ML21103A423

April 15, 2021 Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Public Meeting - Combined Slides

ML21103A423
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/15/2021
From:	Jordan Hoellman NRC/NRR/DANU/UARP
To:
Hoellman J
References
Download: ML21103A423 (69)

Text

Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Public Meeting April 15, 2021 Microsoft Teams Meeting Bridgeline: 301-576-2978 Conference ID: 107 764 254#

1 of 69

Time Agenda Speaker 10:00 - 10:10 am Opening Remarks NRC NRC Advanced Reactor Public Website & Integrated 10:10 - 10:20 am Schedule Walkthrough NRC 10:20 - 10:45 am Annual Fees for Advanced Reactors A. Rossi, OCFO Status of Environmental Topics (SECY-21-0001, ANR 10:45 - 11:15 am GEIS, Categorical Exclusions)

NRR/NMSS SODI, Orano, Site Reuse Deployment Guidance for Advanced 11:15 - 11:45 am Reactors FOA Southern Company, EPRI 11:45 am - 1:00 pm BREAK All RES, Southern 1:00 - 3:00 pm Risk-Informed Seismic Design and Seismic Isolation Company 3:00 - 3:15 pm Concluding Remarks and2 ofFuture 69 Meeting Planning NRC/All

Advanced Reactor Integrated Schedule of Activities https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced.html 3 of 69

Non-LWR Annual Fees Anthony Rossi, Team Leader License Fee Policy Team, OCFO 4 of 69

Annual Fee Alternatives for Non-LWRs including Micro-reactors

• Three alternatives currently under consideration at NRC staff level.

• More alternatives may be developed and/or the three alternatives modified/expanded.

• Based upon anticipated schedule for new facilities, the staff is considering proposing the policy for FY 2023.

• Any fee rule policy changes go through a notice and comment rulemaking.

• The policy and specific fees for non-LWRs, including micro-reactors, would be subject to change based upon implementation experience.

• Planning continued engagement with stakeholders.

5 of 69

NEI Input on NRC Annual Fee Assessment for Non-LWRs - Dated Nov. 23, 2020

• The NRC staff agrees with the following goals from the NEI input:

- Make the SMR variable fee structure technology-inclusive.

- Establish equitable fees for micro-reactors that avoid disproportionate impacts relative to larger power reactors and bundled SMR units.

6 of 69

NEI Input on NRC Annual Fee Assessment for Non-LWRs - Dated Nov. 23, 2020

• Additional considerations relating to the NEI input:

- The NRC staff is currently considering whether to define micro-reactors for fee purposes as power reactors with a thermal power rating of less than or equal to 20 MWt instead of the NEI proposed 100 MWt.

- NEIMA requires the NRC to recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its appropriated budget (less the budget authority for excluded activities) through fees for services (10 CFR Part 170) and annual fees (10 CFR Part 171). The NRC must base fees on its annual appropriated budget.

- NEIMA also requires the schedule of annual fees, to the maximum extent practicable, to be reasonably related to the cost of providing regulatory services. Consistent with NEIMA, the NRC staff is focusing on the cost of providing regulatory services and an equitable allocation of resources, and not licensee annual plant generating 7 of 69 costs or gross revenues.

Annual Fee Alternatives for Non-LWRs including Micro-reactors

• The Small Modular Reactor (SMR) variable annual fee structure is currently limited to light water reactors.

• The staff is considering alternatives that would modify the SMR definition to be technology-inclusive.

• The staff is also considering alternatives that would establish an annual fee specific to micro reactors.

8 of 69

Defining Micro-reactors for Fee Purposes

• There is not a consistent established definition for micro-reactors used by various government agencies and industry. However, DOE and INL note on their websites that micro-reactors would generally be able to produce 1-20 MWt.

• NEIMA requires the schedule of annual fees, to the maximum extent practicable, to be reasonably related to the cost of providing regulatory services.

