ML24024A019
| ML24024A019 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/24/2024 |
| From: | O'Driscoll J, Joseph Sebrosky NRC/NRR/DANU/UARP |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML24024A019 (69) | |
Text
Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Public Meeting January 24th, 2024 Microsoft Teams Meeting Bridgeline: 301-576-2978 Conference ID: 908 447 446#
2 Time Agenda Topic Presenter(s) 10:00 - 10:15 am Opening Remarks and Advanced Reactor Program Highlights NRC 10:15 - 10:30 am Adv. Rx Integrated Schedule Demonstration NRC 10:30 - 10:35 am Upcoming NRC Workshop on Human Factors Considerations for Remote Operation of Nuclear Facilities NRC 10:35 - 11:05 am Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN)
DOE/INL 11:05 - 11:35 am Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP)
Advanced Reactor Safeguards and Security program DOE/SNL 11:35-11:40 am Closing Remarks NRC 11:40 am Adjourn
Opening Remarks and Advanced Reactor Program Highlights Steve Lynch, Branch Chief, Advanced Reactor Policy Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Advanced Reactor Program Highlights Regulatory Framework Advancement
RG 1.242, Revision 0, Performance-Based Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors, Non-Light-Water Reactors, and Non-Power Production or Utilization Facilities (ML23226A036) (November 13, 2023)
Guidance that supports the new emergency preparedness for SMRs and other new technologies rule
Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactor and Other New Technologies (ML23226A019)(November 16, 2023)
The final rule and associated guidance amended the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, to include a risk-informed approach to emergency preparedness for SMRs and other new technologies 4
Advanced Reactor Program Highlights Regulatory Framework Advancement Cont.
Draft white paper Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Severe Accident Information in a Light-Water Reactor Construction Permit Application (ML23326A185) (November 29, 2023)
Provides guidance on the content of general and technical information for a preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR) to support the staffs review of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and non-PRA evaluations used in support of a construction permit application 5
Advanced Reactor Program Highlights Licensing (Ongoing, Preapplication, and Future)
In 2023, the staff completed reviews of:
11 topical reports
2 licensing actions
29 white papers
In the first calendar quarter of 2024, the staff will continue its reviews of:
28 topical reports
5 licensing actions
12 white papers 6
Advanced Reactor Program Highlights Licensing (Ongoing, Preapplication, and Future) Cont.
Non-Light-Water Reactors
Kairos Hermes 1
On December 12, 2023, the Commission issued Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-23-05 (ML23346A068)
Authorized issuance of the Hermes 1 test reactor construction permit and the associated record of decision.
On December 14, 2023, the staff issued Kairos Power LLC Hermes Test Reactor Construction Permit No. CPTR-6 (ML23338A258) and the associated record of decision (ML23338A257).
7
Advanced Reactor Program Highlights Licensing (Ongoing, Preapplication, and Future) Cont.
Abilene Christian University Research Reactor
On December 21, 2023, the staff issued Abilene Christian University -
Transmittal of Requests for Additional Information (ML23348A196)
Requested information pertaining to the application of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section VIII, and surveillance procedures for materials degradation mechanisms.
Additionally, the staff communicated the intent to issue a revised schedule and level of effort estimate for the remainder of the review once responses are provided.
8
Advanced Reactor Program Highlights Licensing (Ongoing, Preapplication, and Future) Cont.
TerraPower, LLC
TerraPower, LLCU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Feedback Regarding White Paper: Preliminary Consensus Codes and Standards, Revision 0 (EPID No.
L-2023-LRO-0045) (ML23319A338)(November 15, 2023)
Provided feedback to on the use of codes and standards that TerraPower intends to use for the Natrium reactor design.
TerraPower, LLCU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Feedback Regarding White Paper: Natrium Human Factors Engineering Concept of Operations, Revision 0, letter and enclosure (ML23321A086, and ML23321A087 respectively)
(November 17, 2023)
Provided feedback on the ways users interact with the human system interfaces and with one another to monitor, control, and maintain the Natrium plant.
