRC regulatory structure is flexible Standard Part 50 - Part 50 - Standard Part 52 -

Combined and can be adapted to Design Construction Operating Design Operating accommodate Approval(s) Permit License Certification License licensing of (mature)

(Optional) 1st Reactor of Verified Nth Reactor of advanced reactors Pre-License Design Approvals New Design Replication New Design (such as SFRs and HTGRs), without a Adapted from Advanced Demonstration and Test Reactor Options Study, Chapter 7, INL new regulatory Finding: Regulatory agencies in other nations have paradigm. NRC has similar basic principles as described in IAEA policies sufficient and diverse and as embodied in NRC regulations, but vary widely tools at hand to in the detailed application of these policies and provide a stepwise principles. process with intermediate licensing Finding: Advanced reactor concepts should consider decisions without NRC prototype option (10CFR50.43(e)) to license unnecessary delays, less mature designs to accelerate these concepts given required design toward commercialization information.

Government role Preserve the existing fleet An essential bridge to the future to:

- Avoid emission increases:

Keeping current NPPs is the lowest cost form of constraining carbon emissions A $12-17/MWh credit would be enough to keep US nuclear power plants open Zero Emission Credits are doing the job in NY, IL and NJ

- Retain key technical expertise needed to operate the nuclear systems of the future

US Electricity Markets Global Nuclear Market

  • Growth in electricity demand is primarily in the non-OECD.
  • Plenty of choice of vendors.
  • Korea has been successful.
  • Russia is extremely active globally.
  • China has built a domestic foundation to become an exporter.
  • US success as a nuclear innovator must be won in this new context.

New Reactor Designs Electricity sector remains the major energy product

  • Bigger than ever on a global scale, and
  • with electrification of transportation and other energy services in the offing Cost is the driver
  • That means cutting the capital cost of the entire plant.
  • $5,500 overnight is only competitive when carbon constraints are very tight
  • $2,000 overnight is required without carbon constraints

How can the government help to deploy new nuclear technologies?

Improve the design of competitive electricity markets Decarbonization policies should create a level playing field that allows all low-carbon generation technologies to compete on their merits.

Ensure technology neutrality in capacity markets Enable investors to earn a profit based on full value of their product (include reducing CO2 emissions)

Would enable current plants to compete in the market

  • Focus government research spending on innovations that lower capital cost of NPPs vs. fuel cycle innovations, reductions in waste streams and recycling
  • Develop a durable political solution for spent fuel disposal to spur private investment

How can the government help to deploy new nuclear technologies? (2)

Governments should establish reactor sites where companies can deploy prototype reactors for testing and operation oriented to regulatory licensing.

  • Government provides site security, cooling, oversight, PIE facilities, etc.
  • Government provides targeted objectives, e.g. production of low-cost power or industrial heat, for which it is willing to provide production payments as an incentive
  • Government takes responsibility for waste disposal
  • Companies using the sites pay appropriate fees for site use and common site services
  • Supply high assay LEU and other specialized fuels to enable tests of advanced reactors

How can the government help to deploy new nuclear technologies? (3)

  • Cost sharing for Research and Development
  • Licensing support cost sharing for a demonstration reactor
  • Commercial contracts to support construction of demonstration reactors that have key attribute
  • milestone payments (similar to NASA COTS program)
  • Supplemental production for generated electricity

How can the government help to deploy new nuclear technologies? (4)

High upfront costs and long time to see return on investment (more so for less mature technologies, e.g. FHR, MSR, LFR, GFR, than more mature technologies, i.e. HTGR, SFR)

Take-away messages

  • The opportunity is carbon emissions
  • The major issue is cost
  • There are ways to reduce cost
  • Adv. Reactors: enhance safety, reduce cost
  • Government help needed to make it happen

Study Team Executive Director Co-Director Co-Director Co-Director Dr. David Petti (INL) Prof. Jacopo Buongiorno (MIT) Prof. Michael Corradini (U-Wisconsin) Dr. John Parsons (MIT)