• Without operational experience, the NRC staff currently anticipates that the cost of providing regulatory services for micro reactors may be comparable to the NRC cost for regulating non-power production and utilization facilities (NPUF) of comparable size.

• The largest operating non-power reactor (in the proposed NPUF Fee Class) is the 20 MWt NIST reactor.

• The staff is considering alternatives where power reactors with a rated power level 20 MWt would be assessed the same annual fee as the proposed NPUF Fee Class.

9 of 69

Annual Fee Alternatives for Non-LWRs including Micro-reactors

• Alternative 1:

- Change the SMR definition to include non-LWRs

- Micro reactors would pay the minimum SMR fee if the bundled units have a total licensed thermal power rating 250 MWt

- The bundled unit concept would apply

• Alternative 2:

- Change the SMR definition to include non-LWRs

- Include a separate minimum fee in the SMR variable fee structure for power reactors 20 MWt

- The bundled unit concept would apply

• Alternative 3:

- Change the SMR definition to include non-LWRs and to exclude power reactors 20 MWt

- Add definition of micro-reactors 20 MWt for the purpose of annual fees

- Include a set fee for power reactors 20 MWt

- The bundled unit concept would 10 ofnot 69 apply to power reactors 20 MWt

Annual Fee Alternative 1 Micro-reactors would pay the minimum SMR fee and the bundled unit concept would apply.

Bundled Unit Thermal Power Rating Minimum Fee

• Variable Fee

• Maximum Fee

• First Bundled Unit - cumulative MWt 0 MWt 250 MWt $162.4K (a) N/A N/A

>250 MWt 2,000 MWt $162.4K (a) TBD (b) N/A

>2,000 MWt 4,500 MWt N/A N/A $4809K (d)

Additional Bundled Units - cumulative MWt (above the first bundled unit of 4,500 MWt) 0 MWt 2,000 MWt N/A TBD (c) N/A

>2,000 MWt 4,500 MWt N/A N/A $4809K (d)

• FY 2021 Proposed Annual Fees used as an Illustration.

a) Minimum Fee: Equals the average of the annual fees for Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning (SFS/RD) and Non-Power Production or Utilization Facilities (NPUFs) b) Variable Fee: Equals [(Maximum Fee-Minimum Fee) / 1750] x the difference between 250 MWt for the first bundled unit and the actual cumulative MWt rating upto 2000 MWt c) Variable Fee: Equals [(Maximum Fee-Minimum Fee) / 2000] x the difference between 4500 MWt for the first bundled unit and the total actual cumulative MWt rating upto 2000 MWt d) Maximum Fee: Equals the annual fee paid by the Operating Power Reactor Fee Class 11 of 69

Annual Fee Alternative 2 Power reactors 20 MWt would pay a lower annual fee and the bundled unit concept would apply.

Bundled Unit Thermal Power Rating Minimum Fee

• Variable Fee

• Maximum Fee

• First Bundled Unit - cumulative MWt 0 MWt 20 MWt $ 78.7 (e) N/A N/A

>20 MWt 250 MWt $162.4K (a) N/A N/A

>250 MWt 2,000 MWt $162.4K (a) TBD (b) N/A

>2,000 MWt 4,500 MWt N/A N/A $4809K (d)

Additional Bundled Units - cumulative MWt (above the first bundled unit of 4,500 MWt) 0 MWt 2,000 MWt N/A TBD (c) N/A

>2,000 MWt 4,500 MWt N/A N/A $4809K (d)

• FY 2021 Proposed Annual Fees used as an Illustration a) Minimum Fee: Equals the average of the annual fees for Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning (SFS/RD) and Non-Power Production or Utilization Facilities (NPUFs) b) Variable Fee: Equals [(Maximum Fee-Minimum Fee) / 1750] x the difference between 250 MWt for the first bundled unit and the actual cumulative MWt rating upto 2000 MWt c) Variable Fee: Equals [(Maximum Fee-Minimum Fee) / 2000] x the difference between 4500 MWt for the first bundled unit and the total actual cumulative MWt rating upto 2000 MWt d) Maximum Fee: Equals the annual fee paid by the Operating Power Reactor Fee Class e) Power Reactor 20 MWt Fee: Equals annual fee12 paid of 69 by NPUF Fee Class

