ML19045A620

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
February 7, 2019 Public Stakeholder Meeting on Possible Regulatory Process Improvements for Non-Light Water Reactors Focusing on Civil-Structural Issues, Slide Presentations
ML19045A620
Person / Time
Issue date: 02/07/2019
From: William Reckley
NRC/NRO/DSRA/ARPB
To:
Reckley W, NRO/DSRA/ARPB, 415-7490
References
Download: ML19045A620 (135)
v • d • e


Text

Presentations for February 7, 2019 Public Meeting Regulatory Improvements for Advanced Reactors In order of discussion, the meeting included the following topics and presentations 1)

NRC Slides 2)

Preparation for Advanced Reactors Environmental Reviews Jack Cushing, NRC 3)

Regulatory Interfaces with Advanced Reactor Civil/Structural Topics Jason Redd, Southern Company 4)

Civil/Structural Engineering Research Updates J Pires, NRC/RES, J. Xu, NRC/NRO 5)

New Plant Cost Reduction and Regulatory Interface M. Nichols, NEI 6)

Design Optimization for Safety and Cost Using MATODON C. Bolisetti, INL 7)

Application of Seismic Protective Systems to Advanced Nuclear Reactors A. Whittaker, University at Buffalo 8)

Development of Generic Seismic Hazard Curves to Support Design Process M Stutzke, NRC/NRO

Public Meeting on Possible Regulatory Process Improvements for Advanced Reactor Designs February 7, 2019 1

Telephone Bridge (888) 793-9929 Passcode: 1039025

Public Meeting

  • Telephone Bridge (888) 793-9929 Passcode: 1039025
  • Opportunities for public comments and questions at designated times
  • Focus Topic: Civil/Structural Issues 2

Introductions

Streamlining Environmental Reviews (NRC, NEI)

Civil / Structural Regulatory Interfaces (J. Redd, Southern)

NRC Research Updates (J. Pires, NRC)

-Lunch-Civil/Structural Materials (M. Nichols, NEI)

Seismic Isolation (A. Whittaker, UB & C. Bolisetti, INL)

Generic Seismic Hazard Curves (M. Stutzke, NRC)

NRC Lessons Learned, Open Discussion Status Update, Future Meetings 3

Outline

Preparation for Advanced Reactors Environmental Reviews Jack Cushing, NRC Kati Austgen, NEI 4

Environmental Reviews

5 Break Meeting/Webinar will begin shortly Telephone Bridge (888) 793-9929 Passcode: 1039025

6

  • Regulatory Interfaces with Advanced Reactor Civil/Structural Topics Jason Redd, Southern Company
  • Civil/Structural Engineering Research Updates J Pires, NRC/RES Seismic Isolation

7 Lunch Meeting/Webinar will begin at 1:00pm Telephone Bridge (888) 793-9929 Passcode: 1039025

8

  • New Plant Cost Reduction and Regulatory Interface M. Nichols, NEI
  • Application of Seismic Protective Systems to Advanced Nuclear Reactors
  • Design Optimization for Safety and Cost Using MATODON A. Whittaker, UB & C. Bolisetti, INL
  • Development of Generic Seismic Hazard Curves to Support Design Process M Stutzke, NRC/NRO Civil / Structural Issues

9 Civil / Structural Issues Lessons Learned & Open Discussion

10 Dynamic Landscape

  • Defense Authorization o Micro-Reactor Report (DOE)
  • Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act o Versatile Test Reactor o Modeling and Simulation o Enabling Nuclear Energy Innovation o Licensing Cost-Share Grant Program
  • DOD Strategic Capabilities Office RFI

11 Dynamic Landscape High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTGR)

Liquid Metal Cooled Fast Reactors (LMFR)

Molten Salt Reactors (MSR)

GE-H (VTR)

ARC TerraPower Westinghouse Columbia Basin Hydromine Framatome X-energy StarCore General Atomics Kairos Terrestrial Thorcon Flibe TerraPower Elysium Liquid Salt Fueled TRISO Fuel Sodium-Cooled Lead-Cooled Alpha Tech Muons Micro Reactors Oklo Westinghouse Advanced Reactor Landscape (SECY-19-0009)

Stationary Mobile Others Others

12 Integrated Design/Review Consequence Based Security (SECY-18-0076)

EP for SMRs and ONTs (SECY-18-0103)

Functional Containment (SECY-18-0096)

Insurance and Liability Siting near densely populated areas Environmental Reviews Licensing Modernization Project

13 Licensing Basis Development Underway: NEI 18-04, DG-1353, &

Related SECY Paper Being Initiated: Content of Applications, Mechanistic Source Term, Other ?

14 Fundamental Safety Functions and Mechanistic Source Term

15 Strategies & Contributing Activities Strategy 1 Knowledge, Skills and Capability Strategy 2 Computer Codes

& Review Tools Strategy 3 Flexible Review Processes Strategy 5 Policy and Key Technical Issues Strategy 6 Communication Strategy 4 Consensus Codes and Standards ONRL Molten Salt Reactor Training Knowledge Management Competency Modeling Regulatory Roadmap Prototype Guidance Non-LWR Design Criteria ASME BPVC Section III Division 5 ANS Standards 20.1, 20.2 30.2, 54.1 Non-LWR PRA Standard Siting near densely populated areas Insurance and Liability Consequence Based Security (SECY-18-0076)

NRC DOE Workshops Periodic Stakeholder Meetings NRC-DOE MOUs Identification &

Assessment of Available Codes International Coordination Licensing Modernization Project Functional Containment (SECY-18-0096)

EP for SMRs and ONTs (SECY-18-0103)

Environmental Reviews Potential First Movers Micro-Reactors Updated HTGR and Fast Reactor Training

Mechanistic Source Term Content of Applications Micro-Reactor Issues Key Technical Issues