Team Members: Faculty, Students and Outside Experts Prof. Richard Lester Prof. Jessika Trancik Dr. Charles Prof. Dennis Prof. Joe Lassiter (MIT) (MIT) Forsberg (MIT) Whyte (MIT)

(Harvard)

Jessica Lovering Dr. Robert Varrin Eric Ingersoll Andrew Foss Dr. James McNerney (Breakthrough Institute) (Dominion Engineering) (Energy Options Network) (Energy Options Network)

(MIT)

Ka-Yen Yau Amy Umaretiya Rasheed Auguste Lucas Rush Patrick ChamplinPatrick White (MIT Karen Dawson Magdalena Klemun Nestor Sepulveda (MIT student) (MIT student) (MIT student) (MIT student) (MIT student) student) (MIT student) (MIT student) (MIT student)

Acknowledgements This study is supported by generous grants and donations from Neil Rasmussen James Del Favero Zach Pate and in-kind contributions from DISCLAIMER: MIT is committed to conducting research work that is unbiased and independent of any relationships with corporations, lobbying entities or special interest groups, as well as business arrangements, such as contracts with sponsors.

BACKUP SLIDES The scalability argument Target for 2°C scenario Source: Staffan Qvist, 2018 A nuclear build-up (at historically feasible rate) can completely decarbonize the Worlds power sector within 30 years

Opportunities for Nuclear Energy

Opportunities for Nuclear Energy Objective: Analyze need for nuclear given goal of deep decarbonization Approach: For time periods from present to beyond 2050:

  • What is the current status and the plan for nuclear energy development internationally (e.g., China, India, Korea)?
  • What are the long-term prospects for decarbonization with different energy technology scenarios for nuclear electricity? Does nuclear have a role and under what conditions?
  • What are the energy markets to which nuclear energy can contribute to (e.g., process heat, desalination..)?

Findings [Market Dependent]:

  • Without a decarbonization constraint, new nuclear is not cost competitive today because of the low cost of fossil fuels without CCS.
  • Given a low-carbon emissions constraint, nuclear technology, when part of the electrical generation system mix, produces the least expensive option.
  • Average cost of electricity may escalate dramatically when nuclear is excluded from low-carbon scenarios

Opportunities (long term view)

What are the long-term prospects for decarbonization with different energy scenarios with and without nuclear? What role does nuclear energy have and under what conditions?

  • Determine the electricity system mix of technologies for various scenarios in US (e.g. ERCOT, ISO-NE) and international (e.g., China and Europe).
  • For 2050 timeframe pick a constraint on CO2 release (e.g., 50 gm/kWhr)
  • Use cost-minimization simulation tool (GenX benchmarked by JuiceBox)
  • Minimize overall electricity system cost for an optimal technology mix Simulation of optimal capacity mix in each specific market:
  • Capital costs, O&M costs and fuel costs for each power plants, energy storage + startup-ramp rates + hourly electricity demand + hourly weather patterns: limited by the CO2 emissions target

Modeling: Technology Choices Pathway 1: With Nuclear Pathway 2: Without Nuclear Carbon Free Options Carbon Free Options

  • Photovoltaic Solar
  • Photovoltaic Solar
  • On-Shore Wind
  • On-Shore Wind
  • Coal (IGCC) with CCS (90% Efficient)
  • Coal (IGCC) with CCS (90% Efficient)
  • Natural Gas with CCS (90% Efficient)
  • Natural Gas with CCS (90% Efficient)

Carbon Options Carbon Options

  • OCGT and CCGT Natural Gas
  • OCGT and CCGT Natural Gas
  • Coal (current technology)
  • Coal (current technology)

Storage Options Storage Options

  • Battery Storage
  • Battery Storage
  • Hydro-electric Storage (fixed & small)
  • Hydro-electric Storage (fixed & small)

US Overnight Cost Assumptions Resource Low Cost Nominal Cost High Cost OCGT A $805/kW CCGT A $948/kW Coal A $3,515/kW Nuclear $4,100C/kW $5,500A/kW $6,900/kW Wind A $1,369/kW $1,553/kW $1,714/kW Solar A $551/kW $917/kW $1,898/kW