Annual Fee Alternative 3

• Define micro-reactors, for the purpose of annual fees, as power reactors with thermal power ratings of less than or equal to 20 MWt

• Modify the SMR variable fee structure to be technology inclusive and to begin with > 20 MWt 250 MWt

• Under this alternative, the bundled unit concept applied to small modular reactors would not be applied to micro-reactors

• The Staff does not currently anticipate multiple micro-reactors to be co-located on one site

• If the number of micro-reactors per site is large, the Staff is considering whether this alternative would be more fair and equitable.

Thermal Power Rating for Each Unit Fee for Each Unit

• 0 MWt 20 MWt $ 78.7 (a)

• FY 2021 Proposed Annual Fees Used as an Illustration (a) Power reactor 20 MWt Fee: Equals the annual fee paid by the NPUF Fee Class.

13 of 69

Discussion Topics

• Power level for micro-reactors

• Number of micro-reactors at a single site

• Potential radiological consequences for micro-reactors

• Bundling concept

• Other considerations?

14 of 69

Status Update on the Proposed Rulemaking to Update and Streamline 10 CFR Part 51 Kenneth Erwin Branch Chief Environmental Center of Expertise 15 of 69

Key Messages

• Staff delivered SECY-21-0001, "Rulemaking Plan Transforming the NRCs Environmental Review Process" to the Commission on December 31, 2020 (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2021/ML20212L389.html).

• The current 10 CFR Part 51 rule is essentially the same rule that the NRC issued in 1984, in response to the CEQs original NEPA-implementing regulations that were issued in 1978.

• There have been a few, narrowly focused changes to Part 51 since 1984, however, the NRC has not made major changes to Part 51 that concern the process by which the NRC implements its NEPA reviews.

• Staff believes that an update would be beneficial.

16 of 69 2

Key Messages

• The staff can apply best practices and lessons learned from many past environmental reviews to improve these regulations and future NEPA analyses.

• Substantial public meeting feedback from dozens of public and stakeholder meetings over the past several years, including the monthly Advanced Reactor stakeholder public meetings, supports the assertion in the previous bullet.

• Staff awareness and participation in government wide efforts such as: FAST-41, NEIMA, and the Council for Environmental Qualitys July 2020 final rule amending its NEPA implementing regulations, which may be further amended by CEQ due the change of administration, are external drivers to the proposed RM.

• Informed by Advanced Reactor GEIS effort and Part 53 Rulemaking for Advanced Reactors.

17 of 69 3

Example Of Potential Amendments to Part 51

• Increased discretion for the staff to develop Environmental Assessments, rather than the more resource intensive Environmental Impact Statement currently required for most reactor licensing actions.

• Reduce cost, increase transparency and accountability, and reduce redundancy by combining text from multiple sections of the rule that are repetitive (e.g., there are two sets of definitions in Part 51: 10 CFR 51.4 and 51.14).

• Clarification of text that can be interpreted in contradictory ways.

• Revise Tables S-3 and S-4 in Part 51, which were developed for large light water reactors and may not be applicable for new designs, especially those that use different types of fuels than in the past.

18 of 69 4

Anticipated Part 51 Rulemaking Schedule

• Receipt of an SRM from the Commission authorizing staff to perform a rulemaking to update and streamline 10 CFR Part 51, with the rulemaking activity added to the agencys list of funded rules.

• Deliver regulatory basis: 12 months after the Commission issues its Staff Requirements Memorandum.

• Deliver proposed rule to the Commission: 12 months after the completion of the regulatory basis comment period.

• Deliver final rule to the Commission: 12 months after the proposed rule comment period closes.