9
Advanced Reactor Program Highlights External Coordination and Communication
In calendar year 2023, the staff held over 140 public meetings on advanced reactor topics such as pre-application and licensing documents, staff-developed guidance, and industry-led guidance initiatives.
10
Advanced Reactor Integrated Schedule Demonstration Ossy Font, Project Manager Advanced Reactor Policy Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRC Workshop on Human Factors Considerations for Remote Operation of Nuclear Facilities January 31 & February 1, 2024 HYBRID MEETING U.S. NRC HQ Auditorium & Microsoft Teams Rockville, MD 12
Workshop Goals
- 1) Understand concepts of operations the nuclear industry is considering that may include elements of remote operation, and
- 2) Gain insights regarding how well-suited NRCs current guidance is for the human factors review of these concepts.
13
DRAFT AGENDA DAY 1 JAN 31, 2024 9:00 AM - 4:30 PM
- Includes open discussion for questions from in-person and virtual participants.
TIME TOPIC SPEAKERS 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM Workshop Opening and Introductions
- Niav Hughes Green & Stephanie Morrow, Workshop Coordinators, NRC
- Scott Morris, Deputy Executive Director for Operations, NRC 10:00 AM - 10:15 AM BREAK 10:15 AM - 11:30 AM Overview of NRC Ongoing Regulatory Development Areas
- David Desaulniers, NRC
- Niav Hughes Green, NRC
- Tom Ulrich, INL
- Theresa Buchanan, NRC 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM LUNCH (On Own) 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM Session 1: Industry Presentations on Remote Operation Concepts & Discussion*
- Nuria Bernal Cortes, Westinghouse eVinci
- Chanson Yang, Radiant Nuclear
- Christopher Poresky, Kairos 2:30 PM - 2:45 PM BREAK 2:45 PM - 4:15 PM Session 2: Industry Presentations on Remote Operations Concepts & Discussion*
- Adam Smith, GE Vernova
- DJ Hanson, Flibe Energy
- NRC/Public 4:30 PM Day 1 Adjourn 14
DRAFT AGENDA DAY 2 FEB 1, 2024 9:00 AM - 4:15 PM
- Includes open discussion for questions from in-person and virtual participants.
- Breakout discussion activity from 1:30-2:45pm for in-person participants. Virtual participants will break until 3:00pm.
TIME TOPIC SPEAKERS 9:00 AM - 9:15 AM Day 2 Opening
- Niav Hughes Green & Stephanie Morrow, Workshop Coordinators, NRC 9:15 AM - 10:15 AM Stakeholder Presentations & Discussion*
- Rick Paese, Sargent and Lundy
- Cristina Corrales, EPRI
- Daniel Odéen & Alexandra Fernandes, Halden Human Technology Organization (HTO) 10:15 AM - 10:30 AM BREAK 10:30AM - 11:00 AM Human Factors Elements of a Licensing Application & Discussion*
- Brian Green, NRC 11:00 AM - 11:30 AM Scalable Human Factors Engineering Reviews and Use of Human Factors Engineering Guidance & Discussion*
- David Desaulniers, NRC 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM LUNCH (On Own) 1:00 PM - 1:30 PM Summary of Range of Concepts of Operations Discussed on Day 1
- Casey Kovesdi, INL 1:30 PM - 2:45 PM Breakout Discussions of Concepts of Operations for Remote Operation**
- All In-Person Participants 2:45 PM - 3:00 PM BREAK 3:00 PM - 3:45 PM Summary of Breakout Discussions & Key Takeaways
- Niav Hughes Green & Stephanie Morrow, Workshop Coordinators, NRC 15
Participating Organizations (as of 1/16/24)
- U.S. NRC
- Flibe Energy, Inc.