$429/kW $715/kW $1,430/kW Battery Storage B

($215/kWh) ($358/kWh) ($715/kWh)

Coal IGCC+CCS A $5,876/kW Gas CCGT+CCS A $1,720/kW $2,115/kW A NREL-ATB report (2016)

B Lazard.com report (2015)

C OECD (2015)

GenX Results Simulated Texas-ERCOT and NE-ISO with GenX; similar analyses for China (Tianiin, Zhejaing province) and UK and France with a range of carbon constraints (500-nominal, 100, 50, 10, 1 gm-CO2/kWh)

Performed a range of sensitivity studies on:

Renewables plus battery storage cost (hi-nominal-low)

Nuclear capital cost (nominal - low with improvements)

Natural gas price (hi-nominal-low)

CCS Cost and Efficiency (nominal-hi; 90% and 99%)

Demand-Side Response (with and without)

Extreme Weather (clouds/low-wind for a time period)

Texas - ERCOT ISO Simulation of optimal generation mix in power markets MIT tool: hourly electricity demand + hourly weather patterns + capital, O&M and fuel costs of power plants, backup and storage + ramp up rates

$180 New England ISO

$160 Nominal - 5500 $/kWe Low - 4100 $/kWe Tianjin-Beijing-Tangshan

$140 Average Generation Cost ($/MWh)

Nominal - 2800 $/kWe Low - 2100 $/kWe

$120

$100

$80

$60

$40

$20 500 100 50 10 1 Emissions (g/kWh)

Nuclear - None Nuclear - High Cost Nuclear - Nominal Cost Nuclear - Low Cost Nuclear - Extremely Low Cost Similar results were found for Europe (U.K. and France)

Texas - ERCOT Results

  • Nuclear option makes a difference btw 50 g/kWhr and 10 g/kWhr for nominal cost case
  • Nuclear always part of the system mix for lower cost nuclear with improvements due to enabling technologies Extremely Low Nuclear Cost is Advanced Reactor Stretch Goal - $2500/kWe ONC

Texas - ERCOT Results To meet constraint w/o nuclear requires major build-out of renewables In contrast, installed capacity is relatively constant w nuclear allowed

GenX Sensitivity Nomenclature

  • No nuclear case: All costs at nominal conditions w/o nuclear
  • Nuclear-nominal: Nuclear included w nominal conditions
  • Nuclear-low cost: Lower cost w improved enabling technology
  • Renewable/Battery Low cost: Nominal w low cost renewables
  • Renewable/Battery High cost: Nominal w hi cost renewables
  • High Nat.Gas cost: Nominal w high natural gas fuel cost
  • Low Nat.Gas cost: Nominal w low natural gas fuel cost
  • 99% CCS: Nominal costs with 99% Carbon-capture efficiency
  • Demand-side response allowed (DSM + DR)

Texas ERCOT Sensitivity Results Opportunity Cost = [Systems cost w/o Nuclear - Systems cost w Nuclear]

At a high renewables and battery storage cost, opportunity cost is much larger At a low renewables and battery storage cost, nuclear is not selected until 1 g/kWhr

ERCOT Electricital Energy Generation Nuclear - High Nuclear - Nuclear - Low Nuclear - Extremely Nuclear - None 100%

Cost Nominal Cost Cost

  • Coal with CCS is Low Cost never selected600 80% 500
  • NG with CCS is Total Generation (TWh) selected over 400 Total Generation %

60%

nuclear until 10 g/kWhr 300 40%

200

  • <10 g/kWhr, 20% nuclear is chosen 100 over NG with CCS 0% 0 500 100 50 10 1 100 50 10 1 500 100 50 10 1 500 100 50 10 1 100 50 10 1 Natural Gas (OCGT and CCGT) Coal (IGCC) Nuclear Renewables (Wind and Solar) Storage (Pumped Hydro and Battery) CCS (CCGT and IGCC) Technologies Total Generation (TWh)

China Overnight Cost Assumptions Resource Low Cost Base Cost High Cost OCGT $421/kW CCGT $496/kW Coal $1,160/kW Nuclear $2,084/kW $2,796/kW Wind $1,117/kW $1,267/kW $1,398/kW Solar $404/kW $671/kW $1,389/kW

