ML23109A096
| ML23109A096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/02/2023 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-2290 | |
| Download: ML23109A096 (1) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Thursday, March 2, 2023 Work Order No.:
NRC-2290 Pages 1-43 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (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 703RD MEETING 4
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5
(ACRS) 6
+ + + + +
7 OPEN SESSION 8
+ + + + +
9 THURSDAY 10 MARCH 2, 2023 11
+ + + + +
12 The Advisory Committee met via video-13 teleconference at 8:30 a.m., Joy L. Rempe, Chairman, 14 presiding.
15 16 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
17 JOY L. REMPE, Chairman 18 WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Vice Chairman 19 DAVID A. PETTI, Member-at-Large 20 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 21 VICKI M. BIER, Member 22 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 23 VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 24 GREGORY H. HALNON, Member 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
2 JOSE A. MARCH-LEUBA, Member 1
MATTHEW W. SUNSERI, Member 2
3 ACRS CONSULTANTS:
4 DENNIS BLEY 5
7 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
8 MATTHEW SNODDERLY 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
3 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
(8:30 a.m.)
2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Good morning. It's 8:30 3
on the East Coast. I hear an echo that is going to 4
disappear now. This meeting will now come to order.
5 This is the first day of the 703rd meeting 6
of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. I am 7
Joy Rempe, the Chairman of the ACRS. Other members in 8
attendance are Ron Ballinger, Vicki Bier, Vesna 9
Dimitrijevic, Greg Halnon, Walt Kirchner, Jose March-10 Leuba, Dave Petti, and Matt Sunseri. We expect to be 11 joined by Member Charles Brown soon.
12 We do have a quorum and today the 13 Committee is meeting in person and virtually. The 14 ACRS was established by the Atomic Energy Act and is 15 governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 16 ACRS Section of the U.S. NRC public website provides 17 information about the history of this Committee and 18 documents such as our charter, bylaws, Federal 19 Register Notices for meetings, letter reports, and 20 transcripts of all full and subcommittee meetings, 21 including all slides presented at these meetings. The 22 Committee provides its advice on safety matters to the 23 Commission through its publicly available letter 24 reports.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
4 The Federal Notice announcing this meeting 1
was published on February 14, 2023. This announcement 2
provided a meeting agenda as well as instructions for 3
interested parties to submit written comments or 4
request opportunities to address the Committee.
5 The Designated Federal Officer for today's 6
meeting is Mr. Mike Snodderly. A communications 7
channel has been opened to allow members of the public 8
to monitor the open portions of the meeting.
9 The ACRS invites members of the public to 10 use the MS Teams link to view slides and other 11 discussion materials during these open sessions. The 12 MS Teams link information was placed in the Federal 13 Register Notice and the agenda on the ACRS public 14 website.
15 We have received no written comments or 16 requests to make oral statements from members of the 17 public regarding today's session. However, the 18 meeting will be periodically opened to accept comments 19 from participants listening to our meetings. Written 20 comments may also be forwarded to Mr. Mike Snodderly.
21 During today's meeting the Committee will 22 consider the following topics: Framatome topical 23 report on increased enrichment for pressurized water 24 reactors, and then we'll be following that with our 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
5 planning and procedures and meetings. Note that 1
portions of the Framatome topical report discussion 2
may be closed, as stated in the agenda.
3 A transcript of the open portions of the 4
meetings is being kept and it is requested that 5
speakers identify themselves and speak with sufficient 6
clarity and volume so they can be readily heard.
7 Additionally, participants should mute themselves when 8
not speaking.
9 Before we start the first topic today I 10 will ask members if they have any opening remarks.
11 Hearing none, I then would like to ask 12 Member March-Leuba to lead us in our first topic for 13 today's meeting. Jose.
14 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Thank you. The topic 15 as you can see on the screen is the increased 16 enrichment for PWRs by Framatome.
17 This is a very important topic and I think 18 everybody has done a good job in carrying it to 19 fruition. It is going to increase the enrichment from 20 the current approved 5 percent to a higher level.
21 Without much ado I am going to allow the 22 Staff, MJ Ross-Lee to make introductory remarks. MJ, 23 you can go ahead.
24 MS. ROSS-LEE: Good morning and thank you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
6 My name is MJ Ross-Lee. I am the Deputy Division 1
Director for the Division of Safety Systems in NRR.
2 You will hear from my staff today as part of the 3
presentation.
4 This topical report is a first of the kind 5
for increasing enrichment beyond 5 weight percent U-6 235 in PWRs. This topical report is applicable only 7
to current burnup limits and does not address any 8
effects of higher burnup.
9 I would like to commend Framatome for 10 doing their part in submitting a high-quality topical 11 report and responding to RAIs in a timely manner which 12 aids in an efficient and effective review.
13 The topical report topics span nearly 14 every aspect of fuel performance and design extending 15 the enrichment limit for over 20 topical reports.
16 With that, I will turn it back over to 17 Staff. Thank you.
18 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Thank you, MJ. Now 19 I would like to give the floor to Framatome. I 20 believe Gayle Elliott is going to give us some 21 introductory remarks and then introduce the 22 presenters. Gayle.
23 MS. ELLIOTT: Good morning. I am Gayle 24 Elliott from Framatome. I am the Director of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
7 Licensing & Reg Affairs here.
1 I would first like to welcome to all who 2
are attending our discussion today on Framatome's 3
topical report on increased enrichment for PWRs, both 4
the ACRS Full Committee, the NRC, and our own folks 5
here at Framatome.
6 This topical report is the result of the 7
efforts of our field organizations, Michelle Guzzardo, 8
Keith Maupin, Jim Hoerner, and Morris Byram, and our 9
Licensing & Reg Affairs organization.
10 I would just like to say that their time 11 and efforts resulted in a quality submittal to the NRC 12 in January of 2021 and NRC's review of the report in 13 approximately two years, so thank you all for your 14 efforts in this.
15 I would also like to recognize the NRC 16 reviewers for their efforts to perform a detailed 17 review of the report and the timely and efficient 18 manner in which they performed their review.
19 This topical report was successfully 20 reviewed in about two years, which I think is 21 certainly reasonable for the manner in which this 22 topical report (audio interference).
23 I would just note Framatome's objective is 24 to give innovation and improved performance methods to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
8 the industry and with our submittal and the NRC's 1
review is as cohesive and efficient as the review on 2
this topical report then we are able to meet that 3
objective, so thank you NRC reviewers for that.
4 As we continue to work towards quality 5
reports for all of their submittals I would like to 6
encourage the NRC to continue to develop your 7
reviewers to be able to perform audits for 8
understanding that result in a draft essay during the 9
audit or the short duration afterwards.
10 I understand that some of our topical 11 reports are more complex than others, but we have 12 found that if there is a large time lapse between 13 audits and discussions with our subject matter experts 14 then context and understanding may not be as distinct.
15 So for this topical report again thank you 16 all, both Framatome and NRC Staff for the quality 17 report that was submitted and the efficient review 18 that was performed at the NRC. That concludes my 19 remarks.
