ML20336A195
| ML20336A195 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/08/2020 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Burkhart, L, ACRS | |
| References | |
| NRC-1142 | |
| Download: ML20336A195 (97) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Open Session Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Thursday, October 8, 2020 Work Order No.:
NRC-1142 Pages 1-53 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1
1 2
3 DISCLAIMER 4
5 6
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 7
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 8
9 10 The contents of this transcript of the 11 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 13 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions 14 recorded at the meeting.
15 16 This transcript has not been reviewed, 17 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 18 inaccuracies.
19 20 21 22 23
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 679TH MEETING 4
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5
(ACRS) 6
+ + + + +
7 THURSDAY 8
OCTOBER 8, 2020 9
+ + + + +
10 11 The Advisory Committee met via Video 12 Teleconference, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, Matthew W. Sunseri, 13 Chairman presiding.
14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
15 MATTHEW W. SUNSERI, Chairman 16 JOY L. REMPE, Vice Chairman 17 WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Member-at-Large 18 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 19 DENNIS BLEY, Member 20 CHARLES H. BROWN., JR., Member 21 VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 22 JOSE MARCH-LEUBA, Member 23 DAVID A. PETTI, Member 24 PETER RICCARDELLA, Member 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
1 ZENA ABDULLAHI 2
3 ALSO PRESENT:
4 CHRIS ALLISON, Framatome 5
MARTY BRYAN, NuScale 6
MICHAEL DUDEK, NRC EDO 9
JERALD HOLM, Framatome 10 MICHAEL MELTON, NuScale 11 SCOTT MOORE, NRC 12 SUNWOO PARK, NRR 13 JOSH PARKER, NuScale 14 KYRA PERKINS, NuScale 15 MATHEW PANICKER, NRR 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 CONTENTS 1
Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman 4
2 Framatome Topical Report ANP-10323P, 3
Revision 1, GALILEO Fuel Rod Thermal 4
Mechanical Methodology for Pressurized 5
Water Reactors 8
6 NuScale Topical Report, Improvements in 7
Frequency Domain Soil-Structure-Fluid 8
Interaction Analysis, TR-0118-58005
...... 26 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
(9:30 a.m.)
2 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Good morning. It is 3
9:30 Eastern Time. The meeting will now come to 4
order.
5 This is the first day of the 679th meeting 6
of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
7 I am Matthew Sunseri, Chair of the ACRS.
8 At this time, I will call the roll. Member Ron 9
Ballinger?
10 MEMBER BALLINGER: Here.
11 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Dennis Bley?
12 MEMBER BLEY: Here.
13 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Charles Brown? Charles 14 has an excuse. He may be in and out this morning, but 15 his absence is excused.
16 Vesna Dimitrijevic?
17 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: I am here.
18 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Jose March-Leuba?
19 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: I am here.
20 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Walt Kirchner?
21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Here.
22 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Dave Petti?
23 MEMBER PETTI: Here.
24 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Joy Rempe?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 VICE CHAIRMAN REMPE: Here.
1 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Pete Riccardella?
2 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Im here.
3 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: And myself. I note we 4
have a quorum. The ACRS --
5 MEMBER BROWN: Matt?
6 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Yes.
7 MEMBER BROWN: I am here.
8 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Okay, Charlie.
9 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: We understand you may 11 be in and out, so thats okay.
12 MEMBER BROWN: I should be fine. I just 13 wasnt quite sure. Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Okay. The ACRS was 15 established by the Atomic Energy Act and is governed 16 by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The ACRS 17 section of the U.S. NRC public website provides 18 information about the history of the ACRS and provides 19 documents such as our charter, bylaws, Federal 20 Register Notices for meetings, letter reports, and 21 transcripts of all full and subcommittee meetings, 22 including all slides presented at the meetings.
23 The committee provides its advice on 24 safety matters to the Commission through its publicly 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 available letter reports.
1 The Federal Register Notice announcing 2
this meeting was published on September 25, 2020, and 3
provides an agenda and instructions for interested 4
parties to provide written documents or requests for 5
opportunities to address the committee.
6 The Designated Federal Official for this 7
meeting is Ms. Zena Abdullahi.
8 At todays meeting, the committee will 9
consider the following. We have a Framatome topical 10 report on GALILEO fuel rod thermal mechanical 11 methodology for pressurized water reactors. We have 12 a NuScale topical report on improvements in frequency 13 domain soil-structure-fluid interaction analysis.
14 I would like to note that the item 15 regarding the Kairos topical report has been taken off 16 the agenda, and as reflected in the online agenda, 17 preparation of reports and letter-writing will take 18 place during this time.
19 As noted in the agenda, portions of the 20 Framatome and NuScale sessions may be closed in order 21 to discuss and protect information designated as 22 sensitive or proprietary information.
23 A phone bridge line has been opened to 24 allow members of the public to listen in on the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 presentations and committee discussions. We have 1
received no written comments or requests to make oral 2
statements from members of the public regarding 3
todays session.
4 There will be an opportunity for public 5
comments, and we have set aside time in the agenda for 6
comments from members of the public attending or 7
listening to our meeting. Written comments may be 8
forwarded to Ms. Zena Abdullahi, the Designated 9
Federal Official.
10 A transcript of the open portions of the 11 meeting is being kept, and it is requested that the 12 speakers identify themselves and speak with sufficient 13 clarity and volume so that they may be readily heard.
14 Additionally, participants should mute 15 themselves when not speaking.
16 And just as I look ahead a little bit, the 17 priorities for this week will be associated with the 18 presentations that we are hearing. Our letter reports 19 will address -- well take them up in this order, but 20 Im open for discussion from members.
21 But first well take up the Framatome 22 topical report, followed by the NuScale topical 23 report, and then we will use our remaining time this 24 week to address our reconciliation memos.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 I dont have any other opening remarks.
1 I will open the floor to members for any comments or 2
questions they have regarding the agenda or anything 3
they want to bring up. Members?
4 Okay. At this time, then, we will begin 5
with the Framatome topical report, and I will turn to 6
Dr. Jose March-Leuba, the subcommittee chairman, for 7
opening remarks and to facilitate this session. Jose?
8 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Thank you. So we are 9
going to move to the first topic on the agenda, which 10 is the Framatome GALILEO topical report, which is a 11 topical report to calculate the properties for fuel 12 rods, calculate properties on pressurized water 13 reactors.
14 So we will have an open session, and then 15 we will move to a closed session to discuss 16 proprietary matters. So we are going to have, first, 17 introductory remarks by the NRC staff. Joe Donoghue, 18 are you ready?
19 MR. DONOGHUE: Yes. Good morning, 20 Dr. March-Leuba and members. I am Joe Donoghue. I am 21 the Director of the Division of Safety Systems in NRR, 22 and thanks for reviewing the staffs document, SER for 23 this topical report.
24 As you heard, its detail of the thermal 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 and mechanical models for fuel, including fission gas 1
release, creep elastic properties, radiation growth.
2 Youre going to hear all of those details, or see all 3
of those details in the SER, covered in the topical 4
report and reviewed in the SER.
5 The staff concluded that the topical 6
report is acceptable for referencing in the licensing 7
applications for Framatome PWR fuel designs. I just 8
want to add that the interaction with Framatome was 9
very positive. We did a lot of work in audit space, 10 and Framatome was very responsive to staff conducting 11 a thorough review, and Im looking forward to the rest 12 of the meeting.
13 Thank you.
14 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Thanks, Joe.
15 So now we want to have introductory 16 remarks by Framatome. Jerry Holm?
17 MR. HOLM: Good morning. My name is Jerry 18 Holm. Im a licensing engineer with Framatome. I 19 want to express my appreciation for having the full 20 committee meeting so soon after the subcommittee 21 meeting to facilitate the NRC prioritization of the --
22 report.
23 This topical report is a building block 24 for future topical reports, and we would like to be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 able to reference an improved version -- reports.
1 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Jerry, are you using 2
a speakerphone? Because you are coming -- you are 3
coming in and out.
4 MR. HOLM: Sorry about that. Yeah, I am 5
on my computer.
6 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Oh, okay. You sound 7
better now.
8 MR. HOLM: Do you want me to repeat that 9
or --
10 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: No, no, no. We could 11 hear it, but it was kind of breaking up. So keep 12 going.
13 MR. HOLM: Okay. So thats the end of my 14 opening remarks. We can proceed.
15 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Perfect. So we 16 continue with Framatome with Chris Allison, and he is 17 going to give us an introduction to the topical 18 report.
19 Everybody remember that this is the open 20 session. So if you want -- some questions that have 21 to be covered in the close session, save them for 22 10:25.
23 Chris, your turn.
24 MR. ALLISON: Good morning, everyone. My 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 name is Chris Allison. I am in the Fuel Thermal 1
Mechanics Division at Framatome, and I am the 2
engineering project leader for GALILEO licensing in 3
the United States.