19 of 69 5

Status on Rulemaking to Amend Categorical Exclusions Nancy Martinez Environmental Center of Expertise 20 of 69

Background

• Categorical exclusions (CATEXs) are a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

• CATEXs are listed in 10 CFR 51.22.

• In SECY-20-0065, staff recommended rulemaking to establish new and amend existing CATEXs.

21 of 69 7

Status of CATEX ANPR

• SRM-SECY-20-0065 directed the staff to initiate rulemaking to amend CATEXs in 10 CFR 51.22.

• The NRC will issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking public comment to inform the development of the proposed rule.

22 of 69 8

Scope of CATEX ANPR

• The ANPR will identify potential modifications the NRC is considering:

o Amending existing CATEXs o Adding new categories

• The ANPR will be published in the Federal Register to obtain stakeholder input.

o Public meeting o 75-day comment period 23 of 69 9

Estimated Rulemaking Schedule

• ANPR Publication: 2021

• Deliver proposed rule to the Commission: 12 months after the ANPR comment period closes.

• Deliver final rule to the Commission: 12 months after the proposed rule comment period closes.

24 of 69 10

Status Update on the Advanced Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Rulemaking Jack Cushing and Laura Willingham Environmental Project Managers Environmental Center of Expertise U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 of 69

Key Messages

• The ANR GEIS uses a technology neutral approach. Any advanced reactor can use the ANR GEIS (LWRs, Non-LWRs, SMRs, fusion reactors) provided the reactor and site meet the plant and site envelope values and assumptions used in the GEIS and there is no significant new information.

• The ANR GEIS evaluates: construction, operation, decommissioning, fuel cycle, transportation of fuel, continued storage, postulated accidents, SAMA, rad health, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, ecology, water use, air quality, socioeconomics, noise, and visual impacts.

• Approximately 80% of the environmental issues are generic (category 1); 20% are site specific (category 2).

• Most environmental issues are decoupled from reactor power level.

26 of 69 12

Status of ANR GEIS

• In September 2020, the Commission directed the staff to conduct rulemaking to codify the results of the ANR GEIS (SRM-SECY 0020, ADAMS Accession No. ML20265A112).

• Scoping Summary Report issued on September 25, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20260H180).

• Staff is finalizing writing sections of the draft ANR GEIS.

• Staff will next develop proposed rule language, regulatory analysis and related rulemaking documents and propose revisions to guidance documents.

27 of 69 13

Scoping Summary Report

• ANR GEIS will use a technology neutral, performance-based plant parameter envelope (PPE) and site parameter envelope (SPE) approach that is inclusive of as many advanced reactor technologies as possible.

• Power level will not be used in most resource areas.

Reactor of any size can use the ANR GEIS provided that it is bounded by the parameter values and assumptions.

Parameter values and assumptions may limit size of reactor depending on site location.

• Reactor applications can reference an individual environmental issue when it meets the parameter values and assumptions for that issue and would evaluate in a site-specific analysis those environmental issues whose parameter values and assumptions it does not meet

• Goal is to develop an effective GEIS to disposition generically as many issues as practicable.

28 of 69 14

Examples of Resources with Category 1 Environmental Issues

• Land use

• Visual

• Air quality

• Greenhouse gases

• Most water resources issues

• Most terrestrial resource issues

• Most aquatic resource issues

• Radiological and non-radiological issues

• Fuel cycle

• Decommissioning

• Socioeconomics 29 of 69 15

Examples of Category 2 Environmental Issues

• Endangered species

• Cultural and historic resources

• Environmental justice

• Chemical and thermal discharges to surface water

• Cumulative impacts

• Climate change

• Purpose and need statement

• Need for power or project

• Alternative sites

• Alternative energy sources 30 of 69 16

Rulemaking Schedule

• November 2021 - Proposed rule submitted to Commission

• May 2022 - Proposed rule publication for 60-day comment period (estimated)

• May 2023 - Final rule submitted to Commission (estimated)

• January 2024 - Final rule publication (estimated) 31 of 69 17

Questions?