- General Electric Vernova
- Radiant Nuclear
- TerraPower
- X-energy
- Kairos
- Boston Atomics
- Nuscale Power, LLC
- NextEra (Florida Power and Light)
- Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
- Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
- Halden Human Technology Organization (HTO)
- Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL)
- Sargent and Lundy 16
More Information
- Public meeting notice:
https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg?do=details&Code=20240019
- Virtual participation available via Microsoft Teams
- In-person participants must pre-register by emailing Niav Hughes Green (Niav.hughes@nrc.gov) with the following information:
- Full Name
- Affiliation (Company/Organization)
- Contact phone number
- Citizenship 17
INL/MIS-18-50189 GAIN Today January 24, 2024 NRC Advanced Reactor Public Meeting Christine King, GAIN Director
GAIN 2.0 GAIN is a nimble instrument of NE to find novel ways to ensure the assets of the DOE and national labs are used and useful in the pursuit of new nuclear tech
- Vouchers, legacy data, state engagement, commercialization research As nuclear designs approach commercial markets, GAINs audience has expanded to include the regions, states, and communities where these technologies will be considered and possible built.
Mission is the same - the audience is expanding implementing small changes can have a significant impact...
- little hinges swing on big doors.
SJ Scott 19
gain.inl.gov 2023 State Level Outreach Policymakers, NGOs, Utilities, Regulators, Industrials, Commissioners Introduce Advanced Nuclear through direct conversation or testimony Help connect states to financial or technical resources across DOE complex Looking at state level regs vouchers 2024 Activities Cost Estimates Cost Database Data Interface IES SA&I GAIN Vendors SBIR End Users:
- DOE
- Utilities
- Capacity Expansion Models
- National Labs
- Industry (e.g.,
chemical, H2 vendors, data centers)
Host ACCERT Survey Apply
- Reports, Spreadsheets, Software, etc.
NRIC? ARDP Consulting data Working Group Universities NEUP Apply External Stakeholders DOE Campaigns/Programs data Review Review Advanced Reactor Cost Project will update latest costs combining two approaches Use existing public nuclear cost data to develop advanced reactor cost ranges.
Work with developers and utilities under NDA to collect cost projections to develop an anonymous advanced reactor cost ranges.
INL/MIS-18-50189 Industry Support Chris Lohse, GAIN Innovation and Technology Manager Holly Powell, GAIN Operations Manager Jon Grams, GAIN Project Researcher
- Vouchers competitively award access to facilities and staff in the DOE national laboratory complex
- NOT a financial award (Voucher value is ~$50K to $500K)
- Voucher recipient is responsible for 20% cost share
- Available to businesses that are majority (>51%) U.S. owned
- One-year Period of Performance
- Limit to one application per cycle
- Four cycles per year
- Standard CRADA DOE-NE Vouchers
29 28 14 14 8
MSR MULTI LWR LIQUID METAL HTGR By Reactor Type 56 31 4
2 DEVELOPER SUPPLIER UTILITY ENERGY USER By Company Type Voucher Award Statistics Both light and non-light water reactors seeking support; Diversity increasing from developers to end users and supply chain
Voucher Award Statistics Continue to see a focus on mod/sim, materials, and fuel.
27 10 10 8
6 5
5 4
3 3
3 3
2 1
1 1
1 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 MODELING AND SIMULATION MATERIAL TESTING IRRADIATION AND TESTING MATERIAL PROPERTIES MANUFACTURING LICENSING EXPERIMENTAL TESTING SAFEGUARDS THERMAL HYDRAULIC TESTING SYSTEM ANALYSIS FUEL CYCLE DESIGN CRITICALITY NUCLEAR DATA NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING HUMAN FACTORS EXPERT CONSULTING By Work Type 29 11 9
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 5
10 15 20 25 30 FUEL MOLTEN SALT HEAT EXCHANGER MODERATOR ENERGY SYSTEM SITE CABLES TRANSIENT ANALYSIS SHIELDING FUEL HANDLING ENERGY STORAGE CORE FLOW CONTAINMENT By Component Type
National Lab and Regional Visits
- Curate a lab visit that highlights the capabilities directly related to advanced nuclear development
- Industry partners tour the lab and get time to meet the researchers and explore potential areas of collaboration
- GAIN visits local companies involved in the development of nuclear technology to understand their perspective and needs.