4 If you could go to Slide Number 2, please.
5 So Id like to start to give you just a 6
little background on GALILEO. So GALILEO was -- the 7
development was initiated to consolidate Framatomes 8
worldwide expertise and experience into a single fuel 9
performance code. And it builds upon the best 10 practices and techniques that Framatome has in our 11 current generation of fuel performance codes and 12 methodologies, and that includes COPERNIC, which is 13 used in France and in the United States, for 14 pressurized water reactors.
15 It includes RODEX4, which is used in the 16 United States for boiling water reactors. And it 17 includes CARO-3E, which is from Germany and supports 18 both types of plants.
19 The original development was to support 20 both PWR and BWR applications and to include UO2, 21 gadolinia, and MOX fuel types. During the course of 22 the NRC review, we submitted a revised topical report, 23 and in that revision we removed the application to BWR 24 and to MOX fuel. And so the current request for NRC 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 approval is for PWR applications with UO2 and 1
gadolinia fuel types with fuel rods that have either 2
M5 or Zircaloy-4 cladding.
3 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Chris, let me ask you 4
a clarification. Is there any cladding in the United 5
States that is not -- on PWR that is not M5 or Zr-4?
6 I mean, will you -- can you cover all PWR applications 7
in the U.S.?
8 MR. ALLISON: Other fuel vendors will have 9
their own proprietary cladding types. We would not 10 have the models necessary to model those proprietary 11 cladding types. So any analysis of -- you know, of a 12 Westinghouse type of fuel rod would have to be done by 13 that vendor.
14 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Thats how you 15 envision -- if you have a transition for Westinghouse 16 to Framatome, you would have to have multiple vendors 17 doing multiple analysis?
18 MR. ALLISON: Yes, certainly. Each vendor 19 would have to do their own fuel rod analysis specific 20 to their fuel type. Thats correct.
21 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Okay. Thank you.
22 MR. ALLISON: Okay. Slide 3, please?
23 So the overview of the topical report, it 24 describes the methodology for the realistic evaluation 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 of the thermal mechanical performance of fuel rods for 1
PWRs, and the methodology is to demonstrate compliance 2
with many of the fuel rod requirements that come from 3
Section 4.2 of NUREG-0800, standard review plan.
4 The topical report contains two major 5
components, the first being the GALILEO fuel 6
performance code, and then the second being the 7
statistical evaluation methodology that applies 8
GALILEO.
9 The topical report describes the 10 requirements and the capabilities both of the code and 11 the statistical method. It describes the calibration, 12 validation, and the range of parameters that were 13 studied for the GALILEO fuel performance code.
14 It also describes the uncertainty analyses 15 and how the uncertainties were determined, and then 16 how they are applied in the statistical method, and 17 then it provides a series of demonstration analyses to 18 show how the code and the method behave for different 19 plant types and different fuel types.
20 Slide 4, please?
21 Now Id like to give you a little 22 viewpoint of how GALILEO fits. Jerry mentioned that 23 this is an important platform or important building 24 block for us, and it really is one of those 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 foundational pieces as we look forward to advanced 1
technologies and methodologies. And that includes the 2
PWR rod ejection accident analysis.
3 This is an NRC-approved methodology that 4
we have. GALILEO will be implemented into that, and 5
that helps us support the new requirements and 6
criteria that are listed within Regulatory 7
Guide 1.236.
8 GALILEO is also implemented in our 9
advanced non-LOCA transient analysis methodology, 10 which is currently in NRC review. And this would be 11 for analysis of AOO and postulated accident-type 12 events.
13 In terms of future submittals that you 14 will see, there will be an implementation of GALILEO 15 into our LOCA analysis methods, and then you will also 16 see submittals related to our advanced fuel management 17 program. And this is where we will be looking towards 18 things like increasing the burnup limit and the use of 19 higher enrichment fuel in the core.
20 And then the last piece would be the 21 enhanced accident tolerant fuel program, where GALILEO 22 will be supporting aspects of that. And as I 23 mentioned, you can expect to see that in future 24 submittals.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 And that is the conclusion of my opening 1
presentation. I am happy to answer any questions that 2
anybody has.
3 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Members, do you have 4
any questions for Chris or Framatome? We have to wait 5
an extra five seconds because people have to find 6
their mouse. But I dont hear any questions.
7 NRC, can you start getting ready to do the 8
slides? Mathew Panicker and Ken Geelhood? We have to 9
transfer control of the desktop.
10 Mathew, I see your slides. Oh, not 11 anymore. Now I do.
12 So, NRC, whenever you want to start the 13 open session, you may. I would recommend you unmute 14 yourselves.
15 DR. PANICKER: My name is Mathew Panicker.
16 I work as a nuclear engineer at the Nuclear Methods 17 and Fuel Analysis Branch of the Division of Safety 18 Systems in NRR.
19 Next slide, please.
20 GALILEO gives a realistic evaluation or 21 best estimate methodology for evaluating the thermal 22 mechanical performance of fuel rods of PWR fuels.
23 This is actually applicable to PWR fuels. The fuel is 24 UO2 with burnable absorbers.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 The cladding associated with this topical 1
report is Zircaloy-4 and M5, and the methodology 2
provided for all thermal mechanical analysis.
3 The GALILEO Code assesses all of the 4
models for various fuel performance parameters, and 5
also addresses the integral core predictions. The 6
methodology involves proposed uncertainties using the 7
statistical methodology, and assessment of fuel damage 8
limits is also covered in the topical report.
9 Next, please?
10 A short history of the GALILEO review is 11 in October 2013, Framatome submitted ANP-10323 for 12 GALILEO topical report Revision 0. Acceptance was 13 done in March 2014. Because the work involved was 14 tremendous, that is why we contracted PNNL staff as 15 consultant.
16 Upon review, the staff submitted over 70 17 RAIs, including subparts. AREVA decided to revise the 18 topical report, and it suspended BWR and MOX fuels, 19 which was really during the topical report in November 20 2015.
21 And, in June 2018, Framatome submitted 22 Revision 1 for PWR fuels of UO2 and gadolinia. After 23 that, Framatome submitted RAIs and five RAI responses 24 in final -- ranging from December 18 through July 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 2020. And the staff used NRCs FRAPCON -- or now it 1
is called FAST fuel performance code -- for 2
confirmatory calculations to review the results and 3
for comparison to the results from GALILEO.
4 Next, please?
5 This is a list of models available in 6
GALILEO, and GALILEO is built on the two codes -- NRC-7 approved COPERNIC and the German regulator-approved 8
CARO-3. It addressed thermal models, fission gas 9
models, and the rod internal pressure; cladding, 10 corrosion, and hydriding model; cladding, hydride 11 pickup; specification and swelling model; mechanical 12 modeling and properties; fuel mechanical properties; 13 rod void volume; model and resulting growth 14 assessment; licensing applications.
15 It is work that improves statistical 16 approach, and 99.9 percent probability, 95 percent 17 confidence level, better for uncertainty calculations.
18 And the code is applied -- the applicability of the 19 code is in many applications of the operating reactors 20 with Framatome fuel.
21 Next, please?
22 These are the bases of our review based on 23 the regulatory evaluation, GDC 10. These are the --
24 with the SAFDL, specified fuel design limits for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 operation.
1 The two other ones, GDC 35 and 50.46, 2
generally are applicable to fuel performance codes, 3
but in this case Framatome decided to submit another 4
version of GALILEO or ECCS performance analysis. And 5
then the SRP report will deal with fuel performance --
6 fuel performance and design. It has to protect the 7
fuel during normal operation and AOOs.
8 The damage of the fuel should not be able 9
to prevent severe -- to prevent rod insertion, and the 10 number of fuel rods failures should be eliminated or 11 under -- should not be underestimated for postulated 12 accidents. Core coolability should be maintained.
13 Another complaint is the SRP 15.02. That 14 is the guidance for how a topical report should be 15 submitted to the NRC with documentation, code 16 verification, validation, evaluation
- model, 17 uncertainty analysis, in order.
18 Framatome has submitted all of the 19 supporting documents including theory, V&V, and other 20 supporting documents to facilitate the review of this 21 code.
22 Next, please?
23 The staff finds the GALILEO code and 24 methodology as described in the Revision 1 of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 GALILEO methodology, as modified as in the RAIs, and 1
we found that it is acceptable. And there are some 2
situations which will be -- which we will be talking 3
about it in the closed session.
4 I think that is the last slide.
5 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA:
- Members, any 6
questions for the staff in the open session? We are 7
going to have a closed session in a few minutes. I 8
assume most questions will come there, but lets wait 9
five seconds.
10 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: This is Matt. I just 11 have maybe one question. And its probably really 12 obvious, but I just want to confirm it.
13 So some of the fuel types have been 14 excluded, the BWR and the MOX. I presume that if any 15 work comes along in that area, the previous versions 16 of the topical report would still remain valid and it 17 could be done under those previous revisions. Is that 18 a correct assessment?