32 of 69 18

FOA 1817 Generic Design Support Activities for Advanced Reactors:

Site Reuse Deployment Guidance Project DOE Award No. DE-NE0008934 Presentation To NRC Stakeholders April 15, 2021 33 of 69

Agenda

• Project Purpose

• Project Overview

• Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Site

• Period of Performance

• Project Team

• Public Outreach

• Key Deliverables

• Early Site Permit (ESP)

• Project Status

• Value Proposition

• Additional Information Contacts Generic Design Support Activities 34 of 69 for Advanced Reactors:

Site Reuse Deployment Guidance FOA Project April 15, 2021 Page 2

Project Purpose Evaluate and document the challenges and benefits of reuse of an existing nuclear facility undergoing decommissioning for siting and construction of an advanced reactor (AR):

• using the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant as a case study

• in the context of developing guidance for an Early Site Permit

• leveraging lessons-learned and products from the initial U.S. public-private efforts on new plant licensing

• providing lessons-learned for D&D technologies in reuse of existing DOE facilities Project does not provide means to circumvent formal decision processes for determining use of Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Site (PGDS), but uses PGDS as example in newly revised advanced reactor permitting and licensing documentation Generic Design Support Activities 35 of 69 for Advanced Reactors:

Site Reuse Deployment Guidance FOA Project April 15, 2021 Page 3

Project Overview

• Evaluate the potential for and value of leveraging legacy nuclear facilities for siting and construction of a new nuclear plant in terms of:

- Existing characterization data and licenses/permits

- Existing structures, infrastructure, and materials

- Planned or ongoing decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) activities

• Develop an Early Site Permit (ESP) application template for guidance with advanced reactors

- Not a complete ESP application

- Engage with the NRC and industry to ensure applicable for advanced reactors

• Evaluate the reuse of the Portsmouth Site for future deployment of advanced reactors

- Develop a Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE) for use at the DOE Portsmouth Site for advanced reactors (per NEI 10-01)

• Update EPRI Siting Guide with a focus on advanced reactors and site reuse

• Quantify potential savings to the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) via reuse of the Portsmouth Site Generic Design Support Activities 36 of 69 for Advanced Reactors:

Site Reuse Deployment Guidance FOA Project April 15, 2021 Page 4

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Site

• 3700 acre reservation near Piketon, OH

- 1200 acre centrally developed area

- 750 acre controlled access area

• Nuclear facility licensing includes:

- Former NRC Certificate of Operation for the gaseous diffusion plant

- Two NRC licenses for centrifuge facilities

• Existing site infrastructure includes:

- Existing wells / water treatment / distribution systems

- Existing sewage treatment facility

- Existing fire station / emergency response

- Dry air plant / nitrogen plant

- Power to the site

- Rail access / spur / on-site track

- Administration/office buildings Generic Design Support Activities 37 of 69 for Advanced Reactors:

Site Reuse Deployment Guidance FOA Project April 15, 2021 Page 5

Period of Performance 2021 2022

• Period of Performance is December 30, 2020 to December 29, 2022 Generic Design Support Activities 38 of 69 for Advanced Reactors:

Site Reuse Deployment Guidance FOA Project April 15, 2021 Page 6

Project Team Generic Design Support Activities 39 of 69 for Advanced Reactors:

Site Reuse Deployment Guidance FOA Project April 15, 2021 Page 7

Public Outreach

• Due to COVID-19 restrictions, virtual meetings will occur throughout most of 2021 instead of face-to-face meetings; will re-access as restrictions ease but virtual outreach seems to increase participation

• Meetings

- Quarterly Project Reviews with DOE LE-5 Project Team

- Quarterly EM/NE DOE stakeholder progress meetings

- Quarterly NRC stakeholder progress meetings

- Biannual meetings with Advanced Reactor Community stakeholders via NEI Advanced Reactor Forum

- Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Site Open Visits by Advanced Reactor Stakeholders & Developers

- Periodic drop-in meetings with NRC point of contact

• Other meetings as parties identify interest and/or need

- Routine update meetings with Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Site management