20 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Okay. So now we'll 21 have the presentation by Framatome. It's either 22 Michelle or Morris.
23 MR. BYRAM: Yes.
24 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: We can see your 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
9 slides.
1 MR. BYRAM: Yes. Can everyone hear me?
2 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes, we can.
3 MR. BYRAM: Great. This is Morris Byram.
4 I have the slides up on the screen for everyone. I 5
apologize, I am on the phone only today. I have 6
technical difficulties, probably not enough bandwidth 7
for what I have going on. Do we have the slides up?
8 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: We have the slides 9
up.
10 MR. BYRAM: Okay, great. Okay. This is 11 Morris Byram and I am Product Manager for Framatome 12 for this topical report and Michelle Guzzardo is with 13 me today and she is going to be speaking to the slides 14 after I am finished.
15 Okay, on Slide 2 we are going to talk the 16 agenda, key milestones, advanced codes and methods 17 topical reports review. We are going to talk about 18 the approval requests and applicable fuel designs.
19 Michelle then will start with the major topic 20 evaluations and deliver the summary.
21 First, Slide 3, the key milestones for 22 this topical report pre-submittal meeting was April 23 2020. We submitted the ANP-10353 for review in 24 January of 2021. It was accepted for review in March 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
10 of 2021.
1 The Audit for Understanding was held in 2
September of 2021. RAIs were received September 2021.
3 We submitted the RAI responses in January of 2022, 4
another audit occurred on the ARITA parameters that 5
might be impacted in August of 2022, and we received 6
the draft SE in December 2022.
7 Next slide, please. What you see on this 8
slide before you are the Framatome PWR codes and 9
methods that will be used with the increased 10 enrichment topical report for submittals.
11 Notice, please, that grouped in the boxes 12 here of the different types of analyses, LOCA, non-13 LOCA, neutronics, fuel performance, core TH, N5 14 Framatome cladding, the rod bow and the fuel 15 mechanical and structural topical reports.
16 All of these topical reports are approved 17 except for the ARITA topical report over in the non-18 LOCA box. That is close to being approved and that is 19 part of the discussion that we had in the last audit 20 that we had for this topical report of how they work 21 together and the inputs that are, the parameter of 22 uncertainties that are possible affected.
23 The blue in the boxes indicate the older 24 codes. The green background indicates the newer 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
11 codes. Notice in the LOCA area one of the latest to 1
be approved is GALILEO in LOCA, ANP-10349, PA REV-0.
2 Also, the N5 Framatome cladding was 3
revised, REV-2. If you will notice the arrows and the 4
orange lines between boxes indicates the flow of 5
information between the approved topical reports.
6 Note that not all of the connections are 7
noted here, just the major ones. So are there any 8
questions on this slide?
9 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: If you don't hear 10 anything for five seconds keep going.
11 MR. BYRAM: Okay. The next slide, the 12 approval requests for a list for increased enrichment 13 above 5 percent U-235, there is no change that was 14 requested for the current license burnup limits.
15 It supports fuel designs of GAIA 17x17, 16 HTP 15x15 for the Westinghouse plants, and HTP 14x14 17 and 16x16 for the combustion engineering plants.
18 Now the next slide Michelle is going to 19 start with the evaluations. Michelle.
20 MS. GUZZARDO: Thank you, Morris. As you 21 can see on the first slide here -- We are on Slide 6, 22 Morris.
23 MR. BYRAM: Okay.
24 MS. GUZZARDO: The neutronics discipline 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
12 included mostly for the ARCADIA code package, the 1
ARCADIA code package consists of several things but 2
mostly the APOLLO2 code, which is the cross-section 3
generator, and ARTEMIS, which is the nodal simulator.
4 So to extend the range of the ARCADIA code 5
package additional critical experiments were modeled 6
and comparisons made to the measurement which extended 7
that range of enrichments to greater than 5 weight 8
percent.
9 We also discussed a bit of the impact on 10 the codes and how the codes can handle the chromium 11 doped and chromium-coated cladding materials within 12 the advanced, the ATF arena.
13 Colorsets were performed in the original 14 ARCADIA evaluations. These are 4x1/4 assembly 15 comparisons that tested some of the ARTEMIS features 16 and we added some of these colorsets with fuels 17 greater than 5 weight percent and we combined the 18 results with the existing colorset calculations to 19 show that the ARCADIA uncertainty analyses remain 20 applicable.
21 We also looked at the detector behavior 22 sensitivity and lifetime to show that they remain 23 applicable for greater than 5 weight percent U-235 24 since detectors are an important part of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
13 measurement system in the cores.
1 The neutronic summary says that the 2
ARCADIA code system is acceptable for use of fuel 3
enrichments greater than 5 weight percent U-235.
4 The next discipline we looked at was 5
thermal hydraulics. This includes the critical heat 6
flux correlations, the COBRA-FLX code, and the fuel 7
rod bow penalties.
8 We found that the thermal hydraulic 9
components shown above are applicable to fuels with 10 greater than 5 weight percent U-235 since the 11 correlations and the property used within the codes 12 are dependent of enrichment.
13 The mechanical disciplines contain quite 14 a few different sub-disciplines, if you will, and 15 these include the materials the fuel rod thermal 16 mechanical code, GALILEO, different fuel designs, 17 external loads, statistical hold down, cladding 18 collapse, and fuel rod bow.
19 Each of these disciplines was looked at 20 thoroughly and evaluated. As you can see on this 21 slide the materials and methodologies generally depend 22 on the argument for fast fluence.
23 The fast fluence does decrease as U-235 24 enrichment increases. So for the same burnup limit 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
14 the current end of life fluence and fluxes are 1
bounding with the lower enriched fuel.
2 Though the remaining parameters and 3
methodologies that are not dependent on fast fluence 4
or flux are independent of U-235 enrichment except for 5
the GALILEO code.
6 The GALILEO code has several benchmarks, 7
which included fuel center line melt benchmarks, 8
fission gas release benchmarks, internal pressure, rod 9
volume, things like that, and those benchmarks contain 10 data that bound the enrichment that is being 11 requested.
12 So for the mechanical discipline all 13 methodologies and materials that were evaluated are 14 acceptable for greater than 5 weight percent 15 enrichment.
16 The next methodology that we -- The next 17 discipline we looked at was the non-LOCA category and 18 this included ARITA and AREA. The ARITA methodology 19 incorporates the ARCADIA code package, decay heat 20 models, the COBRA-FLX code, the ARTEMIS, fuel rod 21 model, and GALILEO, as well as the S-RELAP5 code.
22 All of these were shown to be applicable 23 to fuel with greater than 5 weight percent enrichment 24 or they are not dependent on enrichment.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
15 We also evaluated neutronics and thermal 1
key parameters and noted that the generation of these 2
parameters were not affected by enrichment. Basically 3
what I mean by that no code changes were required to 4
evaluate these parameters with greater than 5 weight 5
percent fuel.
6 There was an audit held with the NRC in 7
August of 2022 in which the uncertainties associated 8
with some of these key parameters could be affected by 9
increased enrichment.