19 DR. PANICKER: Yes. For BWR fuels, we use 20 the RODEX4 from Framatome. And MOX, we dont have any 21 because we found that -- at that time, we found that 22 the data was insufficient.
23 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Yeah, yeah. No, I get 24 it. All right. Great. Thank you. Appreciate it.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yeah. But, Mathew, 1
isnt it correct that Revision 0 of ANP-10323P is not 2
approved. I mean, it was -- it was withdrawn.
3 DR. PANICKER: Revision 0? Yeah. Yes.
4 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yeah. The original 5
submittal was 2013, was essentially withdrawn.
6 DR. PANICKER: Excuse me?
7 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: The Revision 0 was 8
the original submittal, was in 2013 or 14.
9 DR. PANICKER: Yeah. Okay.
10 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: That has not been 11 approved because it was withdrawn by Framatome because 12 they plan to use their previous methodology, which is 13 a different report number, RODEX4.
14 DR. PANICKER: Yeah, RODEX4.
15 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yeah. Okay.
16 DR. PANICKER: Yes, in RODEX4.
17 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: And MOX fuel, they 18 dont really have a methodology for MOX.
19 DR. PANICKER: No. We are looking at it, 20 and its thought that that was insufficient. So 21 Framatome realized that, and they dropped the -- both 22 the BWR fuel and MOX fuel in 2016.
23 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Okay. Thank you, 24 Matt.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Yeah, yeah. That 1
addresses my question.
I appreciate the 2
clarifications. Thank you.
3 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: If any members have 4
another question, please do so, because I am going to 5
ask for public comments. Can we open the phone line, 6
Thomas?
7 MR. DASHIELL: Affirmative, Jose. The 8
public line is open for comment.
9 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: If anybody on the 10 public line or any member of the public that is 11 joining on the line wants to make a comment, please do 12
-- state your name and do so now. Again, I want to 13 wait five seconds because since -- I dont hear any 14 comments from the public line. Thomas, can you close 15 it again?
16 At this moment, we are scheduled to move 17 to the closed session. We are a little bit ahead of 18 schedule, but I propose that we move ahead because we 19 can always use the time for letter-writing or other 20 topics.
21 So, and its not worth, after 25 minutes, 22 to have a break, so lets have a 10-minute break just 23 to change sessions. And let me tell you what the 24 procedure is going to be. If you have an nrc.gov 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 account, if you have signed in on your NRC 1
credentials, you will be admitted to the closed 2
session automatically.
3 If you are like me, have come in as a 4
guest using your personal computer, you will be put in 5
the lobby and somebody will confirm that you belong in 6
the closed session.
7 So lets re-establish in the closed 8
session link at lets say 10:10, to give people time 9
to get there.
10 Matt, are you still here? Are you, Matt?
11 Yeah, I see Matt.
12 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Which Matt? Yeah, 13 yeah.
14 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: The Chairman, Matt 15 Sunseri.
16 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Yeah, yeah.
17 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes. Seeing that we 18 are going fast, we might have time to read the letter 19 in open session when we finish the closed session. Do 20 you want to come back to this open session number, or 21 do you want to wait until this afternoon to read the 22 letter?
23 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: No. I mean, it depends 24 on how long the closed session lasts, but well have 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 until 11:30 before we start the NuScale presentation.
1 So if you feel like there is going to be sufficient 2
time to read in the letter and have, you know, a 3
break, then we can --
4 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Sure.
5 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: -- read it, yeah.
6 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: If we finish with 7
sufficient time before 11:00, we might come back to 8
the open session and read the letter.
9 So, at this moment, this open session is 10 in recess, and we will move to the closed session.
11 And lets reconvene at 10:10.
12 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Yeah. Let me just add 13 a little bit to your point there. So I will ask the 14 staff to monitor the progress of the closed session 15 and provide updates on this public line here to the 16 public, so that they know when we would expect to 17 return to open session, because right now, as it 18 stands, once we go into closed we wouldnt return 19 until 11:30, and we may return earlier than that.
20 So I just want to give the public a 21 heads-up on that. Okay?
22 MR. MOORE: This is Scott Moore, the 23 Executive Director. Well give updates on the public 24 line about every 30 minutes.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 Thomas, can you please keep the public 1
line open but not connected to the closed session?
2 And somebody from the staff will go on every 3
30 minutes and give an update.
4 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Thank you, Scott.
5 Appreciate that.
6 MR. MOORE: Sure.
7 MR. DASHIELL: No problem, Scott.
8 MR. MOORE: Thanks.
9 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: So, again, were off 10 the record. We are in recess.
11 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Okay.
12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 13 record at 9:58 a.m. and resumed at 11:30 a.m.)
14 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Okay. Its 11:30.
15 This is Matt Sunseri. We are going to start the 16 NuScale topical report presentation right now.
17 And, at this point, I will turn to Member 18 Riccardella for leading this topic. Pete, you have 19 the floor.
20 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Yes. Good morning.
21 We are going to now cover the NuScale topical report 22 on improvements in frequency domain soil-structure-23 fluid interaction analysis.
24 These were addressed at length in a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 subcommittee meeting on September 22nd, at which most 1
members were in attendance. Therefore, we will have 2
abbreviated presentations this morning, and I dont 3
believe we need to go into private sessions for the --
4 for any of this session.
5 And so, with that, I will ask Michael 6
Dudek of the NRC staff to make a few comments.
7 MR. DUDEK: Thank you, Chairperson 8
Riccardella. So, and thank you for the rest of the 9
staff, the ACRS full committee staff, for attending 10 and hearing our presentation today.
11 As Chairman Riccardella stated, we did 12 have a successful briefing of the subcommittee a few 13 weeks ago on this analytical tool and methodology 14 proposed by NuScale.
15 And, really, at the crux of it is that 16 previously to this methodology being proposed, there 17 was really no analytical tool available to 18 systematically integrate the effects of the soil-19 structure-fluid interactions in a feasible and logical 20 manner to develop the seismic load for nuclear power 21 plant structures, systems, and components.
22 However, in this typical report that 23 NuScale is going to present -- and Sunwoo has 24 transformationally reviewed and evaluated and youll 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 hear his report out today on -- is that NuScale really 1
proposes, you know, something new and novel that can 2
integrate all of these capabilities of the different 3
programs and handle, really handle this soil-4 structure-fluid interaction during an earthquake.
5 You know, NuScale has proposed this novel 6
approach. You know, Sunwoo, as the lead technical 7
reviewer, has really gone above and beyond to -- and 8
in a transformational method to evaluate and bring 9
this all together in a logical format.
10 So without any further ado, I think I will 11 turn it back over to you, Mr. Chairperson.
12 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Pete, are you still 13 with us?
14 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Yes, I am.
15 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Okay.
16 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Im sorry. NuScale, 17 do you want to proceed with your presentation, please?
18 MR. MELTON: Sure. This is Mike Melton, 19 manager at NuScale licensing. So before I turn it 20 over to Kyra, I just wanted to say welcome, everybody, 21 and were looking forward to the full committee 22 presentation.
23 And we are -- as Mike described, were 24 very excited to get to the disclosure point on our 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 soil library technical report. Our LTR is definitely 1
a much more efficient process and I believe is backed 2
by sound analysis and technical justification. So Im 3
looking forward to the team making an effective 4
presentation today and answering any questions.
5 So, with that, I will pass it off to Kyra 6
Perkins, who is our licensing project manager on this 7
report.
8 MS. PERKINS: Thank you, Mike. Good 9
morning, everyone. Im Kyra Perkins, licensing 10 project manager at NuScale. And so let me begin our 11 presentation on the topical report and improvements 12 within the domain of soil-structure-fluid interaction 13 analysis.
14 Okay. So Josh Parker will be our main 15 presenter today. And Matthew Snyder and myself will 16 be supporting todays discussion.
17 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Hey, Kyra. This is 18 Matt Sunseri. There is a little bit of a background 19 noise, and you sound kind of like youre in a hole.
20 I dont know if thats acoustics on your end or what.
21 MS. PERKINS: Okay. Let me adjust real 22 quick. Okay. Hopefully, now its okay?
23 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Oh. Much better. Yes, 24 thank you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 MS. PERKINS: Okay. Great.
1 Okay. On to the agenda, I will review the 2
purpose and the applications of the topical report, 3
and then Josh will present at a higher level than from 4
the subcommittee meeting on the features of the soil 5
library methodology, a description of the methodology, 6
and an overview of the topical report demonstration 7
problems. We will then summarize the NRCs review of 8
the topical report and conclude with a summary.
9 Okay. So the frequency domain soil-10 structure-fluid interaction allows this topical 11 report, as far as a more efficient process for the 12 applicant or licensee to perform seismic analyses of 13 complex interactive structures, soils, fluid systems 14 and major mechanical components.