- SODI Board of Directors

- Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Site Specific Advisory Board

- Fluor-BWXT Portsmouth Generic Design Support Activities 40 of 69 for Advanced Reactors:

Site Reuse Deployment Guidance FOA Project April 15, 2021 Page 8

Key Deliverables

• Development of PPE based on review of NEI 10-01

• Infrastructure utilization assessment paper

• D&D for potential advanced reactor placement paper

• ESP application template for site reuse

• Revisions to the EPRI Siting Guide

• Final project report

• Above using Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Site as proxy example Generic Design Support Activities 41 of 69 for Advanced Reactors:

Site Reuse Deployment Guidance FOA Project April 15, 2021 Page 9

Early Site Permit (ESP)

Role of the ESP in the Part 52 Process

• Approval by the U.S. NRC of one or more sites for a nuclear power facility that is:

- independent of an application for a construction permit or combined license

- valid for 10 to 20 years from the date of issuance

- renewable for an additional 10 to 20 years

• Six ESPs issued to date, including the TVA Clinch River Nuclear Site (2019) and the PSEG Site (2015)

• Applicable to Part 50 or Part 52 licensing Source: USNRC, 2006 Generic Design Support Activities 42 of 69 for Advanced Reactors:

Site Reuse Deployment Guidance FOA Project April 15, 2021 Page 10

Project Status

• Recipient Agreement acceptance completed

• Subrecipient agreement generation & acceptance completed

• Project Kickoff Meetings completed

• Project Startup activities completed

• Subcontract agreement generation completed & acceptance in process

• Collection of stakeholder contacts

• Team is planning 3rd and 4th quarter outreach/stakeholder meetings

- Five outreach/stakeholder meetings already occurred or planned in April (virtual)

• PGDS information collection

• Meeting with PGDS SMEs for site background information

• Project Team Face-to-Face Work Sessions occurred early April (virtual)

• Start of deliverable pathways:

- Assessment of PGDS site licenses, characterization data & Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

- PGDS infrastructure reutilization assessment

- Review of PGDS D&D plans , strategy and Record of Decision Generic Design Support Activities 43 of 69 for Advanced Reactors:

Site Reuse Deployment Guidance FOA Project April 15, 2021 Page 11

Value Proposition

• For DOE-EM: Options for site infrastructure reuse could reduce cost and schedule for decommissioning of legacy DOE nuclear facilities

• For DOE-NE: All activities support efforts involved in identifying, characterizing, and licensing sites for near-term deployment of advanced reactor demonstrations and first-commercial units

• For NRC: Regulatory engagement supports NRC development and application of modern licensing framework for advanced reactors

• For Advanced Reactor Community: Review and updating of foundational work from DOEs NP 2010, industrys ALWR Program, NRCs Part 52 rollout, NGNP siting studies, etc.

Generic Design Support Activities 44 of 69 for Advanced Reactors:

Site Reuse Deployment Guidance FOA Project April 15, 2021 Page 12

Thank You !

For additional information contact

- Kevin Shoemaker, Project Director Phone - (614) 327-3391 Email - sodilaw@outlook.com

- Brandon Waites, Principal Investigator for Characterization and Permitting/Licensing Phone - (205) 992-7024 Email - bwwaites@southernco.com

- Mark A. Denton, Principle Investigator for D&D and Project Manager Phone - (704) 805-2994 Email - mark.denton@orano.group Generic Design Support Activities 45 of 69 for Advanced Reactors:

Site Reuse Deployment Guidance FOA Project April 15, 2021 Page 13

Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Public Meeting Break Meeting will resume at 1pm EST Microsoft Teams Meeting Bridgeline: 301-576-2978 Conference ID: 107 764 254#

46 of 69

Non-Light Water Reactors Stakeholders Meeting Seismic Engineering Research Updates Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research April 15, 2021 47 of 69 1

Topics

• Update on Activities for Risk-Informed Performance-Based Approach to Seismic Design