16 Policy Table Ongoing Activities 1

Prototype Guidance Staged Licensing Roadmap (plan to update) 2a Source Term Prepare MST Guidance Dose Calcs Siting Prepare Siting Guidance 2b SSC Design Issues NEI 18-04, DG-1353 3

Offsite EP SECY-18-103 4

Insurance/Liability Future (2021) Report to Congress (no change acceptable) 5 PRA in licensing NEI 18-04, DG-1353 6

Defense in Depth NEI 18-04, DG-1353 7

Physical Security (limited scope)

SECY-18-0076 (limited to sabotage)

17 Policy Table Ongoing Activities 8

LBEs NEI 18-04, DG-1353 9a Fuel Qualification technology specific 9b Materials Qualification technology specific 10a MC&A Cat II facilities ML18267A184 10b Security Cat II facilities ML18267A184 10c Collaboration criticality benchmark HALEU shipping 11 Functional Containment Performance Criteria SECY-18-0096 & SRM Advanced Manufacturing

18 Policy Table Open - Not Working 1

Annual Fees 2

Manufacturing License 3

Process Heat 4

Waste Issues 5

Operator Staffing*

Remote/Autonomous

19 Policy Table No Plans (Resolved or Need Feedback) 1 Multi-module License 2

Operator Staffing*

3 Operational Programs 4

Module Installation 5

Decommissioning Funding 6

Aircraft Impact Assessments

20 Future Meetings 2019 Tentative Schedule; Periodic Stakeholder Meetings March 28 Proposed: Mechanistic Source Term & Siting May 9 June 27 August 15 October 10 December 11

Preparation for Advanced Reactors Environmental Reviews Jack Cushing, Senior Project Manager, Division of Licensing, Siting, and Environmental Analysis, Environmental Technical Review Branch 1

Agenda What is the NRC doing to prepare for advanced reactor environmental reviews?

What can industry and applicants do to help the NRC prepare?

Advanced reactor differences that may affect environmental reviews Resource areas Purpose and Need for an EIS Pre-application Suggestions for improving NRCs environmental process 2

What is the NRC Doing to Prepare for Advanced Reactor Environmental Reviews?

Engaging with potential applicants Identifying issues for non-light water reactors Planning to develop interim staff guidance for micro-reactors Implementing lessons learned from previous environmental reviews Guidance on integrating other environmental laws into NEPA process Impacts of FAST-41/Executive Order 13807 on environmental review processes 3

What Can the Industry and Applicants do to Help the NRC Prepare?

Pre-application discussions with NRC and other Federal and State Agencies (as per FAST-41/Executive Order 13807)

Continue to engage the NRC on advanced reactor issues Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) guidance on pre-application NEI 10-7 Provide suggestions to NRC on ways to improve the environmental review process 4

Different Types, Sizes, and Uses for Advanced Reactors Affect Environmental Review Different types of reactor designs and sizes will affect the radiological sections of the review (e.g., postulated accidents, fuel cycle impacts)

Size - Guidance currently exists for large light water (LLWR) and small modular reactors Staff will be developing guidance for micro-reactors Micro-reactors use less resources If a specific resource is not used, then there is no need to evaluate impact(s) to that resource Evaluations should be appropriately scaled to the significance of the impacts 5

6 Fuel Cycle/RadWaste/

Accidents Radiation Protection Terrestrial Ecology Atmospheric Sciences Air Quality/Meteorology Climate & Climate Change Demographics/

Socioeconomics/

Environmental Justice Transportation/

Land Use Historic/

Cultural Resources Hydrologic Sciences (Surface and Groundwater)/

Water Use and Competition Aquatic Ecology Water Quality Non-Rad Human Health and Waste Economics (Benefits Assessment/

Need for Power)

Resource Areas Evaluated in EIS Alternative Sites/

Alternative Energy Sources/

Alternative Design Technologies

Evaluate Resources Based on Significance

  • If resource shown on previous slide is not used then no need to evaluate that resource
  • For example, if no wetlands impacted then no need to evaluate impacts to wetlands 7

Purpose and Need for Large Reactor:

Could be different for an advanced reactor with different alternatives Purpose and Need Applicants Proposed Action (COLA)

Reasonable Alternatives for Review No Action Alternative Alternative Sites Alternative System Designs Alternative Energy Sources Alternatives not requiring new generation Restart retired units; plant life extension; conservation /DSM; imported power Alternatives requiring new generation Coal and natural gas power generation plants Other Energy Alternatives Wind, solar, biomass, hydropower, etc.

Combination of alternative energy sources Combination of natural gas, hydropower, solar and wind, conservation, and DSM programs Need for Project Benefit 8

Pre-application is Important!

  • Each project and site will be different - pre-application interactions with NRC can facilitate mutual understanding of these differences and potential impacts on EIS development
  • EO 13807 requires coordination between the applicant and all federal agencies issuing permits

Questions or Suggestions For Improving the NRCs Environmental Review Processes?

Jack Cushing, NRO/DLSE Ph: (301) 415-1424 Email: Jack.Cushing@nrc.gov 10

Jason Redd, PE jpredd@southernco.com February 7, 2019 Regulatory Interfaces with Advanced Reactor Civil / Structural Topics

2 Why is the AR Community Interested in Civil/Structural Regulatory Interfaces Today?

3

  • Safety

- This topical area includes natural hazard sources (i.e., earthquakes) and robust defenses against natural and manmade hazards (i.e. tornado missile protection).

  • Deployment

- Construction of any industrial facility typically includes both reinforced concrete and structural steel. Completion of these structures is often time-consuming and expensive.

- Advances in civil design and construction which maintain safety while reducing schedule and cost are available, but many have not yet been considered in NRC licensing applications.

- Both the advanced reactor community and regulator have an interest in promptly identifying novel features and innovative approaches to design and construction which may be incorporated in a future license application so that these topics can be addressed in a deliberate, open manner with broad stakeholder engagement.

Why is the AR Community Interested in Civil/Structural Regulatory Interfaces Today?