$429/kW $715/kW $1,430/kW Battery Storage

($215/kWh) ($358/kWh) ($715/kWh)

Coal IGCC+CCS $1,940/kW Gas CCGT+CCS $900/kW $1,159/kW NOTE: Study used the relative costs for each technology from the 2015 OECD Report with NREL U.S. cost values used as cost basis for scaling to other countries

T-B-T Province Results

  • Due to its low relative cost, having nuclear as an option always decreases overall system cost
  • This decrease in system cost is dramatic for low carbon scenarios

T-B-T Province Results To meet constraint w/o nuclear requires significant build-out of renewables In contrast, installed capacity is relatively constant w nuclear allowed

T-B-T Cost Sensitivity Results Even with low renewables/storage cost, nuclear is still chosen for all constraints

T-B-T Electrical Energy Generation 700 Nuclear - None Nuclear - Nominal Cost Nuclear - Low Cost 100%

  • Fossil (Coal & NG) selected for >600 10g/kWhr 80%

500 Total Generation (TWh)

  • NG with CCS is400only Total Generation %

60%

selected in Tianjin between 10 g/kWh 300 and 1g/kWh 40%

200 20%

  • Nuclear is always selected at 100100 g/kWh and below 0% 0 500 100 50 10 1 500 100 50 10 1 500 100 50 10 1 Natural Gas (OCGT and CCGT) Coal (IGCC) Nuclear Renewables (Wind and Solar) Storage (Pumped Hydro and Battery) CCS (CCGT and IGCC) Technologies Total Generation (TWh)

Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Meeting:

NRC Endorsement of ASME BPVC Section III, Division 5 Andrew Yeshnik September 13, 2018

Background - FY16-17 Implementation Action Plans (July 2017) to support NRC Vision and Strategy (December 2016)

1. Acquire/develop sufficient staff knowledge, tech. skills, capacity to perform non LWR regulatory reviews
2. Acquire/develop sufficient computer codes/tools to perform non-LWR regulatory reviews
3. Establish a more flexible, RIPB non-LWR review process within the bounds of existing regulations, incl. CDAs, staged reviews
4. Facilitate industry codes & standards development needed to support the non-LWR lifecycle, including fuels & materials
5. Identify & resolve tech-inclusive non-LWR policy issues
6. Develop a structured, integrated communications strategy for internal and external stakeholders with non-LWR interests)

NRC Endorsement of ASME BPVC Section III, Division 5

  • Current nuclear power designs operate within a thermal range of 275°C to 315°C.
  • Advanced reactor designs have operating thermal ranges that vary widely between 480°C and 1000°C.
  • There is no NRC-endorsed code of construction for nuclear reactors operating above 425°C (800°F).
  • American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC)Section III, Division 5 provides design, construction, certification, and quality assurance rules for metallic components operating in excess of 800°F, graphite core structures, and ceramic-composite components.
  • A letter dated June 21, 2018 from ASME (ML18184A065) requested that the NRC review and endorse the 2017 Edition of ASME BPVC Section III, Division 5 (NRC Response Letter: ML18211A571)

Review and Endorsement Process

  • NRO-Lead with support from RES/DE and NRR/DE
  • Objective: Official NRC Endorsement of the 2017 Edition of ASME BPVC Section III, Division 5
  • Anticipated Product (August 2020): A draft regulatory guide for public comment that includes the 2017 ASME BPV Code Section III, Division 5 as an endorsed method of constructing Advanced Reactor Designs, subject to any conditions the staff deems necessary.
  • The NRC is participating on two ASME/NRC task groups:

- Metallic Materials

- Graphite and Ceramics

  • Contractors: PNNL, ORNL, ANL, Commercial
  • Stakeholder engagement throughout the review

Review and Endorsement Process Current Status:

  • The endorsement team has started Task A, Project Planning

- Establishing the scope, schedule, and NRC points of contact

  • Process:

Review of Low Temperature and General Requirements (QA) Rules (Task B)