10 That discussion led to Limitation and 11 Condition 1, which you have to look at the parameters 12 that have to be justified before their uncertainty 13 treatment can be used in the ARITA process, and I 14 believe the NRC will talk more about that in their 15 presentation.
16 The next methodology in the non-LOCA 17 discipline is AREA, it's rod eject methodology. This 18 methodology includes ARCADIA, GALILEO, COBRA-FLX, and 19 the S-RELAP code, I'm sorry, RELAP5 code.
20 All of these again were shown to be 21 applicable to fuel with greater than 5 weight percent 22 or they are not dependent on enrichment.
23 Similar to ARITA, the neutronics and 24 thermal key parameters were reviewed and generations 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
16 of these parameters were not affected by enrichment.
1 We pointed out that the methodology for 2
AREA was designed to be consistent with the regulatory 3
guidance and is flexible enough to handle any changes 4
that come with that regulatory guidance, regulatory 5
guidance being REG Guide 1.236, and we found that that 6
guidance was applicable for enrichments greater than 7
5 weight percent.
8 The next discipline is LOCA and -- small 9
break LOCA and realistic large break LOCA. Both of 10 these methodologies rely on GALILEO and S-RELAP5.
11 Again, both of these codes were shown to be 12 independent of enrichment or already applicable.
13 For both small break LOCA and realistic 14 large break LOCA the evaluation models were reviewed 15 for important fuel-related phenomena and is shown to 16 remain valid for fuel with greater than 5 weight 17 percent U-235.
18 It was noted that the small break LOCA 19 evaluation model used a specific enrichment within the 20 GALILEO input and that was updated to be more generic 21 for greater than 5 weight percent U-235 with no impact 22 on results. It was also noted that for LOCA the 23 relevant 10 CFR 50.46 limits remain applicable.
24 There are several decay heat models used 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
17 within the methodologies that were discussed. We 1
evaluated these models using TRITON to determine the 2
best estimate effects of decay heat with U-235 3
enrichment and all current decay heat models used 4
within the methodologies remain valid for use with 5
fuels having enrichments greater than 5 weight percent 6
7 So in summary, all the codes and methods 8
discussed in ANP-10353 are acceptable for use with 9
fuel enrichments greater than 5 weight percent U-235.
10 MEMBER HALNON: Michelle, this is Greg 11 Halnon. Could you -- back on-- you don't have to go 12 back to any slides, but statistical hold-down, can you 13 give me a brief description of what that is and how 14 the enrichment is affected by it?
15 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: It's Slide 8.
16 MS. GUZZARDO: Yes.
17 MEMBER HALNON: I'm not familiar with the 18 term.
19 MS. GUZZARDO: Jim is on the line and Jim 20 is our mechanical expert. Jim, do you have -- would 21 you like to say some words on this?
22 MR. HOERNER: Michelle, this is not my 23 discipline, it's pure mechanical. I am thermal 24 mechanical.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
18 MS. GUZZARDO: Okay.
1 MR. HOERNER: Buck, can you help with this 2
one?
3 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Maybe, Brandon, do 4
you know what it is? Can the staff help and give us 5
a line?
6 MEMBER HALNON: I didn't mean to ask a 7
stumping question.
8 MR. BARNER: I can talk to this one. It's 9
the assembly hold-down analysis. It's just the --
10 MEMBER HALNON: Who is talking?
11 MR. BARNER: Oh, sorry. This is Buck 12 Barner.
13 MEMBER HALNON: Very good. I'm sorry. I 14 interrupted you because I wasn't familiar with your 15 voice. Could you try the definition again?
16 MR. BARNER: Yes. This is Buck Barner.
17 The statistical hold-down analysis is the assembly 18 hold-down analysis, so it's independent of enrichment.
19 It's a mechanical analysis for --
20 MEMBER HALNON: Okay. So it's not 21 affected by enrichment?
22 MR. BARNER: Correct.
23 MEMBER HALNON: Okay. That will suffice.
24 I will look it up for more detail later. Thanks.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
19 MR. BARNER: Yes.
1 MS. GUZZARDO: Thank you, Buck.
2 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Just in principle, 3
the weight of the assembly changes by a little bit, 4
you're replacing 238 by 235 --
5 (Simultaneous speaking.)
6 MEMBER HALNON: Well, there is spring 7
tension, I mean compression.
8 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes.
9 MEMBER HALNON: There is mechanical hold 10 downs, there is, you know, expansion of the whole 11 assembly. I can see where it could be affected, but 12 I just didn't understand how that was factored into 13 this decision.
14 MEMBER KIRCHNER: It's the rods. The rods 15 are held by the --
16 (Simultaneous speaking.)
17 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Folks, use your mics.
18 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- and so you wouldn't 19 expect the enrichment to have any impact on that kind 20 of mechanical behavior. As Jose said there is 21 negligible changed in weight and the same flow horses 22 and other structural loads are the same essentially.
23 MEMBER HALNON: Okay. Thanks, Walt.
24 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Okay. I believe we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
20 have reached the end of the presentation. Does 1
Framatome want to make additional comments?
2 Michelle?
3 MS. GUZZARDO: I'm sorry. What was the 4
question?
5 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: I believe you reached 6
the end of your presentation before we asked you the 7
question, correct?
8 MS. GUZZARDO: Yes, sir.
9 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: And do you want to 10 make -- anybody at Framatome want to make additional 11 comments?
12 MS. GUZZARDO: No, I'm good.
13 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Okay. So with that 14 we will transfer the microphone to the staff on this.
15 Switch slides.
16 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Jose, may I ask one 17 clarification question of Framatome?
18 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: You certainly may.
19 MEMBER KIRCHNER: You listed in your slide 20 deck the different field geometries that the methods 21 are applicable for. Is GAIA 17x17 a successor to HTP 22 17x17? I am not sure I know your nomenclature for 23 your fuel bundles. Is it of generic applicability to 24 17x17 bundles?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
21 MS. GUZZARDO: Both the GAIA and the HTP 1
designs are currently in use. I don't know if that 2
answers your question or not.
3 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Well I was curious 4
whether this methodology is also applicable then to an 5
HTP 17x17 fuel configuration.
6 MS. GUZZARDO: We would have to provide 7
additional justification to go there because we are 8
only including the four designs that were listed.
9 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Thank you.
10 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Since I was in the 11 Subcommittee and I know a little more about it, can 12 you explain to us what would be the process that you 13 will use to, for example, license HTP 17x17? The SE 14 allows you to do that, correct?
15 MS. GUZZARDO: Yes.
16 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: And this process, can 17 you explain to us what process you will follow?
18 MS. GUZZARDO: All right. So we have a 19 process that is contained within a different topical 20 report that we would follow to extend the range of 21 applicability to do it a different fuel design.
22 Morris, do you have more to say on that?
23 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: We'll handle it from 24 there during this presentation -- I will leave you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
22 Anymore questions for Framatome?
1 MR. BYRAM: Jose, this is Morris Byram.
2 We can get back with you on that question and answer 3
to that.