4 To provide for more timely and effective regulation of advanced reactors, the Commission encourages the earliest possible interaction of applicants, vendors, other government agencies, and the NRC to provide for early identification of regulatory requirements for advanced reactors and to provide all interested parties, including the public, with a timely, independent assessment of the safety and security characteristics of advanced reactor designs. Such licensing interaction and guidance early in the design process will contribute towards minimizing complexity and adding stability and predictability in the licensing and regulation of advanced reactors.

-Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced Reactors: Final Policy Statement, 73 Federal Register 60,612, and 60,616 (October 14, 2008)

Commission Policy Statement

5

  • Numerous government agencies, national laboratories, trade groups, NGOs, and academic organizations have conducted research on 1) lessons learned from past nuclear power construction, 2) ideas for enabling future nuclear power deployment.*
  • Civil / structural topics are consistently identified as cost and schedule drivers for overall NPP projects.
  • Recommendations from these assessments and reports which are purely commercial in nature, i.e., supply chain development and obtaining sufficient skilled trades workers, are not the subject of this presentation.
  • Industry seeks to begin discussions with the NRC Staff on select recommendations from these assessments and reports which have a clear regulatory interface.
  • A sample of relevant assessments and reports is included as an Appendix to this presentation.

Recent Assessments and Reports

6

  • The current body of NRC regulations in 10 CFR 50 and 10 CFR 52 are predominantly based upon and addressed towards LWRs.
  • The general consensus is that the NRC has the tools available to license non-LWRs under the present rules.
  • Modernization of the present regulations and guidance to become more technologically-inclusive, risk-informed, and performance-based is an explicit expectation of the NRC Commission, NRC senior management, and Congress.
  • ASK:

- NRC Staff continue excellent work towards approval and issuance of 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.

>>As referenced by DG-1353, implementation of NEI 18-04 Risk-Informed Performance-Based Guidance for Non-Light Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development for determination of Licensing Basis Events; classification of structures, systems, and components; and determination of adequacy of Defense-in-Depth is a major step towards modernizing the application of the current regulatory framework.

Licensing Modernization

7

  • During recent applications, the level of civil design detail required has proven periodically contentious between the NRC Staff and applicant.
  • Depiction of some structural features, dimensions, and measurements has been incorporated in licensing documents which require prior NRC approval for departures at a preciseness uncommon for civil construction.
  • ASK:

- NRC executive management should clarify to the Staff and applicants the level of detail expected in applications and permits / licenses to ensure common expectations, understanding, and provide an opportunity for discussion should any party disagree with the clarification.

- NRC Staff and applicant must ensure and document clear mutual understanding of terms such as typical and representative as used in licensing document text and Figures.

Design Details in Licensing Documents

8

  • During any construction project, from a home kitchen remodel to the construction of a nuclear power plant, changes are almost inevitable.
  • Regulator needs: assurance proposed changes will not endanger public health or the environment.
  • Developer needs: predictable, timely processes to make changes, aligned with potential impact on public health or the environment.
  • ASK:

- NRC establishment of predictable change processes, applicable to Part 50 and Part 52 regimes, to align requirements for NRC prior approval of changes with the potential impact of the change on public health or the environment.

>> NEI white paper Assessment of Licensing Impacts on Construction: Experience with Making Changes during Construction under Part 52 (October 2018) contains detailed recommendations.

Changes During Construction

9

  • Use of novel features and innovative approaches in future license applications create a potential gap in Staff knowledge.
  • ASK:

- How can industry work with the NRC Staff to ensure that the Staff has the opportunity for training, exposure, and experience with proposed novel features and innovative approaches to perform an informed, timely safety evaluation?

What training does the NRC Staff need that Industry can advocate for with NRC management and Congressional allocations?

NRC Staff Training

10

  • Seismic isolation of large civilian nuclear safety-related structures has not yet been pursued in the US; six large LWRs have been seismically isolated in France and South Africa.
  • Globally installed in buildings, bridges, major equipment, and other structures for decades, seismic isolation has a robust analysis, design, and experience.
  • Horizontal accelerations due to seismic input can be greatly reduced.

- Reduced accelerations translate into reduced loads on SSC.

  • ASK:

- NRC near-term engagement with industry on development of seismic isolation analysis methodology and acceptance criteria.

Seismic Isolation

11

  • Modular civil construction has been licensed and conducted in the United States.
  • Execution experience has been mixed in the US and worldwide.
  • Level of detail in licensing documents and regulatory treatment of tolerances has proven challenging in practice.
  • ASK:

- NRC policy re-affirmation that the level of required detail in an application is that necessary to make a safety finding of reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety.

- NRC and developer pre-application agreement on the role of tolerances, how and by which party(ies) tolerances are determined, and treatment of tolerances in licensing documents.

- Industry solicits NRC Staff feedback on lessons learned from application review and Safety Evaluation Report writing experiences regarding modular construction.

Modular Construction & Factory Fabrication

12

  • Non-LWRs have off-normal events that differ significantly from LWRs.
  • A subset of non-LWRs potentially have core exit temperatures considerably above typical LWR values during normal operation.
  • Non-LWR liquid heat transfer fluids exhibit behaviors significantly different from water in the unlikely event of a leak. Molten salts and molten metal heat transfer fluids may contact normally ambient concrete and steel in such an event.
  • ASK:

- NRC Staff to share their current and planned activities in the area of concrete and structural steel exposed to high-temperature environments.

Concrete and Steel

13

  • Rebar congestion is a common challenge in both commercial and nuclear safety-related construction.
  • Rebar congestion has been associated with increased instances of poor consolidation, rock pockets, and voids.
  • Rebar options have been developed and deployed to reduce congestion while maintaining compliance with code provisions.

- Vogtle 3&4 received approval for use of headed reinforcement in accordance with ACI 318-11 Section 12.6 [ML13122A102]

  • ASK:

- Is the NRC considering endorsement of ACI 318-11 Section 12.6 for use generically in nuclear safety-related structures?