Project Planning Review of High Temperature Metal Rules (Task C) Draft RG (Task A) Review of Graphite Rules (Task D) (Task F)

Review of Code Cases (Task E)

Metallic Fuel Experience in Sodium Cooled Fast Reactors FRWG September 13, 2018

Presentation Overview

  • Presentation Purpose
  • Metallic Fuel Experience
  • Steady State Performance
  • EBR-II
  • Notes on QA and legacy data work at Argonne and interest to other reactor types
  • Summary 2

Presentation Purpose

  • Familiarize the NRC and stakeholders with information on metallic fuel 3

Metallic Fuel Experience 4

Metallic Fuel History

  • Over 30 years of irradiation experience EBR-II
  • EBR-I, Fermi-1, EBR-II, FFTF
  • U-Fs*, U-Mo, U-Pu-Fs*,

U-Zr, U-Pu-Zr, others

  • EBR-II
  • > 40,000 U-Fs* pins, > 16,000 U-Zr pins & >

600 U-Pu-Zr pins irradiated, clad in 316 stainless steel, D9 & HT9 FFTF

  • FFTF
  • > 1000 U-Zr pins, mostly in HT9
  • Vast experience with HT9 cladding
  • Fs - Simulated Fission Products 5

Sources of Metallic Fuel Data 6

Metallic Fuel Experimental Database (Steady State)

  • EBR-II experiments to look at
  • FFTF experiments to look at parameters and phenomena of
  • Fuel column length effects interest to fuel performance
  • Lead metal fuel tests
  • Prototype fuel behavior
  • Metal fuel prototype
  • RBCB* and failure mode
  • Metal fuel qualification
  • Fuel swelling and restructuring
  • Lead IFR** fuel test
  • Fabrication
  • Design parameters
  • High clad temperature
  • Large fuel diameter
  • Blanket safety
  • Fuel qualification
  • Fuel impurities
  • RBCB - Run Beyond Cladding Breach
    • IFR - Integral Fast Reactor 7

Metallic Fuel Experimental Database (Transient)

  • In-Pile
  • Out-Pile
  • Run Beyond Cladding
  • Whole Pin Furnace Tests (WPF)

Breach (RBCB)

  • Fuel Behavior Test Apparatus experiments: (FBTA) 6 RBCB tests U-Fs &
  • Diffusion compatibility tests U-Pu-Zr/U-Zr
  • 6 TREAT tests:

U-Fs in 316SS&

U-Zr/U-Pu-Zr in D9/HT9 8

Typical Metallic Fuel Design 9

Design Parameters (nominal) of EBR-II Fuel C. E. Lahm, et al., Experience with Advanced Driver Fuels in EBR-II, 1993.

10

Historical Fuel Design Parameters Key Parameter EBR-II/FFTF Peak Burnup, 104MWd/t 5.0 - 20 Max. linear power, kW/m 33 - 50 Cladding hotspot temp., oC 650 Peak center line temp., oC <700 Peak radial fuel temp. difference, oC 100 - 250 Cladding fast fluence, n/cm2 up to 4 x 1023 Cladding outer diameter, mm 4.4 - 6.9 Cladding thickness, mm 0.38 - 0.56 Fuel slug diameter, mm 3.33 - 4.98 Fuel length, m 0.3 (0.9 in FFTF)

Plenum/fuel volume ratio 0.84 to 1.45 Fuel residence time, years 1-3 Smeared density, % 75

Steady State Metallic Fuel Performance 12

Steady State Performance Topics

  • Fission Gas Release (FGR)
  • Fuel Swelling
  • Constituent Redistribution and Zone Formation
  • Fuel-Cladding Chemical Interaction (FCCI) & Rare Earth Migration
  • Fuel-Cladding Mechanical Interaction (FCMI)
  • Cladding Material Performance 13

Fission Gas Release (FGR)

  • Insoluble fission gases, Xe and Kr, accumulate in fuel until inter-linkage of porosity at sufficient burnup leads to release of large fraction of gas.
  • The fission gases accumulate in plenum region and constitute the primary clad loading mechanism.