4 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: No, I think -- I was 5
giving you kind of a leading question that the SE, the 6
Safety Evaluations report, allows you to extend this 7
to other fuels and there is a procedure to do that.
8 The staff will discuss that. You don't need to follow 9
up.
10 So let's have the staff slides. Brandon, 11 is that you?
12 MR. WISE: Yes, sir.
13 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: State your name.
14 MR. WISE: I am Brandon Wise with the 15 NRC's Nuclear Methods and Fuel Analysis Branch. I 16 will be presenting the staff safety evaluation for 17 Topical Report AMP-10353, Increased Enrichment for 18 PWRs.
19 Next slide, please. I will begin 20 discussing the background of why industry is pursuing 21 increased enrichment as well as some specifics related 22 to Framatome and its topical report.
23 I will also discuss some concurrent 24 topical report reviews as well as the codes used to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
23 justify the increased applicability for enrichment 1
based off of reports.
2 I will then discuss some applicable 3
regulations and guidance and then move into the 4
technical topics associated with increased enrichment.
5 These include neutronics, thermal hydraulics, 6
mechanical, non-LOCA, LOCA, decay heat, and then I 7
will conclude the presentation with a discussion on 8
limitations and conditions and the staff's final 9
safety conclusion.
10 Next slide, please. For the background, 11 industry is pursuing higher burnup and increased fuel 12 enrichment for cycle optimization and more economical 13 core designs.
14 Specifically, Framatome is seeking to 15 expand the range of applicability of enrichment for 16 their codes and methods to a value greater than 5 17 weight percent and this topical report is applicable 18 only to current burnup limits.
19 Next slide, please. This increased 20 enrichment topical report was reviewed concurrently 21 with two other topical reports. The first is the 22 Framatome N5 topical report.
23 The staff determined for the reasons that 24 we'll discuss in the mechanical section that there was 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
24 no significant impact on the review, on the concurrent 1
review of these two topical reports.
2 As for ARITA, the staff did determine some 3
concerns about doing a concurrent review and this 4
resulted in Limitation and Condition Number 1, which 5
we discussed towards the end of the presentation.
6 Next slide, please. The codes Framatome 7
used to justify the increased applicability for the 8
enrichment for their codes and methods include ARCADIA 9
for the neutronics and thermal hydraulics analysis, 10 GALILEO for fuel performance, ARITA for non-LOCA 11 transient analysis and non-rod injection, AREA for rod 12 injection, SCALE for decay heat, which includes TRITON 13 and ORIGEN, and ORFEO-GAIA and ORFEO-NMGRID for 14 critical heat flux.
15 This topical report serves as a supplement 16 to each of these codes and does not impact the current 17 functionality or applications of these codes in 18 operating reactors.
19 Next slide, please. So some of the most 20 important regulations considered in this topical 21 report were 10 CFR 50.46 and 50.68. These are the 22 ECCS acceptance criteria and 50.68 for the limit on 23 increased enrichment. GDC-10 was also considered.
24 Additional regulations can be found in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
25 SRP sections as well as additional guidance. These 1
SRP sections include fuel system design, nuclear 2
design, thermal and hydraulic design, and transient 3
and accident analysis methods review.
4 The final document on this list is not a 5
regulation or a guidance, but is an Oak Ridge report 6
that provided the staff with insight on trends 7
associated with increasing enrichment in PWR fuel.
8 Next slide, please.
9 MEMBER KIRCHNER: You turned it off.
10 Brandon, I don't think this is proprietary. I think 11 it's more from NRC regulations and guidance. Is it 12 62.5, 62,500 megawatt-days per metric ton, is that the 13 current limit that you use?
14 MR. WISE: That was --
15 (Simultaneous speaking.)
16 MEMBER KIRCHNER: In your earlier slide 17 you said there is, you know, within existing burnup 18 limits.
19 MR. WISE: That was not defined anywhere.
20 I am uncertain. Maybe some of my colleagues could 21 chime in.
22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Well, okay.
23 MR. LEHNING: This is John Lehning from 24 the NRC staff. So the burnup limits that are in place 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
26 now they typically arise in connection with topical 1
reports or other approvals like that and they are not 2
typically coming from things like regulations 3
basically, yes.
4 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes. Well you didn't 5
list your Reg Guide on rod injection, which probably 6
is the one that right now --
7 MR. WISE: That --
8 MEMBER KIRCHNER: What would be necessary 9
for the NRC to raise the limits or would this be done 10 on an applicant-by-applicant basis? Is there 11 anything, so to speak, in regulation that would 12 prevent any of the vendors from going beyond your 13 nominal limits, I will call them that?
14 If there isn't a fast limit, I think it's 15 62.5 megawatt-days, 62,500 megawatt-days per a metric 16 ton, whatever that is, 85 days, from the Reg Guide --
17 reactive answers an accident.
18 MEMBER BALLINGER: I think we're going to 19 have a, we've got another report that we're reviewing 20 on the burnup issue.
21 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: From Framatome, it's 22 coming --
23 MEMBER BALLINGER: Sometime this summer.
24 I forget when we're scheduled --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
27 (Simultaneous speaking.)
1 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Later in the summer 2
because it depends more heavily on the ARITA 3
methodology than this one.
4 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes.
5 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: And so they need to 6
have ARITA approved first, which is happening I 7
believe in June, I think thereabouts.
8 MEMBER KIRCHNER: But I guess what I am 9
asking the staff is is there a de facto limit right 10 now, what are you looking for from applicants to go 11 on.
12 Obviously they are increasing enrichment, 13 they've got an existing design, so they're not 14 changing the core designs per se, they are looking at 15 burnup, obviously, because that's where the economics 16 come in.
17 So if you would just address that as to 18 what the staff would be looking for for --
19 MR. WISE: Right now --
20 MEMBER KIRCHNER: -- for increased burnup.
21 MR. WISE: Right now we are considering 22 everything on a case-specific basis. As more topical 23 reports and applications come in that would lead the 24 NRC to consider more wide-scale and generic changes to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
28 think like guidance and regulation. As you might 1
aware, there is increased enrichment rulemaking going 2
on. I think that sort of addresses your question.
3 As far as applicability of like guidance, 4
like the rod injection, that same guidance, what we 5
are looking for is the applicability of the limits 6
stated in that guidance at higher enrichments done by 7
the, we want justification from the vendors.
8 Right now that Reg Guide does have a limit 9
of 5 percent. However, because there is no changes 10 proposed to the acceptance criteria or the fuel damage 11 criteria or anything like that, we have determined 12 that it would be applicable at increased enrichments.
13 MR. LEHNING: This Is John Lehning from 14 the staff again. Just to add to Brandon's good 15 response to that I would just say that there are, even 16 right now, I would say Framatome's report, I think the 17 Subcommittee knows already that that's coming in the 18 future.
19 There are other vendor reviews for 20 increased enrichment that even underway now. We are 21 not going to talk about those in this meeting. There 22 are proprietary aspects to that.