Concrete Reinforcement

14

  • Steel-concrete (SC) composite walls licensed for AP1000.
  • Level of detail in licensing documents and regulatory treatment of tolerances for SC wall modules has proven challenging in practice.
  • No consensus code or standard available for SC structures until issuance of AISC N690-12 Supplement 1 in August 2015.

- AISC N690-18 is the latest version of this Specification and incorporates the above.

  • ASK:

- What are NRC plans for endorsement of AISC N690-18 Specification for Safety-Related Steel Structures for Nuclear Facilities which includes steel-concrete composite walls.

Advanced Concrete - SC Walls

15

  • Kammerer, Annie; Andrew Whittaker; Justin Coleman; INL/EXT-15-36945 Regulatory Gaps and Challenges for Licensing Advanced Reactors Using Seismic Isolation
  • Champlin, Patrick A.; Techo-Economic Evaluation of Cross-Cutting Technologies for Cost Reduction in Nuclear Power Plants
  • Lovering, Jessica R.; Arthur Yip; Ted Nordhaus; Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors
  • Dawson, Karen; Piyush Sabharwall; INL/EXT-17-43273 A Review of Light Water Reactor Costs and Cost Drivers Selected Reading

16

  • MIT Energy Initiative; Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World
  • The Royal Academy of Engineering; Nuclear Construction Lessons Learned Guidance on best practice: concrete
  • Ganda, F.; Report on the Update of Fuel Cycle Cost Algorithms
  • Nuclear Energy Institute; Assessment of Licensing Impacts on Construction: Experience with Making Changes during Construction under Part 52
  • Finan, Ashley; Enabling Nuclear Innovation, Strategies for Advanced Reactor Licensing Selected Reading

17

  • Nordhaus, Ted; Jessica Lovering; Arthur Yip; Michael Shellenberger; How to Make Nuclear Cheap
  • Energy Technologies Institute; The ETI Nuclear Cost Drivers Project:

Summary Report Selected Reading

1 Non-Light Water Reactors Stakeholders Meeting Civil/Structural Engineering Research Updates Prepared by Jose Pires (RES/DE) and Jim Xu (NRO/DEI on rotation to RES)

February 7, 2019

  • Seismic Isolation
  • Steel Plate Composite (SC) Construction
  • Risk-Informed Performance-Based Approach to Seismic Safety 2

3 Prevent/Mitigate Seismic Damages

  • Damage to structures can be reduced by earthquake resistant designs:

- Strength based designs to ensure higher member capacities than seismic induced loads

- Performance based designs to maximize absorbing earthquake energy without unacceptable structural damage.

  • Reduce seismic motions in structures via mechanical devices (base isolators):

- Rubber bearings (Low damping, high damping)

- Lead rubber

- Sliding bearing or friction pendulum

4 Effect of Base Isolators

5 Seismic Isolation for Cruas NPP, France

Examples of Seismically Isolated Nuclear Facilities

  • Cruas NPP, France (elastomeric)
  • Koeberg NPP, South Africa (elastomeric with sliding plates)
  • Argonne National Laboratory ALMR, U.S. (high damping rubber bearings)
  • Jules Horowitz research reactor, France (elastomeric)
  • ITER Tokamak reactor, France (elastomeric)
  • Spent Fuel Pool in La Hague, France (elastomeric)
  • Monju Fast Breeder Reactor, Japan (elastomeric) 6

7 Jules Horowitz Reactor, France Reactor was isolated using synthetic rubber bearing seismic isolators

Apple Park Ring mounted on 700 steel base isolators that withstand large displacements (to remain functional after an earthquake) 8 Figures from Schuff Steel https://www.schuff.com/project/apple-corporate-headquarters/

9 Regulatory Challenges

  • Operating experience mostly in small, testing reactors and commercial facilities
  • Single failure
  • Design and analysis - nonlinear
  • Reliability issues during operating life
  • Inspection and maintenance procedures
  • Seismic isolation of specific components
  • Downstream effects

10 NRC-Sponsored Research NUREG/CR-7253 - Technical Considerations for Seismic Isolation of Nuclear Facilities (in press)

Provides technical perspectives of design, testing, and installation of seismic isolation systems in nuclear facilities including recommendations on performance-based criteria for design NUREG/CR-7254 - Seismic Isolation of Nuclear Power Plants Using sliding Bearings (in press)

Provides benchmarking of analytic techniques against testing data for friction bearings NUREG/CR-7255 - Seismic Isolation of Nuclear Power Plants Using Elastomeric Bearings (in press)

Provides benchmarking of analytic techniques against testing data for rubber bearings NUREG/CR -7196 - Large Scale Earthquake Simulation of a Hybrid Lead Rubber Isolation Designed with Consideration of Nuclear Seismicity Experimental simulation and analysis of a hybrid lead-rubber isolation system for a large-scale 5-story steel moment frame (with the E-Defense shaking table in Japan)

11 Examples of Ongoing Non-NRC Research

- Cost basis for utilizing seismic isolation for nuclear power plant design, 4/18/18-12/31/2019

  • DOE/TCF (Technology Commercialization Fund)

- Seismic isolation of major advanced reactor systems for economic improvement and safety assurance, 3/01/2018-2/28/2020

  • DOE/INL/BEA

- Seismic isolation of advanced reactors with considerations of fluid structure interaction, 6/01/2017-11/30/2019

- Reducing the overnight capital cost of advanced reactors using equipment-based seismic protective systems, 10/1/2018-3/31/2021

12 Codes and Standards

  • ASCE 4-16 and ASCE 43-18 for design, analysis, testing requirements for seismic isolators - Performance-based