• Update on Adopting Seismic Isolation Technologies 48 of 69 2

Team Contributors

• SwRI

• BNL

• RES Staff Nilesh Chokshi Joeseph Braverman Jim Xu Robert Budnitz Richard Morante Jose Pires Thomas Houston MK Ravindra Jon Ake Bruce Ellingwood Biswajit Dasgupta Carl Costantino Ramon Gascot-Lozada John Stamatakos (project manager)

Osvaldo Pensado (project manager) 49 of 69 3

Objectives

• Provide an alternative RIPB seismic design approach for advanced reactors

- Technology inclusive

- Leads to more balanced and uniform design with both safety and cost benefits while using a clearer approach to deciding how safe is safe enough for seismic design

- Allows seismic design to be tailored to the role in achieving safety of each individual SSC

- Design Flexibilities

• Work within LMP framework and consensus codes and standards 50 of 69 4

Activity Update

• Phase 1: Completed

- Developed an RIPB seismic design approach that integrates performance-based design with LMP RIPB framework

- Held a 2-day public workshop September 2-3, 2020 ML20241A150, ML20241A151, ML20241A152

- Updated Interim Phase 1 Report, A proposed alternative risk-informed and performance-based regulatory framework for seismic safety for nuclear power plants. SwRI report ML20106F035

- Completed review of performance-based ASCE standards: ASCE 4-16 and draft ASCE 43-18 (now published as ASCE 43-19) documented in BNL Report Evaluation of ASCE 4-16 and ASCE 43-18 (Draft) for use in the risk-informed performance-based seismic design of nuclear power plant structures, systems, and components. ML21007A179 51 of 69 5

Activity Update (contd)

• Phase 2: On-going

- Identify and propose changes to Part 53 requirements and regulatory guidance pertinent to seismic safety

• A basic principle is that the seismic requirements must be technology inclusive and can be applied in a manner that accounts for the role in achieving safety of the seismic design for each SSC

• Proposed seismic requirements will need to be applicable to a variety of different designs involving diverse fuel types, fuel configurations, power levels, and risk profiles. Therefore, the regulatory requirements will be worded such that they are generic and can be implemented for all advanced reactor designs

• Rationale to support proposed changes will be explained.

• Develop a new Regulatory Guide to provide one approach acceptable to the NRC for using the alternative seismic safety design approach 52 of 69 6

Examples of Proposed Requirements with Technical Rationale 53 of 69 7

Examples of Proposed Requirements with Technical Rationale (contd) 54 of 69 8

Examples of Proposed Requirements with Technical Rationale (contd) 55 of 69 9

Outline of the Proposed Regulatory Guide to Implement RIPB Seismic Design Alternative

• A process-oriented guide with technical details, as necessary.

• Two main focus areas:

1. A generic process acceptable to the NRC to determine different SDC categories and design limit states for SSCs considering their risk significance and other factors

2. Process acceptable to the NRC to complete the final seismic design using this new guidance along with current guidance and available codes and standards.

• Two Appendices:

1. An example to illustrate basic steps and concepts in the process to determine SDC categories and limit states using ASCE 43 standard

2. Staff positions on ASCE 43, 4, and other standards, as necessary, to execute the design 56 of 69 10

Schedules

• Part 53 inputs will follow established rulemaking schedule

• Draft Regulatory guide (RG) will be completed in 2023

• Publish RG in 2024 57 of 69 11

Topics

• Update on Activities for Risk-Informed Performance-Based Approach to Seismic Design

• Update on Adopting Seismic Isolation Technologies 58 of 69 12

Team Contributors

• SwRI

• RES Staff John Stamatakos Jim Xu Kristin Ulmer Jose Pires Charles Kircher Ramon Gascot-Lozada Ben Kosbab (project manager)

Nilesh Chokshi Osvaldo Pensado (project manager) 59 of 69 13

Objectives

• Provide a pathway for applicants to use the seismic isolation (SI) technologies in support of its deployment for advanced reactors