23 But, you know, obviously, the dispersal of 24 the fuel is one of the key issues. ACRS well 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
29 understands, you know, the importance of that. So 1
that is one of the key things of how to avoid that and 2
how to avoid some of the other considerations where 3
there is maybe not a full amount of information yet.
4 So there is no rule that says it can't, 5
the enrichment can't be increased right now, even 6
before this increased enrichment rulemaking, but it is 7
a little bit more challenging and maybe vendors have 8
to do different things in order to show us with the 9
current knowledge that they are able to address what 10 are the issues and operate safely.
11 So that's probably about what I could say 12 in this session.
13 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Thank you.
14 MR. WISE: Okay. Moving into the 15 neutronics section. Framatome's neutronics code is 16 ARCADIA and the demonstrated applicability at 17 increased enrichment for that code using three 18 justifications.
19 The first was performing a criticality 20 benchmark experiment comparison. The second was a 21 colorset of calculated pin powers for multi-assembly 22 problems.
23 These colorsets varied in enrichment, 24 gadolinium loading, and burnups which span the entire 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
30 range of increased enrichment as well as what would be 1
expected for gadolinium loading and, again, current 2
burnup limits.
3 Framatome determined that there is no 4
significant change in uncertainty at these increased 5
fuel enrichments for these parameters. Framatome also 6
considered an evaluation on the effective increased 7
enrichment for detectors and the detector lifetime and 8
determined that there is no significant impact of 9
detector functionality or lifetime. Next slide, 10 please.
11 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron Ballinger.
12 I am going to ask a dumb question, which I thought was 13 dumb when I asked it the last time but it turns out 14 it's maybe not so dumb.
15 I cannot for the life of me find out where 16 the word "colorset" came from. No matter what, I just 17 could not -- Nobody could tell me.
18 MR. WISE: Unfortunately, I don't have an 19 answer for you either. That was before my time.
20 MEMBER BALLINGER: Okay. Case closed.
21 MEMBER PETTI: That's a physics question.
22 MEMBER BALLINGER: Nobody can answer it.
23 MEMBER PETTI: Well I had someone explain 24 it to me.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
31 MEMBER BALLINGER: Oh, you did?
1 MEMBER PETTI: Yes.
2 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Turn on your mic and 3
identify yourself.
4 MEMBER PETTI: Sorry. No, no, no, I just 5
don't remember. I just remember him explaining -- You 6
know when they do the color maps and the little boxes 7
and like the burnups and they color code them --
8 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes.
9 MEMBER PETTI: -- for ranges and someone 10 coined the term colorset, but it's --
11 MEMBER BALLINGER: What's someone's last 12 name?
13 MEMBER PETTI: Oh, he -- This person 14 didn't tell me who did it, it was just done.
15 MEMBER BALLINGER: Okay. Urban myth.
16 MR. WISE: Next slide, please. When the 17 NRC reviewed these comparison, the critical benchmark 18 experiment comparisons and the colorset evaluations we 19 found that the uncertainties were comparable to those 20 found in previous submittals, specifically the ARCADIA 21 topical report and its supplement, so there was no 22 indication that there is any loss of predictive 23 capability in the range of increased enrichment.
24 Additionally, we found that detector 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
32 functionality and lifetime is not significantly 1
impacted by increased enrichment. This is primarily 2
due to two phenomena which counteract each other.
3 The first is an increased importance of 4
background signals and noise. This is relatively 5
small at the beginning of life of a detector but 6
increases as a detector ages, thus reducing the 7
effective lifetime of the detector.
8 However, this is counteracted by a reduced 9
reaction rate as the result of reduced flux and 10 special hardening, which actually increases the life 11 of the detector.
12 Overall there is no significant impact on 13 detector lifetime and the overall detector 14 functionality remains the same. Therefore, the NRC 15 staff determined that the ARCADIA topical report 16 maintains acceptable predictive capability at 17 increased fuel enrichments.
18 Next
- slide, please.
COBRA-FLX is 19 Framatome's thermal hydraulics code which predicts 20 departure from nucleate boiling using parameters such 21 as pressure, flow, quality, and flux.
22 All these are clearly independent of 23 Uranium-235 enrichment.
- Likewise, the CHF 24 correlations are independent of increased enrichment 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
33 and are acceptable for use in increased enrichments 1
because there is no dependency on enrichment.
2 Therefore, the NRC staff determined that 3
COBRA-FLX, as well as the fuel rod bow methodology and 4
the CHF correlations, ORFEO-NMGRID and ORFEO-GAIA, all 5
maintain acceptable predictive capability at increased 6
fuel enrichments.
7 Next slide, please. For the mechanical 8
evaluation Framatome found that component material 9
performance is mostly independent of enrichment and 10 tends to be affected more by fluence of burnup.
11 Framatome also provided data demonstrating 12 the predictive capability of GALILEO and the range of 13 increased enrichment.
14 Next slide, please. The Framatome 15 mechanical codes and methods may be acceptable for use 16 in increased enrichment if at least one of the 17 following are true and if they are applicable and each 18 of the Framatome topical reports listed in the 19 mechanical section do fall under at least one of these 20 three categories.
21 The first is that the code or method is 22 independent of enrichment, so clearly it is applicable 23 at increased enrichments.
24 The second category is the code or methods 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
34 primarily fluence dependent. This is because the end-1 of-life or end-of-cycle fluence at increased 2
enrichments is bounded by the end-of-life or end-of-3 cycle fluence at lower enrichments.
4 This is primarily due to a production in 5
parasitic absorptions and a reduction in the amount of 6
plutonium in the core as a result of increasing the 7
enrichment.
8 Lastly, specifically for the GALILEO 9
topical report, the data is provided demonstrating 10 acceptable performance in the range of increased 11 enrichment.
12 This data spans the entire range of 13 increased enrichment and there is adequate coverage 14 and there is no adverse trending that would suggest 15 there is a loss of predictive capability of that 16 methodology.
17 Therefore, the NRC staff determined that 18 the methodologies related to component material 19 performance maintain acceptable predictive capability 20 at increased fuel enrichments.
21 Next slide, please. Framatome's non-LOCA 22 codes are ARITA and AREA. They determined that these 23 are acceptable for use at increased fuel enrichments 24 and that their use and functionality at increased 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
35 enrichments are unchanged.
1 The NRC staff determined that as a result 2
of the ongoing review with ARITA that there are some 3
parameters in their uncertainty treatments that could 4
be affected by increased enrichments.
5 These were not adequately addressed in the 6
increased enrichment topical report and the ARITA 7
topical report is applicable only to 5 percent. This 8
led to Limitation and Condition Number 1 which 9
requires Framatome to provide additional justification 10 for the use of ARITA at enrichments greater than 5 11 weight percent.
12 Otherwise, due to no changes in 13 functionality of the AREA code the NRC staff 14 determined that AREA maintains acceptable predictive 15 capability at increased fuel enrichments.
16 However, ARITA is limited right now after 17 it is approved to 5 percent until after Limitation and 18 Condition 1 is addressed.
19 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: And this additional 20 justification is related to uncertainties, correct?