- Use our social media platforms to share the highlights of the visit
INL/MIS-18-50189 Advanced Reactor Cost Chris Lohse, GAIN Innovation and Technology Manager
Advanced Reactor Costs
- Advanced nuclear costs are not well defined and are needed to support energy planning
-Users left to search for other costs
- GAIN is using existing public nuclear cost data to develop advanced reactor cost ranges and other information to support energy planners (utilities, researchers, others)
- Report published ~March and work to include data in NREL ATB 2024 update - Published summer 2024.
What is NREL ATB
- The NREL Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) provides a consistent set of technology cost and performance data for energy analysis
- Used by: Utilities, Energy planners, Researchers, NGOs, Policy makers, etc.
- Its open source cost/performance data and is usually the first/only place people look for this data Nuclear data >
INL/MIS-18-50189 GAIN Supply Chain Assessment Chris Lohse, GAIN Innovation and Technology Manager
Overview of Supply Chain Assessment
- Builds on the prior DOE supply chain work.
- Assessed the capacity of certain critical nuclear components
- Mapped aggressive projections for nuclear deployments rates to component production targets
- Surveyed 20+ companies on abilities to meet production targets
- Initial findings:
- We have an initial US capacity
- Supply chain can ramp up with caveats 31 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1973747
Some Concerns Noted
- Largest concerns are related to workforce issues:
- Availability
- Experience
- Turnover
- Additional concerns include:
- Uncertainty of demand
- Other non-nuclear commitments
- Production facility limits
- Access to raw material
- Cost of expansions/upgrades 32 0%
50%
100%
Ability to access subcontractors or production partners Shipping and logistics Environmental Limitations or Regulations Testing and quality control Access to financing Workforce training Obtaining Nuclear Certifications Technology Readiness Foreign competition Workforce turnover Costs associated with production facility expansion Access to raw materials Production facility limitations Business risks related to uncertain nuclear industry future Excessive workload from other projects Workforce experience Workforce availability Extremely Challenging Not Challenging
INL/MIS-18-50189 GAIN State Engagement
Advanced Nuclear Feasibility Studies Completed Studies:
Connecticut (H2 focus)
New Hampshire Kentucky Ongoing Studies:
Pennsylvania (Jan 24)
Michigan (Feb 24)
Nebraska (Spring 24)
Tennessee (Nov 24)
Texas (Dec 24)
Colorado (Summer 25)
Indiana (expect to kick off in 2024)
State Level Working Group/Committees Ongoing North Dakota Tennessee - mandated by Governor Texas - mandated by Governor Virginia - mandated by Governor Completed South Dakota did not establish coalition or working group Nebraska drafting legislation to mandate the replacement of a decommissioning coal or natural gas plant with only other baseload technologies (very similar to Wyoming HB200).
National Level Working Groups Peer to Peer Forums NARUC-NASEO Advanced Nuclear State Collaborative enhance collective understanding of the unique regulatory and policy questions surrounding the consideration and deployment of new nuclear generation NCSL NLWG The Working Group helps guide NCSL policies that serve as the basis for NCSLs advocacy before the federal government on behalf of state legislatures 3: NARUC-NASEO & NCSL NLWG 2: NARUC-NASEO 1: NCSL NLWG
INL/MIS-18-50189 GAIN Coal Transition Research Emily Nichols, GAIN Project Coordinator
Active in Coal Transition Discussions o
Primarily rural under-resourced communities affected o
Mixed models of ownership and desires o
Who should move first? Community or State or Utility 38 80% of Evaluated Coal Sites Suitable for SMR 60 18 50 13 16 Retired 32 27 91 62 25 Operating
New Studies on coal transitions in U.S.