15 So todays presentation, as mentioned 16 before, is a higher level summary of the topical 17 report on what was given at the subcommittee on 18 September 22nd. The subcommittee meeting was a more 19 detailed presentation of the methodology and sample 20 problems. NuScales presentation materials from the 21 subcommittee meeting are available on the NRCs 22 website.
23 Okay. This topical report is intended to 24 be applicable to multiple licensees, so that includes 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 future design certification applications, standard 1
design approval applications, and site-specific 2
combined licensing COL analyses. The COL will use a 3
site-specific soil library and will evaluate the 4
adequacy of the NuScale design.
5 I will also add that NuScale plans to 6
apply this methodology to the standard design approval 7
application.
8 Before I turn it over to Josh, are there 9
any questions or comments thus far?
10 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: No, I dont have any 11 comments. There is still a little bit of a background 12 noise, like a fan or something maybe. Is your 13 microphone close to the computer fan or something?
14 MS.
PERKINS:
I dont think so.
15 Hopefully, I can get that figured out. But Ill turn 16 it over to Josh for now. Thank you for the --
17 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: Its not terrible.
18 MR. PARKER: All right. Good afternoon, 19 or late morning. As Kyra said, my name is Josh 20 Parker. I am the supervisor of civil structural 21 engineering at NuScale, and I will be presenting the 22 next few slides.
23 So, to begin, I like to discuss some of 24 the features that are available with the soil library 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 methodology that werent previously available using 1
our previous approach.
2 The first is that we needed to develop, in 3
the approach taken for the design certification, 4
several models as the analysis and results went 5
between civil structural and subsystem analysis. And 6
this is no longer required, as we can integrate the 7
building and all major subsystems into a single model.
8 Related to this is that our models can now 9
be much larger. We can incorporate -- as a result, we 10 can incorporate seismic as well as non-seismic 11 loading. Also, even though our models are larger, we 12 have actually seen the run times go down quite 13 significantly.
14 And given how we have been able to 15 integrate into a single platform, it has allowed us to 16 greatly simplify the process. And all of this has 17 really resulted in more readily allowing for 18 feasibility studies, for example, permutations that 19 come about from having different module 20 configurations, an aspect that is really important for 21 us in SMR design plants particularly.
22 And, lastly, given our use of ANSYS, we 23 were able to leverage the latest in finite element 24 technologies and developments that are not available 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 in older codes like SASSI. So several different, 1
pretty exciting features for us given the new 2
approach.
3 Next slide?
4 So over the next couple of slides I will 5
describe some of the key aspects of the methodology.
6 So, first, this approach eliminates the need for a 7
two-step analysis process. So whereas before we 8
needed to first create models of our NPM, both very 9
detailed and in simplified models for import into 10 SASSI, and then also a model of our building in 11 multiple programs, we can now develop an integrated 12 model of the backfill soil, the building, the fluid, 13 and the major subsystems like the NPMs.
14 And having an integrated model in this way 15 really makes for a much more straightforward exchange 16 of data and simplifies all of those interfacing 17 analyses.
18 Given the use of the ANSYS solver and the 19 not the SASSI solver, we have seen our analysis time 20 shorten significantly as mentioned on the previous 21 slide. And using ANSYS also allows us to overcome the 22 model size constraints that we had previously.
23 We were running up against maximum numbers 24 of elements or nodes, and that has been overcome given 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 our use of ANSYS and allowing our models to be much 1
more detailed and eliminating some of those previous 2
constraints.
3 Next slide?
4 So, additionally, some aspects of the 5
methodology. First, we still use SASSI. We use it to 6
calculate in an impedance library. That library is 7
then -- or is calculated with the same seismic inputs 8
and soil properties as a traditional approach. But we 9
do use in this -- in our current methodology, we do 10 use the direct method to calculate the impedance 11 library, as opposed to our use of the modified 12 subtraction method previously, which really has to do 13 with not having -- not being limited to model size.
14 But, as previously described, we no longer 15 have a SASSI building model, but we instead have an 16 integrated model in ANSYS and use the ANSYS solver.
17 And what weve seen -- and well talk 18 about example problems in a later slide -- but what 19 weve seen is that the -- and the report shows is that 20 we have a dynamic ANSYS analysis that is functionally 21 equivalent as it would be in SASSI when we do it in 22 ANSYS.
23 Next slide?
24 So the last few aspects of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 methodology. One important piece to note is that we 1
-- that the analysis is performed in the frequency 2
domain. So when we combine the soil impedance from 3
SASSI with ANSYS, we still use the ANSYS solver that 4
is done in the frequency domain.
5 In developing the approach, we employed 6
the same linear elastic or equivalent linear elastic 7
analysis that is used in typical SASSI applications, 8
and this is the case for the soil properties, the 9
structural properties, the constraints and boundary 10 conditions. So thats all -- that all remains the 11 same.
12 And as we develop the approach -- the 13 methodology, we validate it through a variety of 14 example problems that well touch on in the next 15 slide. And those were used to show the equivalency in 16 the results between a traditional SASSI analysis and 17 this -- and our new analysis.
18 And all of this results in a one-step 19 analysis as opposed to the two-step analysis that we 20 talked about in my opening slide. So the structure-21 soil-fluid interaction of the buildings, NPM, and cool 22 water. And this allows for a more efficient and 23 elegant approach.
24 I would also I guess, lastly, point out 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 that seismic analysis methods of the secondary SSCs 1
and the fuel, those all remain the same, so were not 2
changing any aspects there. Those are all -- those 3
will all be done the same.
4 Next slide?
5 So as part of validating the methodology, 6
we assessed four different example problems. Those 7
consisted of, first, a surface-mounted PWR in a 8
halfspace, and thats a problem that has been used to 9
validate SASSI for quite a while.
10 Our next problem was an embedded building 11 without fluid, and then we looked at, for our third 12 problem, that same building but with fluid added. And 13 then our -- lastly, our fourth problem was in SMR 14 reactor building with soil-structure-fluid 15 interaction.
16 And in the problems we looked at a variety 17 of results. For example, transfer function, time 18 histories, and responses. Member design forces where 19 applicable fluid pressure, time histories, and offset, 20 really, a number of other aspects.
21 And, really, in all cases we saw excellent 22 comparisons in the results. And so our conclusion and 23 what we showed in the report is that we provided a 24 means to say that ANSYS and the soil library solution 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 really are functionally equivalent to what we would 1
see in a SASSI solution.
2 So that really concludes the technical 3
slides that I have to present. Ill pause here and 4
see if there is any questions.
5 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Anybody on the -- any 6
members have any questions for NuScale?
7 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Pete, this is Walt.
8 Ill just raise one.
9 Lets see. Josh, when do you know for the 10 application to the actual NuScale power plant when you 11 would -- because of the large mass involved, when --
12 and I guess this would be site-dependent, how do you 13 estimate when you would get to slip and -- of the 14 foundation? And then you wouldnt be in the linear 15 elastic domain at that point.
16 Is there some rule of thumb? And when you 17 use your new, improved method, do you have to -- for 18 the large size of the reactor building envisioned, do 19 you have to do more of the halfspace modeling? In 20 other words, do you need more, you know, larger 21 nodalization of the site and --
22 MR. PARKER: Yeah. So thats a good 23 question.
24 MEMBER KIRCHNER: That was several 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 questions wrapped in one.
1 MR. PARKER: Yeah. Two questions. So, 2
one, you asked about slip, which I assume you mean 3
sliding. That has to do with building stability. So 4
we will do those checks, just like we did in the 5
design certification portion. So well check sliding 6
over turning.
7 There are standard review plan criteria 8
for performing those types of analysis, and well 9
follow that in the same way using this approach as we 10 would using our previous approach. That actually 11 doesnt change.
12 And then you asked about nodalization of 13 the halfspace, and that also really doesnt change 14 with this approach. The halfspace isnt nodalized, 15 our interface boundaries between the backfill and the 16 halfspace, and we will create -- there is layers of 17 soil that we model up from the surface down to the 18 bottom of the building elevation and then below. And 19 that approach, it stays the same with this or what it 20 would be with any other approach.
21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yeah. But for your 22 particular application for the NuScale reactor 23 building with the 12 modules filled with water, do you 24 have to use more soil layers because of the size of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 the building and the mass compared to, say, a PWR?
1 MR. PARKER: Well, so there again, there 2
are typical equations and rules of thumb having to do 3
with the shear wave velocity, and the overall depth to 4
come up with the layer thickness that should -- we 5
should have. And so that really doesnt have to do 6
with the size of the excavation. It really has to do 7
more with the soil itself and the layerization of the 8
soil.
9 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Doesnt the fact that 10 you are dealing with a lot larger structure and mass 11 also -- isnt there some coupling there in terms of 12 how you would nodalize the soil layers? Or you --
13 MR. PARKER: I mean, we want to have, you 14 know, obviously a reasonable number of layers, given 15 our excavation. But the number of layers has to do, 16 like I said, with shear wave velocity and less to do 17 with the total excavation.