21 MR. WISE: Yes. There are a large number 22 of parameter uncertainty treatments as part of the 23 ARITA topical report. The NRC staff reviewed these 24 parameters and identified several that could be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
36 affected by increased enrichment.
1 These parameters are generic in nature and 2
may be empirical or data driven, which is why the NRC 3
would like to see additional information because there 4
might not be adequate data justifying its 5
applicability at increased enrichments.
6 MEMBER HALNON: Brandon, is the output of 7
both of those codes the same, I mean relatively?
8 MR. WISE: We don't have specific data 9
from ARITA because that topical report is ongoing and, 10 likewise, for AREA because the guidance for AREA or 11 for rod injection is going to be held to the same 12 standard for above and below 5 weight percent.
13 MEMBER HALNON: Okay. So they are 14 different, there are codes for different situations?
15 MR. WISE: Yes.
16 MEMBER HALNON: And the ARITA -- I mean I 17 guess the point was is that AREA maintains acceptable 18 predictive capability, does that compensate for not 19 having ARITA in place or is it ARITA still has to 20 have, have to be in there?
21 MR. WISE: So, first of all, the 22 difference between ARITA and AREA, there is no overlap 23 between them. AREA covers only rod injection and 24 ARITA is all other non-LOCA transients.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
37 MEMBER HALNON: So that is a different --
1 MR. WISE: Yes.
2 MEMBER HALNON: Okay. Thanks.
3 MR. WISE: Otherwise, as for the 4
predictive capability of AREA, there is no changes to 5
the code proposed so it's just small increase in 6
enrichment.
7 MEMBER HALNON: Okay.
8 MR. WISE: So that's --
9 MEMBER HALNON: Negligible --
10 MR. WISE: Right. Right. Next slide, 11 please. As for LOCA, Framatome identified no new 12 phenomena associated with increased enrichment.
13 Likewise, the codes and inputs used in the LOCA 14 analyses have already been demonstrated to be 15 acceptable at increased enrichments. These are the 16 neutronics and thermal hydraulics codes discussed on 17 the previous slides.
18 Additionally, the NRC reviewed the 10 CFR 19 50.46 ECCS acceptance criteria and determined that 20 those limits apply at increased enrichments and that 21 Framatome's codes and methods used in LOCA analyses do 22 maintain acceptable predictive capability at increased 23 fuel enrichments.
24 Therefore, the NRC staff determined that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
38 Framatome's LOCA methodologies are acceptable for use 1
at increased enrichments. There is one exception to 2
this and that is discussed on the next slide for decay 3
heat.
4 Next slide, please. Current decay heat 5
models and standards remain applicable for Framatome 6
methods at increased enrichments.
That was 7
Framatome's evaluation.
8 The NRC staff reviewed Framatome's models 9
and their ability to accurately predict relevant decay 10 heat phenomena at increased enrichments and found that 11 they remain strictly conservative in the range of 12 increased enrichment.
13 What we know about the relationship 14 between decay heat and increased enrichment is that 15 there is a small, about a 2 percent increase in decay 16 heat initially after shutdown for about ten seconds 17 and then the decay heat at higher enrichments and 18 lower enrichments is roughly the same.
19 Overall there is a very insignificant 20 impact of decay heat on evaluations. Therefore, the 21 staff was able to conclude that the current decay heat 22 models as used by Framatome methods maintain 23 acceptable predictive capability at increased fuel 24 enrichments.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
39 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: And even though it's 1
a very small difference everything in the transient 2
for a few seconds the heat transferred to the coolant 3
is controlled mostly by a stored energy, correct?
4 MR. WISE: That's correct.
5 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: So it's insignificant 6
really.
7 MR. WISE: Yes. The impact of decay heat 8
is essentially insignificant. Next slide, please.
9 Now to discuss the limitations and conditions, there 10 are two of them.
11 The first one is related to ARITA and that 12 is the uncertainty treatment of parameters that may be 13 affected by increased enrichment in ANP-10339P, that 14 is ARITA, have not been approved for use at fuel 15 enrichments greater than 5 weight percent Uranium-235.
16 To implement ARITA with increased fuel 17 enrichments the parameters listed below must have the 18 applicability of their uncertainty treatment for other 19 justified for use of fuel enrichments greater than 5 20 weight percent.
21 The list of parameters is not included 22 here because they are proprietary, but they are mostly 23 neutronics related.
24 This limitation and condition occurred 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
40 because of the ongoing review with ARITA and still 1
some potential uncertainties that we had with the 2
review.
3 MEMBER KIRCHNER:
From a
process 4
standpoint, Brandon, what happens when you complete 5
the review of ARITA? Do you go back and amend the SE 6
and strip away this if they successfully address your 7
concerns, then do you strip away this limitation and 8
condition?
9 MR. WISE: So when ARITA is approved --
10 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Or do you have some kind 11 of mechanism or whatever?
12 MR. WISE: Right now ARITA is being 13 reviewed and when it is approved it will up to 5 14 weight percent only. So this limitation and condition 15 will not be addressed in the current ARITA review.
16 We expect a supplement or some other 17 licensing actions to resolve this limitation and 18 condition.
19 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: And then will a 20 future applicant be able to reference that new ARITA 21 report for greater than 5 percent, like to claim that 22 Limitation and Condition Number 1 is satisfied?
23 MR. WISE: Yes.
24 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: So they will not have 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
41 to do an analysis every cycle?
1 MR. WISE: That's correct. And I'll 2
restate the parameters associated with this limitation 3
and condition are generic in nature so it is expected 4
that they will be addressed once and then that's it, 5
unless there are any plant-specific cases that would 6
alter their generic nature.
7 Next slide, please. This is Limitation 8
and Condition Number 2 of this increased enrichment 9
topical report. It is applicable only to the 10 following PWR fuel assembly designs, GAIA 17x17 and 11 HTP 15x15 designs for Westinghouse plants and HTP 12 14x14 and 16x16 designs for combustion engineering 13 plants.
14 The ANP-10353P may be used with other fuel 15 assembly designs with sufficient technical 16 justification for the applicability of this topical 17 report to the assembly design.
18 This was the question that was brought up 19 in the previous presentation and this is the licensing 20 pathway for licensing additional fuel designs at 21 increased fuel enrichments.
22 MEMBER KIRCHNER: So what does sufficient 23 technical justification then require here? I mean you 24 don't start over from scratch, you basically -- How do 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
42 you determine this?
1 MR. WISE: We would look for applicability 2
of the approved codes and methods to that fuel design.
3 I have not specifically reviewed all of the codes and 4
methods related to specific fuel designs.
5 So I will give an example of if a certain 6
code is not applicable to GAIA 17x17 for any reason we 7
would expect that to be addressed in the licensing 8
action.
9 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay. By and large most 10 of the changes are in the spacer grid design and 11 that's thermal hydraulics, not an enrichment issue.
12 MR. WISE: Right.
13 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. WISE: We don't expect any major 15 topics to really come up with licensing additional 16 fuel designs unless there is a very significant change 17 to how fuel is designed.