39 Pilot Studies with Non-nuclear Utilities Stakeholder guidebook on economic impacts, infrastructure, and licensing Practical guidebook coal-to-nuclear transition Policy recommendations on early site permits Overview of transition issues
Coronado Generating Station - Repurposing Study
- Siting Evaluation (leveraging EPRIs Siting Guide)
- Assess CGS site suitability
- Identify strengths and weaknesses
- Support selection of candidate nuclear technologies
- Nuclear Technology Assessment (leveraging EPRIs Nuclear Technology Assessment Guide)
- Identify candidate nuclear technologies
- Identify potential next steps
- Economic Impact Assessment
- Evaluate economic outcomes and community impacts from:
a) Coal plant retirement b) Introduction of a nuclear power plant
- Publicly Available:
https://gain.inl.gov/SiteAssets/Coal2Nuclear/StJohn_econ.impacts.pdf Coronado Generating Station Owned/Operated by Salt River Project Located in Saint Johns, AZ Primary Objective: Assess the feasibility of transitioning from coal to nuclear; Learnings can be applied to other coal units within commuting distance from CGS 40
The GAIN Team Director - Christine King Deputy Director - Andrew Worrall Operations Manager Holly Powell Innovation & Technology Manager Chris Lohse Senior Advisors
- Hussein Khalil
- Lori Braase Administrator Teresa Krynicki Voucher Principal Investigators Communications Liaison Donna Kemp Spangler National Lab Technical POCs Project Coordinator Emily Nichols Process Modernization Rachel Taow Regulatory Interface Jim Kinsey January 2024 Project Researcher Jon Grams
What is NREL ATB
- Data used to support utility planning and capacity expansion models
- Will go into NREL ReEDS Model and other models that people pull data from
Supply Chain Report Takeaways
- Information is what suppliers believe they could expand to with investment
- Investment amounts were not quantified in this work and companies
- Does not help us understand the cost competitive nature of the suppliers with international competition
- Impact of other expanding markets may impact the projections
- Generic components were utilized for this work and reactor specific designs may limit number of suppliers based on specific capabilities
- Does not try to define the actual reactor mix that may be deployed
- Supply chain has some initial capacity to get started
- Assuming limitations are addressed, targets could be generally met across the various categories
- Expansion is required to meet larger targets and companies will expand operations if they can make the business case and have firm orders for the investment
- Estimated that ~5-year lead time required to expand industrial capacity
- Workforce is one of the biggest issues in the supply chain companies
- Current lead times range from 1 to 2 years based on the type of component Limitations Key Findings 44
Kentucky Nuclear Development Working Group Report submitted to the Governor and Legislative Research Commission on November 20, 2023.
Takeaways:
Establishment of the Kentucky Nuclear Development Authority Natural gas combined-cycle plants have been replacing retiring coal plants, however, there is a large potential market for high-temperature process heat Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant could be a critical component in the new nuclear fuel cycle Financial and environmental (waste storage) barriers were among the chief concerns of the working group However, there are no insurmountable barriers to nuclear energy development in Kentucky Link to report
New Hampshire Committee to Investigate New Nuclear Report submitted to the Governor and legislative leadership on December 1, 2023.
Takeaways:
New nuclear is an essential element in achieving a net-zero economy Cost efficiency and reliability of new nuclear is the primary driver of interest in the state There is considerable interest in the possibility of the reprocessing and recycling of nuclear fuel Deregulated energy markets, such as New Hampshire, will struggle in attracting FOAK reactor deployments Policy Options:
Designation of nuclear as a clean technology in the state Additional state financial incentives for nuclear projects Investment in nuclear supply chain capabilities Link to report
P R E S E N T E D B Y ADVANCED REACTOR SAFEGUARDS & SECURITY Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energys National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525.
Lessons Learned in Physical Protection, MC&A and Cybersecurity B e n C i p i t i S a n d i a N a t i o n a l L a b o r a t o r i e s NRC Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Meeting January 24, 2024 SAND2023-13942PE
ARSS Program Goal and Objectives The ARSS program is addressing near term challenges that advanced reactor vendors face in meeting material control and accounting (MC&A), physical protection system (PPS), and cybersecurity requirements for reactors built in the U.S.
Material Control & Accounting Physical Protection Systems Cybersecurity PBR MC&A Approach MSR MC&A Approach Vendor Engagements International Coordination SMR PPS Design Approach Microreactor PPS Design Approach Vendor Engagements Cyber-Informed Engineering Defensive Cyber Architecture Vendor Engagements Systems Level Systems Level Systems Level Measurement Technologies Process Monitoring Statistical Evaluations Advanced Intrusion Detection Advanced Delay Technologies Advanced Response Tech/Tactics Secure Elements/Tokens Supply Chain Control System Component Testing Technology Level Technology Level Technology Level Interface with Safety 48
Motivation and Outreach Advanced reactor vendors have expressed interest in
- Reduced costs for physical protection systems (up front and operational)
- R&D support for MC&A requirements for pebble bed and liquid fueled reactors.