18 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay. All right. Thank 19 you.
20 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Are there any other 21 comments or questions?
22 Okay. So, with that, we will move into 23 the NRC --
24 MR. PARKER: Actually, weve got a couple 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 more slides.
1 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Okay.
2 MR. PARKER: Ill turn it back to Kyra.
3 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Okay. Im sorry. Go 4
ahead, Kyra.
5 MS. PERKINS: Yes. Can you hear me okay?
6 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Yes.
7 MS. PERKINS: I switched to my phone.
8 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Yes. We hear you 9
fine.
10 MS. PERKINS: Okay. Great. Okay. So 11 during the topical report review, the NRC requested, 12 through RAI 9676, NuScale to include additional 13 demonstration problems, which would be representative 14 of more complex SMR structures.
15 So, as Josh discussed, the fourth example 16 was added to the report to include a representative 17 reactor building with soil-structure-fluid 18 interaction.
19 There is also a subsequent audit where the 20 NRC requested supplemental discussion of the software 21 verification and validation process. Revision 2 of 22 the report was submitted in September, to include an 23 augmented discussion of the V&V.
24 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Pete, if I may, one 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 further questions.
1 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Go ahead.
2 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yeah. Either Kyra or 3
Josh, could you just describe, since were in open 4
session, how you treat sloshing in the pool and what 5
that effect might be in your sample problem?
6 MR. PARKER: Sure. I can take that, Kyra, 7
if you want. So we didnt look at sloshing in the 8
example problem. There would be -- the fluid elements 9
were acoustic fluid elements, so they were looking at 10 pressures.
11 But we would look at sloshing in a similar 12 way as we did previously. You know, that would be a 13 different analysis, and we could calculate a total 14 wave height.
15 In our previous analysis, we saw pretty 16 reasonable wave heights given our -- the arrangement 17 of our building and the overall water depth. And I 18 would expect those to be pretty similar for this 19 approach also.
20 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: So youre saying 21 thats --
22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: So for the public, you 23 have enough -- Im going to use a nautical term --
24 enough freeboard in your pool, so that the wave height 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 from sloshing is well below the top of the pool.
1 MR. PARKER: Thats right. Yep. Thats 2
exactly right.
3 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I didnt say that right, 4
but the lip of the reactor pool.
5 MR. PARKER: Thats exactly right. Yep.
6 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: And I think what 7
youre saying, Josh, is that that evaluation is 8
independent of whether you use the original multi-step 9
process versus this new, improved process, correct?
10 MR. PARKER: Exactly right.
11 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Okay. So, Kyra, did 12 you have another slide?
13 MS. PERKINS: Yes. One more slide, 14 summary slide, then were done.
15 So the presentation summarized the current 16 methodologies and that it provides an accurate and 17 conservative evaluation of the seismic loads and 18 demand, and a proposed methodology that utilizes a 19 one-step analysis that is functionally equivalent and 20 computationally more efficient.
21 And the NRC has reviewed the topical 22 report, and approval is documented by the safety 23 evaluation.
24 So that concludes the presentation. Thank 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 you.
1 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Okay. Thank you.
2 Are there any further comments or 3
questions for NuScale?
4 Okay. Well, with that, then we will next 5
proceed to the staff presentation, which I believe is 6
Dr. Sunwoo Park.
7 DR. PARK: Yes. I put up my slide. I 8
believe, first, our project manager will give a 9
preface. Bill?
10 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Okay.
11 MR. WARD: Yes. I just want to thank the 12 full committee for hearing the slides. I know we 13 presented this a week or so ago. Its a scaled-down 14 version, and nothing new in here, so thank you again.
15 DR. PARK: Okay.
16 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Looks good, Sunwoo.
17 DR. PARK: All right. Okay. With that, 18 I am Sunwoo Park, a member of the staff with the 19 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. And I am glad 20 and it is my privilege to be able to support the 21 committee today.
22 First, I would like to give you a brief 23 introduction. Excuse me. Im sorry, I guess I hit 24 the wrong button. Let me see. I guess I have to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 start over.
1 Can you see my slide?
2 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Yes, we see it fine.
3 DR. PARK: All right. Thank you.
4 Yeah. A brief introduction to what the 5
applicant proposed in the technical report -- topical 6
report and what the staff found.
7 Okay. First of all, the earthquake-8 induced seismic loads are a major contributor to the 9
design loads for nuclear power plant structures, 10 systems, and components, and the effects of soil-11 structure-fluid interaction, should they be considered 12 in establishing the seismic loads.
13 This topical report describes an improved 14 methodology for frequency domain analysis of nuclear 15 power plant SSCs, where the structures -- soil-16 structure-fluid interactive behaviors during an 17 earthquake. Here I would like to emphasize that these 18 interactive behaviors occur due to the dynamic 19 interaction between these different -- the entities 20 during the earthquake.
21 And the methodology provides a tool for a 22 nuclear power plant licensee or applicant to calculate 23 the load demands for seismic design and the 24 qualification of SSCs.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 I am going to pause a couple of seconds 1
between slides for any questions and also give the 2
system time to transmit slides.
3 NRC regulations require that structures, 4
systems, and components important to safety must be 5
designed to withstand the effects of natural 6
phenomena, and we are going to focus on, again, 7
earthquakes effect here.
8 So Appendix S to Part 50 requires that 9
safety functions of SSCs are subjected to earthquake 10 ground motion, must be assured during and -- actually, 11 during and after the earthquake through design, 12 testing, and qualification methods.
13 And also, it specifically requires that 14 evaluation must take into account soil-structure 15 interaction effects. And, of course, we are focusing 16 here on the soil-structure-fluid interaction, and the 17 staff views that soil-structure-fluid interaction is 18 an extension of a soil-structure interaction.
19 So, therefore, soil-structure-fluid 20 interaction effects should be considered in compliance 21 with the regulation.
22 As the guidance, NUREG-0800, SRP Section 23 3.7.2 provides the guidance and acceptance criteria 24 for the types of analysis covered by this topical 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 report.
1 Proposed methodologies -- methodology in 2
the technical report -- topical report consists of 3
three substructures. Okay. The elements of 4
applicants proposed methodology consists of the soil 5
structures representing interacting entities involved 6
in the analysis, which are soil substructure, building 7
substructure, and fluid substructure.
8 And these substructures collectively 9
represent a couple soil-structure-fluid interactive 10 system, analyzed for a prescribed earthquake random 11 motion.
12 And the different substructures 13 representing different site soil, as well as seismic 14 conditions, can be created and stored in the soil 15 library, which is a new, novel concept that the 16 applicant came up with and they utilized in developing 17 this topical report.
18 And then that integrated analysis can be 19 performed for each different soil substructure without 20 impacting the other substructures, which included 21 building substructure and fluid substructure, and also 22 it may include other documented substructures if they 23 are present in the model.
24 We are on Slide 6.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 Staff reviewed different components of the 1
methodology, and I would like to share staff findings 2
for them.
3 The first is staff reviewed the 4
information concerning applicants solution workflow 5
for frequency domain, soil-structure-fluid interaction 6
analysis, and we find them acceptable because, one, 7
the soil-structure interaction parameters, which are 8
contained in the soil library, are basically derived 9
within the framework of the established and accepted 10 SASSI methodology.
11 So they just utilized the available 12 analytical models and also the theoretical -- the 13 bases that are established as part of the assessment 14 methodology. So the concept of a soil library is 15 acceptable based on that.
16 And the building and the fluid 17 substructures and the fluid-structure interaction 18 parameters are analytically modeled using the ANSYS 19 structure and acoustic elements, which have been 20 scrutinized and used by the engineering community for 21 decades. And the staff believes that they can be 22 accepted without any further validation.
23 And the modeling and analytical procedures 24 used in the proposed workflow conform to the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 guidelines of SRP Section 3.7.2, which I believe 1
provides the most relevant basis for staffs findings.
2 And, finally, the adequacy of the solution 3
workflow is further supported by the example problems 4
presented in the topical report.
5 Staff reviewed the information concerning 6
enhanced solution features, which are developed by the 7
applicant and applied to their proposed methodology, 8
and the staff finds them acceptable because all of the 9
mathematical operations involved in developing those 10 enhanced features conform to the established and 11 accepted mathematical principles.
12 And also, equations and the parameters 13 used in the enhanced features, they are all consistent 14 with the established principles of dynamics of 15 structures, and the dynamics of fluids, and they are 16 interactive behaviors as well.
17 And, further, the validity of the enhanced 18 features is demonstrated through example problems 19 provided in the topical report.
20 Staff reviewed example problems and their 21 results and found the following. Results from example 22 problems support the adequacy of the proposed soil 23 library approach described in the soil-structure-fluid 24 interaction problem.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 The staff identified and verified good 1
agreement between results from ANSYS and SASSI, which 2
demonstrate that -- which support the validity of the 3
proposed workflow and the enhanced solution features.