18 Next slide, please. And for the staff's 19 final conclusion, the NRC staff determined that 20 Framatome codes and methods are acceptable for 21 evaluating fuel with increased enrichment because they 22 maintain acceptable predictive capability in the range 23 of increased enrichment.
24 This is with the exception of ARITA as 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
43 discussed in Limitation and Condition Number 1. That 1
will conclude my presentation. Thank you for 2
listening. Are there any additional questions?
3 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Thank you, Brandon.
4 Any comments or questions from the members, including 5
those out in the cloud?
6 Hearing none, I am going to allow comments 7
by members of the public. If anyone out there -- I 8
don't see any members of the public in the room.
9 Anybody out there in the phone call wants to make a 10 comment please identify yourself and make your 11 comment.
12 CHAIRMAN REMPE: If you have a phone you 13 may need to press star 6 to unmute yourself, it's just 14 an added thing. If you are on a computer just unmute 15 it.
16 (Pause.)
17 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: I don't see any 18 comments. So, Ms. Chairman, you are in charge.
19 CHAIRMAN REMPE: Great. Thank you.
20 Thanks for everyone's presentations. At this point we 21 are going to go off the record for the entire meeting, 22 Jim, and thank you for your support, okay?
23 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 24 went off the record at 9:17 a.m.)
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023 Morris Byram, Michelle Guzzardo ACRS Committee Meeting March 2, 2023 ANP-10353P, Revision 0 Increased Enrichment for PWRs
2 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023 Key Milestones Advanced Codes and Methods Topical Reports Approval Request and Applicable Fuel Designs Major Topic Evaluations Summary Agenda
3 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023 Pre-submittal meeting: April 2020 Submitted ANP-10353 for review: January 2021 Accepted for review: March 2021 Audit for Understanding: September 2021 RAIs received: September 2021 Submitted RAI Responses: January 2022 Audit, ARITA Parameters: August 2022 Draft SE: December 2022 Key Milestones
4 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023 Only major methodology connections shown Framatome PWR Codes and Methods Overview
5 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023 GAIA 17x17 design for Westinghouse plants HTP 15x15 design for Westinghouse plants HTP 14x14 design for Combustion Engineering plants HTP 16x16 design for Combustion Engineering plants Approval Request Increased enrichment above 5 wt% U-235 No change in current licensed burnup limits Supported Fuel Designs
6 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023
- Additional critical experiment comparisons performed to extend range of enrichment
- Impact of Chromia Doped / Chromium-Coated Cladding
- Additional colorsets added using greater than 5 wt% U-235 fuel
- Results combined with existing colorsets
- ARCADIA uncertainty analyses remain applicable
- Detector behavior sensitivity and lifetime remain applicable Neutronics (ARCADIA)
ARCADIA code system is acceptable for use with fuel enrichments greater than 5 wt% U-235
7 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023
- CHF Correlation
- COBRA-FLX
- Fuel Rod Bow Thermal Hydraulic components are applicable to fuel with greater than 5 wt% U-235 since correlations and properties are independent of enrichment Thermal Hydraulics
8 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023
- Materials
- Fuel Rod Thermal-Mechanical (GALILEO)
- Fuel Design
- External Loads
- Statistical Hold Down
- Cladding Collapse
- Fuel Rod Bow Mechanical
9 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023
- Materials and methodologies generally dependent on fast fluence
- Fast fluence decreases as U-235 enrichment increases
- Current EOL fluences are bounding
- Current fluxes are bounding
- Remaining parameters and methodologies are independent of U-235 enrichment, except GALILEO
- GALILEO benchmarks contain data that bounds the enrichment being requested Mechanical - (Continued)
10 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023
- ARITA
- ARCADIA, Decay Heat, COBRA-FLX, ARTEMIS FRM, GALILEO and S-RELAP5 were shown to be applicable to fuel with greater than 5 wt% U-235 or are not dependent on enrichment
- Neutronics and thermal key parameters were reviewed and generation of these parameters are not affected by enrichment
- An audit was held in August 2022 in which the uncertainties associated with some key parameters could be affected by increased enrichment
- Limitations and Conditions (1) lists parameters for which their uncertainty treatment must be further justified for use with at fuel enrichments greater than 5 wt% U-235 Non-LOCA
11 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023
- AREA
- ARCADIA, GALILEO, COBRA-FLX and RELAP5 were shown to be applicable to fuel with greater than 5 wt% U-235 or are not dependent on enrichment
- Neutronics and thermal key parameters were reviewed and generation of these parameters are not affected by enrichment
- Methodology designed to be consistent with regulatory guidance
- Regulatory guidance was found to be applicable for enrichments greater than 5 wt% U-235 Non-LOCA (Continued)
12 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023
- Rely on both GALILEO and S-RELAP5
- EMs were evaluated for important fuel-related phenomena
- SBLOCA EM: enrichment specified in GALILEO input was updated to a generic value greater than 5 wt% U-235
- Relevant 10 CFR 50.46 limits remain applicable LOCA (SBLOCA and RLBLOCA)
13 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023
- TRITON was used to determine best estimate effects of decay heat with U-235 enrichment
- Current decay heat models used in each of the methodologies remain valid for use with fuel having enrichments greater than 5 wt% U-235 Decay Heat
14 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023 Summary Codes and methods discussed in the ANP-10353 are acceptable for use with fuel enrichments greater than 5 wt% U-235
15 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023 AREA - ARCADIA Rod Ejection Accident ARITA - ARTEMIS/RELAP Integrated Transient Analysis CE - Combustion Engineering CHF - Critical Heat Flux CROV - Framatomes Creep Ovalization Analysis Code EM - Evaluation Model FPC - Fuel Performance Code LBLOCA - Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident LB - Large Break Acronyms LOCA - Loss of Coolant Accident NRC - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PWR - Pressurized Water Reactor RLBLOCA - Realistic Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident SB - Small Break SBLOCA - Small Break Loss of Coolant Accident W - Westinghouse
16 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023 ARCADIA, AREA, ARITA, COPERNIC, GAIA, GALILEO, M5Framatome, PROtect, and S-RELAP5 are trademarks or registered trademarks of Framatome or its affiliates, in the USA or other countries.
Trademarks
17 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023 Acknowledgment: This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-NE0008818.
Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
DOE Acknowledgment and Disclaimer
18 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023 Any reproduction, alteration, transmission to any third party or publication in whole or in part of this document and/or its content is prohibited unless Framatome has provided its prior and written consent.
This document and any information it contains shall not be used for any other purpose than the one for which they were provided. Legal action may be taken against any infringer and/or any person breaching the aforementioned obligations ARCADIA, AREA, ARITA, COPERNIC, GAIA, GALILEO, M5Framatome, PROtect, and S-RELAP5 are trademarks or registered trademarks of Framatome or its affiliates, in the USA or other countries.