Liquid Na FGR vs. Burnup (Hofman & Walter, FGR vs. Fuel Swelling (Hofman &

1994): U-5Fs slightly lower because Walter, 1994): Independent of of beneficial effect of Si inclusion metal-fuel type 14

Fuel Swelling Driven by nucleation and growth of immobile fission-gas bubbles Low fuel smeared density (~75%) combined with high swelling rate allow rapid swelling to ~33 vol% at ~2 at.% burnup where inter-linkage of porosity results in large gas release fraction which decreases the driving force for continued swelling 12 10 EBR-II fuel length increase in various 8

metallic fuels as a Axial Growth in %

  • function of burnup where 6 closed symbols U-5Fs correspond to FFTF data 4

(ANL-AFCI-211)

U-10Zr 2

U-8Pu-Zr U-19Pu-Zr 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Peak Burnup in %

15

Constituent Redistribution & Zone Formation Metallographic cross section with

  • Fuel melting temp. decrease superimposed radial microprobe scans at top in Zr-depleted region (this of U-10Zr pin DP-81, experiment X447 zone happens off the fuel (Hofman, et al., 1995) center).
  • Local fission rate change.
  • Changes in swelling characteristics.
  • Reliable predictive model U-Zr has been developed. Phase Diagram 16

Fuel Cladding Chemical Interaction (FCCI) & Fission Product Migration At steady state FCCI is characterized by solid state interdiffusion Interdiffusion forms U/Fe alloys with lower eutectic temperature Decarburized zone at fuel-clad interface is expected in HT-9 cladding RE fission products (La, Ce, Pr, Nd) form a cladding brittle layer Penetration depth data are available FCCI of U-10Zr/HT-9 due to inter-from diffusion of fuel/cladding constituents after 6 at% burnup at 620oC (Hofman &

in and out-of-pile measurements Walter 1994) 17

Transient Behavior 18

Metallic Fuel Characteristics

  • Does not impose restrictions on transient operations capabilities
  • Sample history of a typical driver fuel irradiated during the EBR-II inherent passive safety tests conducted in 1986;
  • 40 start-ups and shutdowns
  • 45 loss-of-flow (LOF) and loss-of-heat-sink tests including a LOF test from 100% without scram

- No fuel failures Unprotected loss-of-flow test in EBR-II demonstrated the benign behavior predicted (Mohr, et al., 1987) 19

Transient Tests In -pile TREAT (Transient Reactor Test Facility) tests evaluated transient overpower margin to failure, pre-failure axial fuel expansion, and post-failure fuel and coolant behavior Hot cell furnace testing of pin segments (Fuel Pin Test Apparatus),

and full length pins (Whole Pin Furnace) showed significant safety margin for particular transient conditions.

Effective cladding penetration

- Penetration depth data were rates from FBTA tests for measured and provided the basis speciments tested for 1.0 hour0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> (Tsai, et al., 2007) for penetration depth correlations 20

Eutectic Formation Temperature between Fuel and Clad Critical parameter for metal fuel design Onset of eutectic formation occurs between 650 - 725 oC Rapid eutectic penetration at a much higher temperatures Places limits on the coolant outlet temperature to provide adequate margin to onset of eutectic formation The Iron-Uranium Phase Diagram (Okamoto, 1990) 21

EBR-II shutdown heat removal tests (SHRT)

  • Performed on the same day (April 3rd, 1986)
  • Two types of unprotected loss-of-cooling accidents
  • Loss of Flow Without Scram
  • Loss of Heat Sink Without Scram
  • Performed on the actual, operating reactor at full power!

CONFIDENTIAL 22

EBR-II Loss of Flow Without Scram

  • Primary coolant pumps turned off while operating at full power
  • Reactor shut down due to fuel thermal expansion feedbacks CONFIDENTIAL 23

More EBRII LOFWS plots CONFIDENTIAL 24

EBR-II Loss of Heat Sink Without Scram

  • Intermediate coolant pumps turned off while operating at full power
  • Again, reactor shuts down without scram due to thermal expansion feedbacks CONFIDENTIAL 25

EBRII passive safety Benign transient behavior enabled by lower stored Doppler reactivity of metal fuel Result of operating at lower nominal fuel temp (relative to oxide)

CONFIDENTIAL 26

EBR-II safety test takeaways

  • These are sensational results. Two of the most severe accidents that can threaten nuclear power systems have been shown to be of no consequence to safety or even operation of EBR-II. The reactor was inherently protected without requiring emergency power, safety systems, or operator intervention.