4 Specifically, staff focused on the 5
comparison of results from the traditional SASSI 6
analysis, which is -- which has been the baseline 7
analysis methodology used in the nuclear industry for 8
many decades, and the results from this proposed 9
methodology by NuScale.
10 And staff confirmed that there is good 11 agreement between those two approaches, you know, 12 which again they support the validity of the soil 13 library concept and approach.
14 So staff concludes that the example 15 problems in the topical report provides evidence that 16 the proposed frequency domain, soil-structure-fluid 17 interaction analysis methodology, is adequate.
18 Staff identified the need for limitations 19 and the conditions that need to be placed in the 20 staffs safety evaluation. I believe I -- there was 21 detailed discussion during the subcommittee meeting 22 concerning this matter, and I think its appropriate 23 for the staff to remind the committee of this -- of 24 these limitations on the conditions.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 The NRC staffs approval of this topical 1
report is limited to the proposed analysis methodology 2
applied to problems that satisfy the assumptions set 3
forth by the applicant in Section 3 of this topical 4
report. Specifically, that, one, all material 5
properties are inelastic during the analysis; two, the 6
behavior of boundary conditions and the constraints is 7
linear; and, three, the seismic load is represented by 8
vertically propagating shear and compressible waves.
9 So a licensee or applicant who intends to 10 apply the analysis methodology approved in the safety 11 evaluation to a site-specific problem must consider 12 the applicability of these limitations to their 13 specific conditions. And then NRC staff will verify 14 that each of these conditions has been satisfied in 15 its review of site-specific application, probably in 16 the context of combined license application that 17 represents NuScale design certification.
18 So, in conclusion, based on its review of 19 the topical report, the NRC staff concludes that, 20 subject to the limitations and the conditions 21 addressed in the previous slide, as specified, or as 22 also specified in the Section 6.0 of the safety 23 evaluation, the frequency domain analysis methodology 24 described in this topical report is acceptable to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 perform seismic soil-structure-fluid interaction 1
analysis to establish seismic demands for the seismic 2
qualification of structures, systems, and components, 3
in accordance with the guidance and SRP 3.7.2, so, 4
therefore, in compliance with the applicable 5
regulatory requirements as delineated in Section 2.0 6
of the safety evaluation.
7 I guess that is all I have today.
8 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: So do any members 9
have any further questions or comments for the staff?
10 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Pete, this is Walt.
11 Yes, just one observation, maybe its a question.
12 Sunwoo, the limitations and conditions on 13 this new methodology, those also apply to previous 14 methodologies; isnt that correct? In other words, 15 the more laborious coupling by hand, SASSI and ANSYS?
16 DR. PARK: Yeah, thats correct. Those 17 limitations and assumptions that the applicant 18 included in the topical report are not new in the 19 seismic soil-structure interaction analysis of a 20 nuclear power plant.
21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Thats my point. Those 22 are pretty generic limitations and conditions on 23 almost any seismic structure, soils-structure 24 interaction calculations.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 DR. PARK: Yes. But --
1 MEMBER KIRCHNER: A linear --
2 DR. PARK: -- you have -- yes. Sorry.
3 Yeah. If I may add a comment on that. We all know 4
that the SASSI, I believe most of the cognizant staff 5
or engineers in this area recognize the limitations of 6
established SASSI methodology, which is applicable to 7
frequency domain linear analysis.
8 Now, the applicant expanded -- in a sense 9
expanded that to ANSYS platform, and we all --
10 engineers know that ANSYS is much more versatile and 11 capable software, which can handle not only elastic 12 but also inelastic and non-linear, all different kinds 13 of linear, the situations ANSYS can handle.
14 Now, I believe it was prudent that staff 15 place those limitations and conditions in staffs 16 safety evaluation to provide awareness to potential 17 users of this methodology that this methodology is 18 working for linear problem only, because, again, ANSYS 19 can handle linear problems, but this particular one is 20 based upon the linear -- within the linear, you know, 21 scope.
22 The reason, if I can, you know, share with 23 you a little bit more about the technical background 24 of such limitation, is that this methodology depends 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 on SASSI in developing soil library parameters, which 1
include soil impedance matrices and seismic load 2
vectors. They are developed within SASSI, which is, 3
again, you know, confined to linear elastic analysis.
4 And then those SASSI soil library 5
parameters are transported or exported to ANSYS, and 6
then use the ANSYS features and, you know, but still 7
you need to stay within the linear limitation because 8
of that.
9 And also, the frequency domain analysis is 10 for the -- assess the limitation for linear elastic 11 analysis because of frequency analysis implicitly has 12 shown that it is based upon the concept of 13 superposition, which works only for linear problems.
14 So, for those reasons, staff believes that 15 it was prudent to place those limitations and 16 conditions.
17 Now, on a practical level, staff does not 18 expect that there will be actual impediments for the 19 applicant or licensee to use this method because they 20 can follow the guidance in SRP 3.7.2, and then they 21 can come up with equivalent linear elastic properties.
22 In other words, they linearize -- appropriately 23 linearize the inelastic or non-linear conditions.
24 I hope that helps.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Thank you. Are there 1
any other comments or questions?
2 Okay. So, with that, we should open the 3
bridge line to see if there are any comments from the 4
public. Could we do that, please?
5 (Pause.)
6 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Will somebody from 7
staff confirm that the bridge line is open?
8 MR. MOORE: Thomas, this is Scott. Can 9
you confirm that the bridge line is open, please?
10 MR. DASHIELL: Affirmative, Scott. The 11 bridge line is open.
12 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: So I am asking, is 13 there anybody from the public on the bridge line that 14 would like to make a comment on this topical report 15 methodology?
16 MR. DASHIELL: The public line is open for 17 comment.
18 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: I dont hear any 19 comments. And so, with that, I believe we can close 20 the bridge line and proceed with our deliberations.
21 Matt, how do we want to proceed from here?
22 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: So we have quite a bit 23 of time. I think, if Sandra is ready, we can pull up 24 the letter report. I know it has been screened for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 proprietary information already, and it can be placed 1
in the public. And then we can start with a read-2 through of that.
3 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Okay.
4 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI:
If everyone is 5
agreeable.
6 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Works for me.
7 CHAIRMAN SUNSERI: So we can do that, and 8
just for -- to close out this part of the session, 9
then, this -- the NuScale topical report presentations 10 are complete at this point in time. And we will 11 secure the transcript at this point in time, and well 12 transition into letter-writing as soon as Sandra can 13 get the draft report up.
14 And well resume -- the transcript will 15 resume tomorrow, so we will be done today with that.
16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 17 off the record at 12:18 p.m.)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
LO-1020-71957 NuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd., Suite 200 Corvallis, Oregon 97330 Office 541.360-0500 Fax 541.207.3928 www.nuscalepower.com October 5, 2020 Docket No. 99902078 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738
SUBJECT:
NuScale Power, LLC Submittal of Presentation Materials Entitled ACRS Full Committee Presentation: NuScale Topical Report - Improvements in Frequency Domain Soil-Structure-Fluid Interaction Analysis, PM-0920-71956, Revision 0 The purpose of this submittal is to provide presentation materials to the NRC for use during the upcoming Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) NuScale Full Committee Meeting on October 8, 2020. The materials support NuScales presentation of the improvements in frequency domain soil-structure-fluid interaction analysis.
The enclosure to this letter is the nonproprietary presentation entitled ACRS Full Committee Presentation: NuScale Topical Report - Improvements in Frequency Domain Soil-Structure-Fluid Interaction Analysis, PM-0920-71956, Revision 0.
This letter makes no regulatory commitments and no revisions to any existing regulatory commitments.
If you have any questions, please contact Kyra Perkins at 704-713-5220 or at kperkins@nuscalepower.com.
Sincerely, Zackary W. Rad Director, Regulatory Affairs NuScale Power, LLC Distribution: Michael Snodderly, NRC Christopher Brown, NRC Michael Dudek, NRC Derek Widmayer, NRC GetacheZ Tesfaye, NRC Bruce Bavol, NRC William Ward, NRC (QFORVXUH ³$&56)XOO&RPPLWWHH3UHVHQWDWLRQ 1X6FDOH7RSLFDO5HSRUW,PSURYHPHQWVLQ
)UHTXHQF\\'RPDLQ6RLO6WUXFWXUH)OXLG,QWHUDFWLRQ$QDO\\VLV'30
5HYLVLRQ
LO-1020-71957 NuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd., Suite 200 Corvallis, Oregon 97330 Office 541.360-0500 Fax 541.207.3928 www.nuscalepower.com
Enclosure:
ACRS Full Committee Presentation: NuScale Topical Report - Improvements in Frequency Domain Soil-Structure-Fluid Interaction Analysis, PM-0920-71956, Revision 0
Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 NuScale Nonproprietary ACRS Full Committee Presentation NuScale Topical Report Improvements in Frequency Domain Soil-Structure-Fluid Interaction Analysis October 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 Presenters Josh Parker Supervisor, Civil/Structural Kyra Perkins Licensing Project Manager Matthew Snyder Mechanical Engineer
Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 Agenda
- Purpose
- Applications
- Features of Methodology
- Soil Library Methodology
- Topical Report Demonstration Problems
- Topical Report Review
- Summary
Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 Purpose
- The Frequency Domain Soil-Structure-Fluid Interaction Analysis topical report (Soil Library TR) describes a more efficient process, for use by an applicant or licensee, to perform seismic analyses of complex, interacting structures, soils, fluid systems, and major mechanical components.