19 ANP-10353P, Revision 0, Increased Enrichment for PWRs - ACRS Committee Meeting - March 2, 2023
NRC Safety Evaluation of Topical Report ANP-10353 Increased Enrichment for PWRs Brandon Wise Nuclear Methods and Fuel Analysis Branch (NRR/DSS/SFNB)
ACRS Full Committee Meeting March 2, 2023 Open Session
Presentation Outline
Background
- Concurrent TR Reviews
- Codes Used Applicable Regulations and Guidance Neutronics Thermal Hydraulics Mechanical Non-LOCA LOCA Decay Heat Limitations and Conditions Conclusion 2
=
Background===
- Industry pursuing higher burnup and fuel with increased enrichment for cycle optimization.
- Framatome seeks to expand the range of applicability of enrichment for their codes and methods.
- This TR is applicable for current burnup limits.
3
Concurrent TR Reviews BAW-10227P, Revision 2, Evaluation of Advanced Cladding and Structural Material (M5) in PWR Reactor Fuel, December 2019.
ANP-10339P, Revision 0, ARITA - ARTEMIS/RELAP Integrated Transient Analysis Methodology, August 2018.
4
Codes Used ARCADIA (APOLLO2-A, ARTEMIS, COBRA-FLX)
- Approved 2013, Supplement Approved 2018 GALILEO
- Approved 2020 ARITA (ARTEMIS, GALILEO, S-RELAP5)
- Under Review, See L&C 1 SCALE 6.2.3 (TRITON, ORIGEN)
AREA
- Approved 2017 ORFEO-GAIA / ORFEO-NMGRID
- Approved 2018 5
Applicable Regulations and Guidance 10 CFR 50.46, Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Light-Water Nuclear Power Reactors 10 CFR 50.68, Criticality Accident Requirements 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A, General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, General Design Criterion (GDC) 10, Reactor Design Chapter 4.2, Fuel System Design, of the Standard Review Plan (SRP)
Chapter 4.3, Nuclear Design, of the SRP Chapter 4.4, Thermal and Hydraulic Design, of the SRP Chapter 15.0.2, Review of Transient and Accident Analysis Methods, of the SRP ORNL/TM-2020/1833, Isotopic and Fuel Lattice Parameter Trends in Extended Enrichment and Higher Burnup LWR Fuel, Vol I: PWR Fuel 6
Neutronics
- Framatome Evaluation
- Needed to demonstrate applicability of ARCADIA at increased enrichments.
- Performed a critical experiment benchmark comparison
- Provided colorsets of calculated pin powers for multi-assembly problems with varied enrichments, gadolinia loading, and burnups.
- No significant change in uncertainty at increased fuel enrichments
- Evaluated effects of increased enrichment on detector lifetime 7
Neutronics
- NRC Evaluation
- The critical experiment benchmark comparison and colorset evaluation uncertainties are comparable to the uncertainties in the previously accepted ARCADIA TRs.
- Detector functionality and lifetime is not significantly impacted by increased enrichment.
- Conclusion
- The NRC staff determined that ARCADIA maintains acceptable predictive capability at increased fuel enrichments.
8
Thermal Hydraulics
- Framatome Evaluation
- COBRA-FLX predicts DNB using pressure, flow, quality, and heat flux. All of which are independent of U-235 enrichment.
- NRC Evaluation
- CHF correlations that are independent of enrichment are acceptable for use at increased enrichments.
- Conclusion
- The NRC staff determined that COBRA-FLX maintains acceptable predictive capability at increased fuel enrichments.
9
Mechanical
- Framatome Evaluation
- Component and material performance is mostly independent of enrichment and tends to be affected more by fluence and burnup.
- Provided data demonstrating predictive capability of GALILEO in the range of increase enrichment.
10
Mechanical
- NRC Evaluation
- Framatome mechanical codes and methods may be acceptable for use at increased enrichments if the following, if applicable, are true:
- The code or method is independent of enrichment.
- The code or method is primarily fluence-dependent.
- Data is provided demonstrating acceptable performance in the range of increased enrichment.
- Conclusion
- The NRC staff determined that methodologies related to component and material performance maintain acceptable predictive capability at increased fuel enrichments.
11
Non-LOCA
- Framatome Evaluation
- The codes and inputs to ARITA and AREA have been demonstrated to be acceptable at increased enrichments and their use in the ARITA and AREA methodologies are unchanged.
- NRC Evaluation
- The uncertainty treatment of some parameters in the ARITA methodology that may be affected by increased enrichment were not adequately addressed.
- Conclusion
- L&C 1 requires Framatome to provide additional justification to apply increased enrichment to ANP-10339P. The NRC staff determined that AREA maintains acceptable predictive capability at increased fuel enrichments.
12
- Framatome Evaluation
- No new phenomena associated with increased enrichment were identified. The codes and inputs used in LOCA analyses have been demonstrated to be acceptable at increased enrichments.
- NRC Evaluation
- An increase enrichment doesnt challenge the 10 CFR 50.46 ECCS acceptance criteria and the codes used in LOCA analyses maintain acceptable predictive capability at increased fuel enrichments.
- Conclusion
- The NRC staff determined that Framatomes LOCA methodologies are acceptable for use at increased enrichments.
13
Decay Heat
- Framatome Evaluation
- Current decay heat models and standards remain applicable for Framatome methods at increased enrichments.
- NRC Evaluation
- Framatome models accurately predict relevant decay heat phenomena at increased enrichments and remain strictly conservative in the range of increased enrichment.
- Conclusion
- Current decay heat models, as used by Framatome methods, maintain acceptable predictive capability at increased fuel enrichments.
14
Limitation and Condition 1 The uncertainty treatment of parameters that may be affected by increased enrichment in ANP-10339P have not been approved for use at fuel enrichments greater than 5 wt% U-235.
To implement ANP-10339P with increased enrichment, the parameters listed below must have the applicability of their uncertainty treatment further justified for use at fuel enrichments greater than 5 wt% U-235.
15
Limitation and Condition 2 ANP-10353P is applicable only to the following PWR fuel assembly designs: GAIA 17x17 and HTP 15x15 designs for Westinghouse plants, and HTP 14x14 and HTP 16x16 designs for Combustion Engineering plants. ANP-10353P may be used with other fuel assembly designs with sufficient technical justification for the applicability of ANP-10353P to the assembly design.
16
Conclusion The NRC staff determined that Framatome codes and methods are acceptable for evaluating fuel with increased enrichment because they maintain acceptable predictive capability in the range of increased enrichment.
17
Acronyms AOO - Anticipated Operational Occurrence AREA - ARCADIA Rod Ejection Accident ARITA - ARTEMIS/RELAP Integrated Transient Analysis CFR - Code of Federal Regulations CHF - Critical Heat Flux C-M - Calculated - Measured DNB - Departure from Nucleate Boiling ECCS - Emergency Core Cooling System EM - Evaluation Model FFRD - Fuel Fragmentation Relocation and Dispersal GDC - General Design Criterion HTP - High Thermal Performance 18 LOCA - Loss of Coolant Accident LWR - Light Water Reactor MSLB - Main Steam Line Break ORNL - Oak Ridge National Lab PWR - Pressurized Water Reactor RLBLOCA - Realistic Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident SBLOCA - Small Break Loss of Coolant Accident SRP - Standard Review Plan T-H - Thermal-Hydraulics TR - Topical Report