13 Going Forward

- Apply performance based approach

- Expected to be part of risk-informed and performance-based guidance for design

- Leverage the standards

  • Continue to interact with industry and stakeholders

- Engage with DOE research

- Participate in Non-Light Water Reactor Stakeholder meetings

- Workshops with staff, outside experts and stakeholders

  • Ensure NRC Infrastructure is ready for applications that utilize seismic isolation technologies
  • Seismic Isolation
  • Steel Plate Composite (SC) Construction
  • Risk-Informed Performance-Based Approach to Seismic Safety 14

Steel Plate Composite (SC)

Structures - AISC N690

  • New reactors adopted modular SC structures as one of the major design features for some of their structures
  • SC structures are used for the design of safety-related structures other than containment buildings

- Containment internal structures for example 15

Steel Plate Composite (SC)

Structures - AISC N690

  • The AISC started a multiyear effort to develop a standard for the design of SC structures
  • In 2015, the AISC published the first U.S standard for the design of safety-related SC structures (Appendix N9 to N690)
  • The NESCC and the NRC Standards Forum provided forums to discuss the progress of the standard and of the NRC review 16

Steel Plate Composite (SC)

Structures - AISC N690

- AISC 360 (the N690 parent specification for the design of steel structures)

- Evolution of the design of safety-related structures from the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) approach in the N690-1994 and its 2014 supplement to

- The Allowable Strength Design (ASD) and Load and Resistance Factor Design approach (LRFD) in the current versions of N690

  • The NRC review includes technical exchanges with AISC experts for clarifications and discussion of provisions in N690s1-2015 (for both steel and SC structures) 17

Steel and Steel Plate Composite (SC) Structures - AISC N690

  • During the review process, the AISC updated N690 (for possible publication as N690-2018)
  • Plan to complete a draft regulatory guide with the staff position on N690 as follows:

- Complete the N690 review using the most recent update of N690

- Conduct one additional technical exchange with AISC experts for further clarification of provisions

- Prepare a draft regulatory guide (DG-1304) in the fourth quarter of FY19 18

  • Seismic Isolation
  • Steel Plate Composite (SC) Construction
  • Risk-Informed Performance-Based Approach to Seismic Safety 19

20 Overview

  • To build upon and leverages the existing framework of regulations, NRC and industry guidance, and existing codes and standards, to enable a holistic RIPB approach for seismic safety that integrates risk concepts and engineering design in a manner that is technology neutral and can be consistently used across all NRC regulatory processes involving seismic hazards.
  • The work responds to previously stated Commissions goal for a holistic, risk-informed and performance-based regulatory structure as well as to demonstrated industry interest in the RIPB approaches to addressing seismic safety issues.

Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Response Analysis and Design 21 UHRS GMRS FIRS ISRS ICRS Rock Soil Structure Earthquake (Source)

UHRS: Uniform Hazard Response Spectra GMRS: Ground Motion RS FIRS: Foundation Input RS ISRS: In-Structure RS ICRS: In-Cabinet RS Foundation Level Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)

Site

Response

Loads on structure and equipment Capacity design Risk Assessment Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI)

Gap in RIPB Implementation for Seismic Safety 22 Alternative implementation to ensure consistent RIPB across all elements RIPB Ground Motion Deterministic SSI Deterministic Loads on structure and equipment Deterministic capacity design Functional design and Performance goals for seismic safety Via SPRA RIPB SSI RIPB Loads on structures and equipment RIPB capacity design SPRA/SMA to verify seismic safety

23 Summary of Approach

  • RIPB approach to integrating functional design and physical design

- Physical design by leveraging performance-based ASCE seismic design and analysis standards to achieve required seismic performance of SSCs

- Functional design using SPRA to achieve optimal sequence level system seismic performance (more balanced risk profile considering defense-in-depth, diversity, redundancy, safety margin and other non seismic failures)

  • Contrast to current approach

- Current approach

  • Conservative deterministic seismic design of SSCs
  • Assessment of SSCs performance by SPRA to achieve safety goals

- RIPB approach

  • Using SPRA and safety goals to achieve optimal system level seismic performance and graded approach to SSC design for greater flexibility
  • Performance-based SSCs design to achieve required performance goals

24 Potential Regulatory Uses

  • Risk-informed seismic analysis and design for potential Non-LWR applications
  • Risk-informed seismic analysis and design for new LWR reactor applications and SMRs
  • Treatment of SSCs in operating reactors thru LARs
  • Changes to current licensing basis thru LARs
  • Risk-informed plant modifications thru LARs
  • Other activities involving seismic hazards

- Fuel processing facilities and spent fuel for example

25 Potential Regulatory Benefits

  • Integrated approach to design and evaluation to optimize system level seismic performance and enable a graded approach (achieve more balanced seismic risk profile)
  • Focus on safety significant seismic sequences and associated SSCs for design and reviews

- More effective resource allocation

  • Practice that provides options to enhance performance
  • Enhanced traceability of risk factors
  • Increased efficiency and effectiveness by leveraging consensus standards

Acronyms ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers AISC American Institute of Steel Construction ALMR Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor BEA Batelle Energy Alliance, Inc.

DG Draft Regulatory Guide DOE Department of Energy EPRI Electric Power Research Institute INL Idaho National Laboratory ITER International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor NESCC Nuclear Energy Standards Coordination Collaborative NPP Nuclear Power Plant RIPB Risk-Informed Performance-Based SC Steel Plate Composite Construction 26

©2018 Nuclear Energy Institute Marc Nichol, Director of New Reactor Deployment New Plant Cost Reduction and Regulatory Interface February 7, 2019

©2018 Nuclear Energy Institute 2 Scale of New Build Needed to 2050 Even with subsequent license renewal, retaining 20% market share in 2050 requires adding ~60-90 GW New Concern SLR Operating

©2018 Nuclear Energy Institute 3 Nth-of-a-Kind Cost Competitiveness Source SMR Start Economic Analysis

$55

$60

$65

$70

$75

$80

$85

$90

$95 SMR IOU NGCC IOU SMR Muni NGCC Muni LCOE ($/MWh Comparison of SMRs and NGCC Costs in 2030