- Todays presentation is a higher-level summary of the NuScale topical report. A detailed presentation of this TR was provided in the ACRS Subcommittee meeting of September 22, 2020.
- NuScale presentation materials for the Subcommittee meeting are available by ML-20262H288
Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 Applications
- Analysis of future Design Certification Applications and Standard Design Approval Applications
- Site Specific Combined License (COL) Analyses
- Site specific soil library generation for Combined Licenses
- Evaluation of adequacy of NuScale design as specified in existing COL Items using proposed methodology
Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 Features of the Soil Library Methodology
- Eliminates assumptions at the interfaces between the civil structural and substructure analyses (single model vs. seven different models)
- Single larger model can be used for seismic and nonseismic loading
- Major improvement in runtimes to generate analysis results
- Simpler method
- Facilitates parametric studies for alternate module configurations (any number of module in any location)
- Uses latest finite element technologies and improvements
- Provides additional element formulations that are not in older codes such as SASSI
Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 Soil Library Methodology
- Eliminates two-step analysis process
- Analysis using single structural model of building, backfill, pool water, and individual power modules
- Simplifies data exchange and interfacing analyses
- Analysis time shorter by order of magnitude
- Takes full advantage of structural analysis capabilities of ANSYS
- Overcomes limitations of SASSI structural model size and mesh refinement
Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 Soil Library Methodology
- Proposed methodology in Topical Report
- Use of a SASSI calculated impedance library
- No change to seismic inputs and soil properties.
- Revision to the basic assumptions and methodology for SSI analysis
- Uses SASSI direct method versus modified subtraction method
- The replacement of the SASSI building model with an integrated ANSYS model, and using the ANSYS solver
- Dynamic analysis for SSI is functionally the same as SASSI
Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 Soil Library Methodology
- Dynamic Analysis performed in the frequency domain
- Soil impedance from SASSI + ANSYS structural model + ANSYS equation solver and post-processing
- Validated using example problems
- Demonstrates equivalent results from traditional SASSI versus the library method
- Methodology assumes linear elastic or equivalent linear-elastic analysis
- This applies to both soil and structural properties, constraints, and boundary conditions
- Uses one-step dynamic analysis for SSFI of buildings, NPMs, and pool water
- Saving of overall analysis calendar time
- Seismic analysis methods of secondary SSCs and fuel unchanged
PM-0920-71956 10 Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 Topical Report Demonstration Problems
- Compared ANSYS and SASSI results
- 1. PWR on surface of halfspace
- 2. Embedded Building w/o fluid
- 3. Embedded Building with fluid
- 4. Representative Reactor Building with Soil-Structure-Fluid Interaction
- Conclusions
- Excellent results comparisons
- Transfer functions
- Acceleration time histories and response spectra
- Structural member design forces
- Acoustic (fluid) pressure time histories
- ANSYS + Soil Library solution is functionally equivalent to a SASSI solution
PM-0920-71956 11 Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 Topical Report Review
- NRC Request for Additional Information (RAI) 9676 requested the inclusion of additional demonstration problems representative of more complex SMR structures
- RAI 9676 response provided June 17, 2019
- Topical Report Revision 1 submitted November 19, 2019 incorporated RAI 9676 responses (ML19168A249)
- Subsequent NRC audit requested supplemental discussion of software Verification and Validation process
- Topical Report Revision 2 submitted September 2, 2020 augmented the V&V discussion
PM-0920-71956 12 Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 Summary
- Current methodology provides an accurate and conservative evaluation of seismic loads/demand
- Proposed methodology utilizes a one step analysis that is functionally equivalent and computationally more efficient
- NRC review and approval documented by safety evaluation
PM-0920-71956 13 Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 Acronyms ACRS - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ANSYS - Analysis Simulation software COL - Combined License DCA - Design Certification Application NPM - NuScale Power Module PWR - Pressurized Water Reactor SASSI - Analysis Software for Soil-Structure Interaction finite element analysis SDA - Standard Design Application SMR - Small Modular Reactor SSFI - Soil Structure Fluid Interaction SSI - Soil Structure Interaction TR - Topical Report
PM-0920-71956 14 Copyright 2020 by NuScale Power, LLC.
Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R6 http://www.nuscalepower.com Twitter: @NuScale_Power Portland Office 6650 SW Redwood Lane, Suite 210 Portland, OR 97224 971.371.1592 Corvallis Office 1100 NE Circle Blvd., Suite 200 Corvallis, OR 97330 541.360.0500 Rockville Office 11333 Woodglen Ave., Suite 205 Rockville, MD 20852 301.770.0472 Richland Office 1933 Jadwin Ave., Suite 130 Richland, WA 99354 541.360.0500 Charlotte Office 2815 Coliseum Centre Drive, Suite 230 Charlotte, NC 28217 980.349.4804
Staff Presentation to the ACRS Full Committee NuScale Topical Report, Improvements in Frequency Domain Soil-Structure-Fluid Interaction Analysis (TR-0118-58005)
OCTOBER 8, 2020
2 Staff LeadReviewer:
- SunwooPark*,Ph.D.,ReliabilityandRiskAnalyst, DivisionofRiskAssessment,NRR ProjectManager:
- WilliamWard,P.E.,SeniorProjectManager, DivisionofNewandRenewedLicenses,NRR
- Formerly,StructuralEngineer,DivisionofEngineeringand ExternalHazards,NRR
3 Introduction
- Earthquakeinducedseismicloadsareamajorcontributor tothedesignloadsforNuclearPowerPlant(NPP) structures,systems,andcomponents(SSCs)andtheeffects ofsoilstructurefluidinteractionshouldbeconsideredin establishingtheseismicloads.
- ThisTopicalReport(TR)describesanimproved methodologyforfrequencydomainanalysisofNPPSSCs withcoupledsoilstructurefluidinteractivebehaviors duringanearthquake.
- ThemethodologyprovidesanenhancedtoolforanNPP licenseeorapplicanttocalculatetheloaddemandsfor seismicdesignandqualificationofSSCs.
4 RegulatoryBasis Regulations
- 10CFRPart50,AppendixA,GDC2:SSCsimportanttosafety mustbedesignedtowithstandtheeffectsofnatural phenomenasuchasearthquakes.
- 10CFRPart50,AppendixS:SafetyfunctionsofSSCssubject toearthquakegroundmotionmustbeassuredthrough design,testing,orqualificationmethodsandtheevaluation musttakeintoaccountsoilstructureinteractioneffects.
Guidance
- NUREG0800,SRPSection3.7.2,SeismicSystemAnalysis
5 ProposedMethodology
- Theelementsoftheapplicantsproposedmethodology consistofsubstructuresrepresentinginteractingentities involvedintheanalysis-thesoilsubstructure,building substructure,andfluidsubstructure.
- Thesesubstructurescollectivelyrepresentacoupledsoil structurefluidinteractivesystemanalyzedforaprescribed earthquakegroundmotion.
- Differentsoilsubstructures,representingdifferentsitesoil andseismicconditions,canbecreatedandstoredintheSoil Library,andanintegratedanalysiscanbeperformedfor eachdifferentsoilsubstructurewithoutimpactingtheother substructures.
6 StaffReview:
SolutionWorkflow NRCstaffreviewedtheinformationontheapplicantssolution workflowforfrequencydomainsoilstructurefluidinteraction analysisandfindsthemacceptablebecause:
1.
ThesoilstructureinteractionparameterscontainedintheSoil Libraryarederivedwithintheframeworkoftheestablished SASSImethodology; 2.
Thebuildingandfluidsubstructuresandthefluidstructure interactionparametersareanalyticallymodeledusingthe establishedANSYSstructuralandacousticelements; 3.
Modelingandanalyticalproceduresusedintheproposed workflowconformtotheguidelinesofNUREG0800,SRP Section3.7.2;and 4.
Adequacyofthesolutionworkflowissupportedbythe exampleproblemspresentedintheTR.
7 StaffReview:
EnhancedSolutionFeatures NRCstaffreviewedtheinformationontheapplicants enhancedsolutionfeaturesdevelopedandappliedtothe proposedmethodologyandfindsthemacceptablebecause:
1.
Mathematicaloperationsinvolvedindevelopingthe enhancedfeaturesconformtotheestablished mathematicalprinciples; 2.