- Cybersecurity and control system design recommendations.
Were always happy to receive feedback on the R&D, approaches, and how to better use these results to improve the licensing process for vendors.
49
Program Contacts UUR Reports will be posted to the program website:
https://energy.sandia.gov/ars CUI Reports can be shared with vendors and NRC provided certain conditions are met to protect the information.
Ben Cipiti, National Technical Director (SNL) bbcipit@sandia.gov Katya Le Blanc, Deputy National Technical Director (INL) katya.leblanc@inl.gov Dan Warner & Savannah Fitzwater, Federal Program Managers (DOE) daniel.warner@nuclear.energy.gov, savannah.fitzwater@nuclear.energy.gov 50
Physical Protection Systems
- Cost aspect to keep overall plant economics competitive.
- Marketing aspect to show that these reactors are smaller and safer.
- Systems level work has focused on minimum numbers of staffing required for different reactor types and where those minimum numbers may be reduced through exemptions/alternatives.
- Vendor engagements are being used to validate PPS design recommendations 51
Initial Lessons Learned
- Initial work examined the use of off-site response but has since moved away from that approach for several reasons:
- Costs for agreements and training would be the same as on-site responders.
- Response times lead to the need for significant delay (adding cost)
- Questions about reliability
- Initial work was also focused on providing R&D to support potential changes in the Part 73 limited scope rulemaking and Part 53.
- Challenges in those licensing processes have made this less of a focus, but were still examining foundational R&D to support.
- Seeing potential large differences in first-of-a-kind versus nth of a kind.
52
Traditional PIDAS Design versus DPIDS (DMA-enabled PIDS Design 53
Generic Pebble Bed Reactor PPS Model Deliberate Motion Analytics External Intrusion Detection Owner Controlled Area (OCA)
Boundary in Blue Protected Area (PA) Boundary in Red 4 Response Towers 1 Roving Guard with Roof Access OCA entry control point for large vehicle searches PA entry control point for detailed vehicle inspections 6 Vital Areas 54
PBR PPS Attributes 55
PBR Staffing Plan Position 24/7 12 hr. Rotating Shift FTE Security Shift Supervisor 1
4 Field Supervisors (One Response Team Leader) 2 8
Alarm Station Operators (CAS/SAS) 3 12 Armed Responders 6*
24 Armed Security Officers (Personnel, vehicle, and material processing) 3 12 Total 15 60 System Effectiveness Positions (Requiring Exemptions)
- Note that 6 responders is below the regulatory minimum of 10, but force on force adversary modeling found 6 to provide a >95% System Effectiveness for 4-7 adversaries.
56
Generic Microreactor PPS Model Deliberate Motion Analytics External Intrusion Detection Owner Controlled Area Boundary Protected Area Boundary 4 different scenarios analyzed 4 internal responders 3 internal responders 2 internal responders 4 responders in towers One Entry Control Point Two Vital Areas 57
Microreactor System Effectiveness and Staffing Plan Position 24/7 Rotating Shift FTE Security Shift Supervisor 1
4 Response Team Lead 2
8 Alarm Station Operators (CAS/SAS) 3 12 Armed Responders 5
20 Armed Security Officers (Personnel, vehicle, and material processing) 3 12 Total 14 56 58
Generic Sodium Fast Reactor PPS Model 59
Remote Operated Weapons Systems (ROWS) and Response Results
- 5 responders showed to be effective in all scenarios across all adversary ranges
- Responders were able to engage externally and internally (neutralized most adversaries before entry into the building
- ROWS platforms only considered engagement interior to the building (fixed internal ROWS platforms)
- A total of 8 ROWS platforms were required.
- System effectiveness dropped to below 80% in some scenarios.