©2018 Nuclear Energy Institute 4 Costs are headwinds for nuclear reactors Source: SMR Start Economic Analysis

©2018 Nuclear Energy Institute 5 Areas for Cost Improvements Source: MIT Future of Nuclear Study

©2018 Nuclear Energy Institute 6 New technologies to reduce costs E.g., concrete, seismic isolation Best construction management practices E.g., design completion, experience, Regulatory efficiency during construction E.g., changes during construction REDUCING CONSTRUCTION COSTS

©2018 Nuclear Energy Institute 7 Produce components faster and cheaper Enable components with enhanced performance Rapidly commercialization of new technologies VISION FOR ADVANCED MANUFACTURING

©2018 Nuclear Energy Institute 8 Challenge: Advanced manufacturing methods rapidly maturing for use by nuclear industry; however, a timely and clear pathway to regulatory acceptance remains an obstacle for many methods Objectives:

1.

Identify the methods of most interest to industry - biggest benefits and nearest-term use 2.

Provide insight to organizations assignment of resources toward furthering the commercialization of methods 3.

Establish clarity on an expedited pathway to regulatory acceptance NEIs AMM Roadmap

©2018 Nuclear Energy Institute 9 MIT Future of Nuclear Study: https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Energy-in-a-Carbon-Constrained-World.pdf ETI Nuclear Cost Drivers: https://www.eti.co.uk/library/the-eti-nuclear-cost-drivers-project-summary-report SMR Start Economics Analysis: http://smrstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SMR-Start-Economic-Analysis-APPROVED-2017-09-14.pdf NEI Assessment of Licensing Impacts on Construction:

https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/resources/reports-and-briefs/assessment-licensing-impacts-construction-changes-part-52-20181001.pdf References

www.inl.gov Design Optimization for Safety and Cost Using MASTODON Chandu Bolisetti Facility Risk Group Idaho National Laboratory February 7th, 2019

MOOSE and Applications https://mooseframework.org https://mooseframework.org/mastodon MASTODON

MASTODON Capabilities

  • Source-to-site simulation

- Fault rupture, complex wave-field input through Domain Reduction Method

  • Nonlinear soil-structure interaction

- iSoil - 3D multilinear, pressure-dependent hysteretic behavior

- Gapping, sliding and uplift

- Automated PRA

- Design optimization for safety and cost

- Documentation is code

- NQA-1

Nonlinear site-response and SSI analysis 36 m x 36 m x 20 m 20 soil layers

Seismic Protective Systems Lead-Rubber Bearing Kumar et al (2014)

Friction-Pendulum Bearing Kumar et al (2015)

Nonlinear Fluid-Viscous Damper (Maxwell model)

Probabilistic sampling of the input model Running simulations Calculating fragilities Fault-tree analysis and risk calculation Inputs seismic hazard curve for time-based assessment Sampling using LHC, Monte Carlo, etc., and automatically parallelized Preprocessing Simulation Postprocessing Inputs: SSC capacities, fault trees and event trees Outputs: Component fragilities, minimal cutsets, associated probabilities, component importance measures, system fragilities and system risk (benchmarked with Saphire)

Automation of SPRA calculations

Risk+Cost-Based Design Analyze Design Calculate cost Calculate risk Risk - informed design Risk+cost - based design

  • Advance from risk-informed design to a risk-based design
  • Optimize the design for both safety AND cost
  • Enable strategic use of risk mitigation techniques such as seismic isolation and other energy dissipation mechanisms, as well as NLSSI modeling, to reduce capital cost while meeting safety goals
  • Provide a decision-making tool and not just an analysis tool

Design optimization - Problem Design Change Capacities Use Isolation Demands Fragilities Risk Cost Cost function Minimize Constraint Stay just below risk target Optimize

Current projects

  • Technology Commercialization Fund (TCF)

- INL, MCEER, Southern Company, X-Energy, TerraPower

- Fragility analysis using MASTODON

- Safety & Cost optimization using MASTODON and DAKOTA

  • ARPA-E Resource Team

- Provide software tools to aid the progress of the project

- Elements for seismic protective systems (LR Isolator, FP Isolator and Nonlinear Fluid Viscous Damper)

- Explicit-implicit co-simulation to maximize computation speed

Acknowledgments

  • Saran Bodda and Abhinav Gupta, NCSU
  • Sharath Parsi and Andrew Whittaker, UB
  • Will Hoffman and Justin Coleman, INL
  • Advanced nuclear industry partners

Email:

chandrakanth.bolisetti@inl.gov justin.coleman@inl.gov How to work with us?

GAIN [www.gain.inl.gov]

DOE NE vouchers Technology Commercialization Funds SBIR Industry FOAs

Application of seismic protective systems to advanced nuclear reactors Andrew Whittaker, Ph.D., S.E.

SUNY Distinguished Professor Director, MCEER Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering University at Buffalo

Outline

  • New build plants: cost drivers, performance
  • Seismic isolation hardware and applications
  • Key developments in the US
  • Technology readiness
  • Seismic isolation
  • Benefits
  • Guidance for analysis, design and testing
  • Numerical tools
  • Ongoing studies GA Tech, Atlanta, GA April 23, 2018

New build nuclear power plants COSTREPORT

COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFOR POWERGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES Prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory FEBRUARY 2012

©Black & Veatch Holding Company 2011. All rights reserved.

Figure1.Capitalcostbreakdownforanuclearpowerplant 765 $/KW, 12.6%

300 $/KW, 4.9%

2900 $/KW, 47.6%

970$/KW,15.9%

1165$/KW, 19%

Nuclear Island Equipment Turbine Island Equipment Yard/Cooling/Installation Engineering, Procurement, Construction Management Owner's Costs Total: $6100/kW+ 30%

USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

New build nuclear power plants

  • Cost drivers for new build NPPs

- Site-specific analysis, design and construction

- Site-specific equipment designs and qualification

- Regulatory review

- Legacy methods for design and construction

- Supply chains

- Seismic load effects, vary by site

  • 30+% of overnight capital cost
  • 10+% to time to construct COSTREPORT

COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFOR POWERGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES Prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory FEBRUARY 2012

©Black & Veatch Holding Company 2011. All rights reserved.

USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

New build nuclear power plants

  • Performance expectations

- Performance metrics: function of reactor type

- 1% NEP of unacceptable performance l DBE shaking

- 10% NEP of unacceptable performance l BDBE shaking

- DBE shaking: RP between 20000 and 50000 years

- MAFE core damage < 0.000001

- MAFE radiation release <0.0000001

- Performance confirmed by seismic PRA USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Seismic isolation USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Seismic isolation

Seismic isolation USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Key developments in the US

  • Standards

- ASCE 4-16

- ASCE 43-19

  • Reports

- NUREG/CRs

- INL

- MCEER

  • Journal articles

- JSE, NED, ES

  • SMiRT papers
  • Topics covered

- Modeling isolators

  • Elastomeric
  • Sliding
  • V+V
  • Implementation

- Analysis, design, SSI

  • Isolators, superstructure

- Seismic probabilistic risk assessment

- Aircraft impact

- Cost-benefit analysis USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Technology readiness Proven technology and supply chain US utilized technology

- LR bearings (Dynamic Isolation Systems)

- FP bearings (Earthquake Protection Systems)

- ISO QA procedures used to date

- Commercial grade dedication or NQA-1 Very high confidence in isolator behavior

- Dynamic testing of prototype testing

- All production bearings tested for DBE demands Deployed in mission-critical buildings in CA

- Very high seismic hazard

- 30+ year history of applications from both vendors

- Design and testing all peer reviewed DOE USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Benefits of isolation

  • Standardize buildings and internal SSCs

- For CIS, horizontal spectral demand approximately constant with height

  • Increases substantially for conventional NPPs

- Site-specific designs to address ONLY the isolation system

  • Internal equipment optimized for operation

- No seismic penalty; one time qualification, if needed at all

- Site independent; dramatic cost savings across N plants

  • Greatly simplified building design and seismic PRA
  • Reduced construction time, regulatory review

- Insurance against increasing hazard at site

- Enables construction of NPPs anywhere in the US USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Benefits of isolation

  • Reduce seismic risk

- Isolation of a conventional NPP will reduce seismic risk by a factor of between 1000 and 1,000,000

  • Studies by Huang et al. in the late 2000s
  • Kumar et al. in 2016
  • Yu et al. in 2016
  • Explicit consideration of accident sequences triggered by failure of the isolation system
  • Can trade risk with overnight capital cost

- Enables a more balanced risk portfolio across external hazards USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

201 202 203 204 1009 206 208 210 212 214 216 1006 205 207 209 211 213 215 39 m 5

10 15 20 25 30 Frequency (Hz) 0 0.5 1

1.5 2

2.5 Median floor spectral acceleration (g)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 5

10 15 20 25 30 Frequency (Hz) 0 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

Median floor spectral acceleration (g) 201 216 USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Technology readiness

  • Regulatory guidance available

- ASCE

- Analysis of isolated NPPs

- Design/testing of isolated NPPs

  • NUREG/CRs

- Technical considerations (7253)

- Isolation of NPPs with sliding bearings (7254)

- Isolation of NPPs with sliding bearings (7255)

  • MCEER reports 0019, 09-0008, 15-0006, 15-0008

- http://www.buffalo.edu/mceer/publications-and-research.html USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Risk-informed, performance-based USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Numerical modeling tools

  • Procedures and rules for

- Low damping natural rubber

- Lead-rubber

- Friction Pendulum type

Numerical modeling tools Properties 3DBASIS SAP2000 PERFORM3D LSDYNA ABAQUS OpenSees New Coupledhorizontal directions Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Coupledhorizontaland verticaldirections No No No No No No Yes Differenttensileand compressivestiffness No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Nonlineartensilebehavior No No No No Yes Yes Yes Cavitationandpost-cavitation No No No No No No Yes Nonlinearcompressive behavior No No No No Yes Yes Yes Varyingbucklingcapacity No No No No No No Yes Heatingofleadcore No No No No No No Yes

Numerical modeling tools USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Numerical modeling tools

  • User elements in OpenSees and ABAQUS

- ElastomericX for LDR bearing

- LeadRubberX for LR bearing

- HDRX for HDR bearing

  • Models in LS-DYNA
  • Two node, 12 DOF, 3D element
  • Features

- Strength degradation in shear due to lead core heating

- Variation in buckling load due to horizontal displacement

- Cavitation and post-cavitation behavior due to tensile loading

- Variation in axial stiffness due to horizontal displacement

- Variation in shear stiffness due to axial load

Numerical modeling tools USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Numerical modeling tools USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Advanced seismic PRA 1981 2013 USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Advanced seismic PRA Systems analysis Earthquake shaking Structural response and ISRS Component damage Risk computations USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

On-going: DOE + TerraPower

  • Fluid-structure interaction

- Liquid metal reactors

- Analytical solutions

- Verification

- Validation

  • Simulator testing

- Benefits of isolation

- Seismic qualification

- SMiRT25 USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

On-going: EPRI

  • Seismic isolation of advanced reactors

- Literature review

- Costs and benefits

  • Building isolation
  • Equipment isolation
  • Overnight capital cost

- Future research needs

- SMiRT25 USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

On-going: DOE TCF

  • Seismic optimization of advanced reactor designs

- INL, Southern Company, TerraPower, X-energy, MCEER

- Protective systems: 2D and 3D isolators, dampers

- MASTODON

  • Open source time domain code
  • Response-history analysis, PRA, optimization
  • LR bearing, nonlinear FVD, FP bearing
  • Verified and validated models