Equationsandparametersusedintheenhancedfeatures areconsistentwiththeestablishedprinciplesofdynamics ofstructuresandfluids;and 3.
Thevalidityoftheenhancedfeaturesisdemonstrated throughexampleproblemsprovidedintheTR.
8 StaffReview:
ExampleProblems NRCstaffreviewedtheExampleProblemsandtheirresults providedintheTRandfoundthefollowing:
1.
StaffobservedthatresultsfromExampleProblemssupport theadequacyoftheproposedSoilLibraryapproachto solvingthesoilstructurefluidinteractionproblem.
2.
StaffidentifiedgoodagreementbetweenresultsfromANSYS andSASSI,whichsupportthevalidityoftheproposed workflowandenhancedsolutionfeatures.
3.
StaffconcludesthattheexampleproblemsintheTRprovide anevidencethattheproposedfrequencydomainsoil structurefluidinteractionanalysismethodologyisadequate.
9 LimitationsandConditions NRCstaffsapprovalofthisTRislimitedtotheproposedanalysis methodologyappliedtoproblemsthatsatisfytheassumptions setforthbytheapplicantinSection3ofthisTR,specifically, that:(1)allmaterialpropertiesarelinearelasticduringthe analysis,(2)thebehaviorofboundaryconditionsandconstraints islinear,and(3)theseismicloadisrepresentedbyvertically propagatingshearandcompressionwaves.Alicenseeor applicantwhoappliestheanalysismethodologyapprovedinthe NRCstaffsSafetyEvaluation(SE)toasitespecificproblemmust considertheapplicabilityoftheselimitationstothesitespecific conditions,andtheNRCstaffwillverifythateachofthese conditionshasbeensatisfiedinitsreviewofasitespecific application.
10 Conclusions BasedonitsreviewoftheTR,theNRCstaffconcludes that,subjecttothelimitationsandconditionsasspecified inSection6.0ofstaffsSE,thefrequencydomainanalysis methodologydescribedinthisTRisacceptabletoperform seismicsoilstructurefluidinteractionanalysistoestablish seismicdemandsfortheseismicqualificationof structures,systems,andcomponents,inaccordancewith theguidanceinNUREG0800,SRPSection3.7.2,andthus incompliancewiththeapplicableregulatory requirementsdelineatedinSection2.0ofstaffsSE.
ANSYS An Analysis Software ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers FSI Fluid-Structure Interaction NPP Nuclear Power Plant NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RAI Request for Additional Information SASSI A System for Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction SDE Structural Dynamics Engineering SE Safety Evaluation SMR Small Modular Reactor SRP Standard Review Plan SSC Structure, System, and Component SSI Soil-Structure Interaction SSFI Soil-Structure-Fluid Interaction TR Topical Report Abbreviations 11
12 Questions?
NRC EVALUATION OF GALILEO CODE AND METHODOLOGY TOPICAL REPORT ANP-10323 REVISION 1 OPEN SESSION Mathew Panicker Ph.D., P.E.
Nuclear Methods and Fuel Analysis Branch NRR/DSS/SFNB ACRS Full Committee Meeting October 8, 2020
Review of GALILEO Fuel Rod Thermal-Mechanical Code and Methods 2
Realistic evaluation of the thermal-mechanical performance of fuel rods for Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs).
Applicable to PWR Fuels
UO2, burnable absorbers
Zircaloy-4, M5
Methodology provided for all thermal-mechanical analyses Review focus GALILEO Code
- Assessment of individual models
- Assessment of integral code predictions GALILEO Methodology
- Assessment of proposed uncertainties
- Assessment of statistical methodology
- Assessment of fuel damage limits
Overview and History 3
Revision 0 of ANP-10323 (GALILEO) submitted in October 2013 Acceptance review was performed by NRC staff, March 2014 PNNL staff supported the technical review under contract NRC-HQ-20-14-T-0009 under technical supervision of NRC staff Upon review, over 70 RAIs (including sub-parts) were issued AREVA revised the scope of TR, suspended BWR and MOX fuels, November 2015 Framatome submitted ANP-10323 Revision 1 for PWR fuels June 2018 (Applicable to PWR fuel, UO2 and UO2-Gd2O3 Framatome responded to RAIs in five installments; 12/18, 1/19, 6/19, 9/19,, 5/20, and 7/20 Confirmatory calculations were performed using the NRCs FRAPCON fuel performance code for comparison to GALILEO
Areas Covered in GALILEO 4
GALILEO is Built upon NRC-approved COPERNIC and German TUV approved CARO-3 Thermal model and assessment Fission gas release (FGR) model and its impact on internal pressure (RIP) model Cladding corrosion and hydriding model Cladding hydrogen pickup Fuel densification and swelling model Mechanical modeling and properties; Fuel Mechanical properties Rod void volume model and growth assessment Licensing applications Improved statistical approach 99.9%/95% or better approach for uncertainty calculations Code applicability
Regulatory Evaluation 5
GDC 10: SAFDLs not exceeded during NO and AOOs GDC 35: Provide emergency core cooling following LOCA 10 CFR 50.46 Acceptance criteria for ECCS 10 CFR 50.34 Analysis and evaluation of design and performance of structures, systems, and components SRP 4.2: No damage to fuel during NO and AOOs
Fuel damage not severe to prevent control rod insertion
Number of fuel rod failures not underestimated for PAs
Core coolability is maintained Compliance with SRP 15.02; documentation, code verification and validation, evaluation model, uncertainty analysis included
Conclusions in SE 6
NRC finds GALILEO code and methodology as described in ANP-10323P Revision 1 and modified as discussed in RAI responses to be acceptable Several limitations and conditions were stated regarding applicability range, methodologies that are not approved, and documentation
Acronyms 7
AOO - Anticipated Operational Occurrences BWR - Boiling Water Reactor ECCS - Emergency Core Cooling Systems LOCA - Loss of Coolant Accident MOX - Mixed Oxide NO - Normal Operations PNNL - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory RAI - Request for Additional Information SAFDLs - Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits SRP - Standard Review Plan UO2 - Uranium Dioxide UO2-Gd2O3 - Urania-Gadolinia
1 ACRS Full Committee Meeting Topical Report ANP-10323P GALILEO-October 8, 2020 Chris Allison October 8, 2020 ACRS Full Committee Meeting Topical Report ANP-10323P GALILEO
2 ACRS Full Committee Meeting Topical Report ANP-10323P GALILEO-October 8, 2020
Background
Development of GALILEO initiated to consolidate Framatomes worldwide expertise and experience into a single fuel performance code Builds upon the best practices and techniques from Framatomes current generation of fuel performance codes and methods, including:
- COPERNIC (France and US)
- RODEX4 (US)
- CARO-3E (Germany)
Originally developed to support PWR and BWR applications for UO2, gadolinia, and MOX fuels Revised Topical Report requested NRC approval for
- PWR applications
- UO2 and gadolinia fuel types
- M5 and Zr-4 cladding
3 ACRS Full Committee Meeting Topical Report ANP-10323P GALILEO-October 8, 2020 Overview of Topical Report Describes a methodology for the realistic evaluation of the thermal-mechanical performance of fuel rods for PWR applications The methodology is for demonstrating compliance with many of the fuel rod requirements of Section 4.2 of NUREG-0800 Two major components:
- GALILEO fuel performance code
- Statistical evaluation methodology Topical report describes the following aspects
- Requirements and capabilities
- GALILEO calibration, validation, and range of parameters
- Uncertainty analyses
- Demonstration analyses
4 ACRS Full Committee Meeting Topical Report ANP-10323P GALILEO-October 8, 2020 Advanced Methods Platform GALILEO is a foundational piece in Framatomes platform of advanced technologies and methods, including
- PWR Rod Ejection Accident (REA) analysis - NRC approved methodology
- Supports RG 1.236
- Non-LOCA transient analysis - in NRC review
- LOCA analysis methods - future submittal
- Advanced Fuel Management (AFM) - future submittal(s)
- Increased burnup
- Higher enrichment
- Enhanced Accident Tolerant Fuel (EATF) - future submittal(s)
5 ACRS Full Committee Meeting Topical Report ANP-10323P GALILEO-October 8, 2020 Acronyms ACRS - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards AFM - Advanced Fuel Management BWR - Boiling Water Reactor EATF - Enhanced Accident Tolerant Fuel LOCA - Loss of Coolant Accident MOX - Mixed Oxide NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission PWR - Pressurized Water Reactor REA - Rod Ejection Accident RG - Regulatory Guide
6 ACRS Full Committee Meeting Topical Report ANP-10323P GALILEO-October 8, 2020 CARO-3E, COPERNIC, GALILEO, M5Framatome, M5, and RODEX4 are trademarks or registered trademarks of Framatome or its affiliates, in the USA or other countries.
Trademarks
7 ACRS Full Committee Meeting Topical Report ANP-10323P GALILEO-October 8, 2020 Thank you