• SI technologies may potentially achieve:

- SI technology deployment could be a desirable option for some standard designs of advanced reactors

- Could provide a better management strategy for seismic risk in certain situations

- Potential savings on capital cost and construction time under certain conditions

- Could lead to a shortened review process

• DOE sponsored Southern project Topical Report: Guidelines for Implementing Seismic Base Isolation in Advanced Nuclear Reactors to Reduce Risk and Overnight Capital Cost 60 of 69 14

Approach

• Develop new regulatory guide (RG) focusing on important SI characteristics:

- Materials

- Design/analysis

- Testing

- Inspection and maintenance

- Aging management

- Risk assessment in LMP framework

• Work with stakeholders to achieve technical alignment and identify an efficient way forward 61 of 69 15

Activity Update

• Research products:

- NUREG/CR-7253 Technical Considerations for Seismic Isolation of Nuclear Facilities, February 2019

- NUREG/CR-7254 Seismic Isolation of Nuclear Power Plants Using Sliding Bearings, May 2019

- NUREG/CR-7255 Seismic Isolation of Nuclear Power Plants Using Elastomeric Bearings, February 2019

• National consensus standards ASCE 4-16 and ASCE 43-19 provide design and analysis provisions for seismic isolation systems 62 of 69 16

Activity Update (contd)

• Using research products and leveraging ASCE 4-16 and ASCE 43-19 provisions to identify key attributes and to develop corresponding performance criteria

• Interact with stakeholders and incorporate insights from NRR review of Southern Topical Report (future activity) 63 of 69 17

Schedules

• Draft Regulatory guide (RG) will be completed in 2023

• Publish RG in 2024 64 of 69 18

NRC Periodic Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Meeting Guidelines for implementing seismic isolation in advanced nuclear reactors to reduce risk and overnight capital cost April 15, 2021 65 of 69

In a nutshell (1)

• Project participants

- Southern Nuclear Development

- Kairos Power

- University at Buffalo

- Idaho National Laboratory

- Technical advisory board

• Inputs

- Prior work products funded by USNRC and DOE

- ASCE Standards

- LMP thinking 66 of 69 2

In a nutshell (2)

• Audience

- Heat source developers

- Commercial customers

- Engineering consultants

- Regulators in the US and abroad

• Key engagements

- USNRC staff and consultants (SWRI team)

• Tasks

- Generic advanced reactor

>> Building and safety-related equipment

>> Analysis and design

• ASCE and ASME standards, LMP

>> Fragility calculations, SPRA

- Sample siting across range of seismic hazard

>> Clinch River, Idaho National Laboratory, Hanford Site, Diablo Canyon

- Specifications for supply and testing of isolators and dampers

- Plans for CGD of isolators and dampers, maintenance, operation

- Prepare a topical report for regulatory review 67 of 69 3

In a nutshell (3)

• Timeline

• Planned outcomes

- Standardized advanced reactors for deployment at scale

- Guidelines to enable licensing seismic isolation for advanced reactors

>> Analysis procedures for isolated reactor buildings

>> Design of isolation systems and substructures

>> Requirements for prototype and production testing

>> Specifications for supply of isolators and dampers

>> Plan for CGD of isolators and dampers

>> Requirements for maintenance

- Move seismic isolation to TRL 6 or 7

- Support on-going Reg. Guide development on seismic isolation

- Positive review of topical report by the USNRC 68 of 69 4

Future Meeting Planning 2021 Upcoming Advanced Reactor Meetings (Tentative)

April 22, 2021 (Part 53 ACRS Subcommittee)

May 5, 2021 (Part 53 ACRS Full Committee)

May 6, 2021 (Part 53 Public Workshop)

May 11, 2021 (TICAP Workshop #1)

May 20, 2021 (Part 53 ACRS Subcommittee & TICAP Workshop #2)

May 27, 2021 (Periodic Stakeholder Meeting & TICAP Workshop #3) 69 of 69