- PRA tools under development

- Optimization tools under development

  • Minimize a combination of cost and seismic risk

- SMiRT25 USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

On-going: ARPA-E

  • Equipment-based seismic protective systems

- MIT, EPRI, TerraPower, X-Energy, SC Solutions, Exponent

- Optimize equipment for operational performance

- Eight integrated tasks, including

  • Design spaces for safety-class equipment
  • Develop, prototype and testing of protective packages
  • V+V numerical models of protective packages
  • MIL qualification procedures
  • Standards development (ASCE 4 and 43) and TTO

- SMiRT25 USNRC, Washington, DC February 7, 2019

Acknowledgments University at Buffalo

  • Ms. Chingching Yu
  • Faizan Ul Haq
  • Sharath Parsi
  • Kaivalya Lal US Department of Energy

- Justin Coleman US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- Dr. Jose Pires Professors Manish Kumar2, IITGN and IITB TerraPower, X-energy, Southern Company Electric Power Research Institute

  • Dr. David Scott

Development of Generic Seismic Hazard Curves to Support Design Process Martin Stutzke Division of Safety Systems, Risk Assessment, and Advanced Reactors Office of New Reactors February 7, 2019

=

Background===

  • Current staff position for LWR licensing:

- Submit results of PRA-based SMA with application

- Risk-informed acceptance guideline: plant-level HCLPF 1.67 SSE

- Complete seismic PRA 6 months prior to initial fuel loading

  • LMP Guidance Document (NEI 18-04) PRA scope for non-LWR licensing:

- All radiological sources

- All hazards, e.g., seismic PRA (not PRA-based SMA)

- All operating modes

- Multi-module and multi-source risks 2

Observations and Challenges

  • SMA does not directly support the LMP process because it does not estimate sequence frequencies, risks, or risk surrogates (CDF, LRF)
  • The current HCLPF acceptance guideline is based on an understanding of LWR seismic risk surrogates when the guideline was originally adopted (SRM to SECY-93-087, 7/21/1993). However, our understanding of seismic hazard has evolved:

- Generic Issue 199, Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern U.S. for Existing Plants, 6/9/2005

- Fukushima NTTF Rec. 2.1, 7/12/2011

  • Very limited understanding of non-LWR seismic risks.
  • How to do a seismic PRA without identifying a site?

3

One Possible Approach

  • Compile updated seismic hazard estimates for all existing sites from the licensee responses to the 50.54(f) letter concerning Fukushima NTTF Rec. 2.1.
  • Assume that the set of existing sites forms a random sample from the population of potential sites.
  • Determine pointwise 80%/95% upper tolerance limits (UTLs):

- 80% population coverage

- 95% confidence level

- There is an UTL for each triple (spectral frequency, acceleration, statistic - mean and fractiles).

Example: For the 100 Hz (PGA) seismic hazard curve at 0.3 g, the mean annual exceedance frequency (AEF) is less than or equal to x (x is the UTL) for 80% of the population of potential sites, with 95% confidence.

4

Information Sources Licensee responses to the 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter concerning Fukushima NTTF Rec. 2.1.

Sites (59 total):

- Co-located plants treated as a single site

- Includes all issued ESPs (all are co-located with existing sites)

Accelerations (13 total):

- 0.01, 0.015, 0.03, 0.05, 0.075, 0.1, 0.15, 0.3, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 3 g

- Log-log linear interpolation for seven sites

- No extrapolation Spectral frequencies (7 total):

- 100 (PGA), 25, 10, 5, 2.5, 1, 0.5 Hz

- Log-log rational function interpolation to estimate the 25 Hz curve for two sites Statistics (6 total): mean and five fractiles (5th, 16th, 50th, 84th, and 95th) 5

Upper Tolerance Limits

  • Methods

- Bootstrap percentile method

- Nonparametric method

- Lognormal approximation

  • Overall observations

- All methods produce similar numerical results

- Anderson-Darling hypothesis tests indicate that the lognormal approximation is not always valid 6

Results - Comparison of On-Average Values to Upper Tolerance Limits 7

Results - Comparison of ULT Methods 8

1 Hz The three methods for determining the upper tolerance limits produce similar results over all accelerations, spectral frequencies, and for all statistics (mean and 5 fractiles).

Results - Generic Seismic Hazard Curves 9

10 5E-7 no seismic failure occurs seismic failure occurs Beyond Design Basis Events Design Basis Events Anticipated Operation Occurrences Seismic sequence frequencies may fall into the AOO, DBE, or BDBE region.

11 Diablo Canyon San Juan PR Callaway Hilo HI Columbia North Anna Anchorage AK Seismic hazard curves for Anchorage, Hilo, and San Juan obtained from the USGS Unified Hazard Tool website

  • 5% damped
  • Vs30 = 760 m/s (B/C boundary)

Generic Seismic Hazard Curve (Bootstrap 80%/95% UTL)

Concluding Thoughts DC, SDA, and ML applications:

- Include a description of the peer reviewed, design-specific seismic PRA and its results

- Applicant to develop seismic hazard curves appropriate for anticipated future site locations

  • The development of generic seismic hazard curves using the upper tolerance limit approach may be one acceptable approach
  • Other approaches may also be acceptable COL and CP/OL applications:

- Include a description of the peer reviewed, site-specific seismic PRA and its results

- If the COL application is based on a DC, SDA, or ML, it is essential to identify and address differences between the design-specific seismic PRA and the site-specific seismic PRA early in the licensing process 12

Acronyms and Initialisms AEF annual exceedance frequency CDF core damage frequency GMRS ground motion response spectrum HCLPF high confidence of low probability of failure LERF large early release frequency LMP Licensing Modernization Project LRF large release frequency NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NTTF Near Term Task Force PGA peak ground acceleration PRA probabilistic risk assessment SSE safe shutdown earthquake SMA seismic margins analysis UHS uniform hazard spectrum UTL upper tolerance limit 13

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19045A620&oldid=4937434"