-J.I. Sackett, OPERATING AND TEST EXPERIENCE WITH EBR-II, THE IFR PROTOTYPE, Progress in Nuclear Energy 31, 1-2, pp.

111-129, 1997.

CONFIDENTIAL 27

Notes on Laboratory Efforts and Interest to Other Reactor Types

  • Presentation from Argonne at one of these meetings in June
  • Efforts at Argonne
  • Other technology types may want to follow or learn about 28

NEI 18 Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) Guidance Document Update Jason Redd, PE Southern Nuclear Development, LLC September 13, 2018

NEI 18-04 LMP Guidance Document Updates 2

LMP Guidance Document Introduction

  • The NEI 18-04 LMP Guidance Document represents a framework for the efficient licensing of advanced non-light water reactors (non-LWRs).
  • It is the result of the LMP led by American nuclear utilities and cost-shared by the US Department of Energy (DOE).
  • The LMP Team prepared this document for establishing licensing technical requirements to facilitate risk-informed and performance-based (RIPB) design and licensing of advanced non-LWRs.
  • Such a framework acknowledges enhancements in safety achievable with advanced designs and reflects current states of knowledge regarding safety and design innovation, creating an opportunity for reduced regulatory complexity with increased levels of safety.

3

LMP Guidance Document Recent Activities

  • August 21 - NRC-Industry Workshop regarding first draft of Draft Guide DG-1353 Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Approach to Inform the Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light-Water Reactors. [slides available at ML18242A447]
  • September 13 - NRC stakeholder public meeting. [announcement available at ML18249A337]

4

LMP Guidance Document Upcoming Meetings and Milestones

  • NLT September 28 - Near final draft of NEI 18-04 LMP Guidance Document submitted to the ACRS Future Plant Designs (FPD) Subcommittee chair in preparation for the October 30 ACRS FPD Subcommittee meeting.
  • October 30 - ACRS FPD Subcommittee meeting to review and discuss the draft LMP Guidance Document, draft NRC SECY, and draft NRC Regulatory Guide DG-1353 addressing the LMP Guidance Document.
  • December 6 or 7 - Full ACRS meeting to review and discuss the draft of the LMP Guidance Document, draft NRC SECY, and draft NRC Regulatory Guide DG-1353 addressing the LMP Guidance Document.

5

LMP Guidance Document Upcoming Opportunities for Industry and Public Participation

  • By 2Q19 we expect between four and six advanced reactor designers to have exercised the LMP RIPB processes on their designs to obtain potential insights. The LMP team is interested in demonstrating the LMP RIPB processes with additional vendors.
  • X-energy has generously publicly shared their report on the LMP demonstration on a TRISO pebble-bed, high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor via NRC ADAMS at Accession Number ML18228A779.
  • Anytime - The LMP team always welcomes questions, comments, and feedback.

Please contact me at jpredd@southernco.com or 205-992-6435.

6

LMP Feedback on DG-1353 Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Approach to Inform the Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light-Water Reactors with associated draft SECY 7

DG-1353 and draft SECY Acknowledgement and Thanks

  • LMP recognizes the extensive work by Bill Reckley and Amy Cubbage, along with the contributions and oversight from the NRC Staff and management, to prepare DG-1353 Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Approach to Inform the Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light-Water Reactors with its draft SECY.

8

Key Messages from the LMP Team on DG-1353 and draft SECY

  • No significant deltas have been identified between the RIPB process proposed by the draft NEI 18-04 LMP Guidance Document and DG-1353 with draft SECY.
  • The LMP Team is pleased to offer verbal feedback to the NRC Staff on DG-1353 and the draft SECY paper.

9

Questions?

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18264A122&oldid=2399264"