60
SFR Staffing Plans Position 24/7 12 hr. Rotating Shift FTE Security Shift Supervisor 1
4 Field Supervisor/RTL 2
8 Alarm Station Operators 3
12 Armed Responders 6
24 Armed Security Officers (ECP, Vehicle Search, Escorts) 3 12 Total 15 60 Position 24/7 12 hr. Rotating Shift FTE Security Shift Supervisor 1
4 Field Supervisor/RTL 2
8 Alarm Station Operators 3
12 ROWS Operators 4
16 Armed Security Officers (ECP, Vehicle Search, Escorts) 3 12 Total 13 52 ROWS Response Staffing Plan Onsite Response Staffing Plan 61
MC&A for Pebble Bed Reactors
- Completed a milestone report on the MC&A approach for PBRs.
- Item accounting on fresh and spent fuel canisters.
- Fuel handling system consists of pebble counters, pebble integrity check, and burnup measurements.
- The burnup measurements can inform actinide content in spent fuel canisters.
62
MC&A for Pebble Bed Reactors
- The analysis on the left shows the range of burnup values achieved based on the pass.
- Based on a PBMR-400 model, the largest additional burnup achievable is 16.8 GWD/MT, so if the burnup limit is 100 GWD/MT, pebbles could need to be ejected once greater than 83.2 GWD/MT.
- ARSS is supporting an NDA measurement campaign on spent TRISO fuel and also looking into machine learning algorithms to improve the burnup measurement.
Core Exit Characteristics 22.36 40.57 56.83 71.02 83.37 90.94 Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Pass 4 Pass 5 Pass 6 20 40 60 80 100 120 Burnup [GWd/ tHM]
Mean +/- 1 SD Range within 1.5IQR Median Line Mean Outliers 63
MC&A for Liquid Fueled Molten Salt Reactors
- MSRs are bulk facilities and will very likely need to submit an FNMC plan.
- Item accounting at front end and back end, with diversion monitoring for the reactor loop.
Periodic inventories performed, IDs and SEIDs calculated (follows Part 74 requirements)
Periodic inventories performed, IDs and SEIDs calculated (follows Part 74 requirements)
Monitoring performed in specific locations to detect diversion 64
MC&A for Liquid Fueled Molten Salt Reactors
- Continuing to develop both voltammetry and spectroscopy techniques for measuring actinide content in molten salts.
- Laboratory work is moving toward more actinide species and more complex molten salt solutions.
- Work will transition toward piloting with vendors and gathering lessons learned about deployment, maintenance, and performance.
65
Cybersecurity R&D
- One program goal is to define a Defensive Cyber Security Architecture for each class of advanced reactor.
- The DCSA is used to develop the network design, system components, and flow of information.
- The goal here is not to design the system for the vendors, but rather provide recommendations and develop the technical basis for components that may be used.
66
Cybersecurity R&D
- Advanced Reactor Cyber Analysis and Development Environment (ARCADE)
- Modeling environment that connects physical plant models to control system emulations to support cyber security testing and evaluation
- Development and evaluation of security techniques for control systems
- Identify performance characteristics and requirements for using security techniques (e.g.,
encryption and authentication) in control systems
- Secure Elements - Explore use of smart chips in control system components for supply chain security and embedded encryption and authentication
- Integrity guaranteeing protocols - Evaluate alternatives to encryption to ensure integrity in control systems
- Wireless Cybersecurity
- Develop requirements for secure wireless applications
- Develop testing and evaluation protocols to support use of wireless in new applications 67
Discussion & Conclusions
- Response forces for SMRs and microreactors may be reduced below current regulatory requirements and still reach high system effectiveness. Additional staff reductions may be possible for sites with very limited maintenance and visits.
- We need to understand better the consequences of full core release which could have a significant impact on physical and cybersecurity design.
- The cybersecurity R&D is focusing on design recommendations for vendors and moving increasingly into performance testing in the future.
- We expect to see more integrated 3S work as the program progresses.
68
How Did We Do?
- Click link to NRC public meeting information:
https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg?do=details&Code=20231097
- Then, click link to NRC public feedback form:
69