Text

Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Meeting - December 12, 2024 Updated Slides2
	ML24347A247
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/12/2024
From:	Subbaratnam R; NRC/NRR/DANU/UARP
To:	;
References
	Download: ML24347A247 (1)
	v • d • e

Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Public Meeting December 12, 2024

Time Agenda Speaker 10:00 - 10:15 am Opening Remarks NRC 10:15 - 10:45 am ADVANCE Act Section 207 - Combined License Review Procedures NRC 10:45 - 11:30 am CNSC-NRC Memorandum of Cooperation: Joint Report on Classification of Structures, Systems, and Components NRC 11:30 am - 12:00 pm NEI White Paper Discussion on Selection of a Seismic Scenario for an EPZ Boundary Determination NEI/NRC 12:00 - 1:00 pm LUNCH 1:00 - 3:00 pm ADVANCE Act Section 203 - Nonelectric Uses of Nuclear Technology NRC/DOE 3:00 - 4:00 pm Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulatory Approaches NRC 2

Time Agenda Speaker 4:00 - 4:15 pm Public Comment Period Public 4:15 pm Closing Remarks/Adjourn NRC

Opening Remarks

Advanced Reactor Program Highlights

Recent Accomplishments:

Issued construction permits for the Hermes 2 test reactor facility to Kairos Power LLC on November 21, 2024

Updates:

Comment period for Part 53 proposed rule closes on 2/28/25. Publication of the final rule is expected by 4/30/2027, ahead of December Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) deadline.

Policy paper on nth-of-a-kind licensing expected to be released in early 2025

White paper of draft regulatory guide endorsing NEI 22-05, Technology Inclusive Risk Informed Change Evaluation (TIRICE) to be issued this month. Public meeting to follow in early 2025

White paper of policy paper on alternatives to Part 53 Framework B to be issued this month. Public meeting to follow in January.

Upcoming Public Meetings:

Discussion with NEI on Operator Cold License Training December 19 from 10 a.m. - 12 p.m.

Part 53 Public Meeting January 8 - 9 5

Regulatory Frameworks and TechnicalApproaches to EnsureAppropriate Qualification and Through-Life Performance of Non-Light Water Reactor Materials General qualification Qualification of advanced manufacturing technologies, graphite, and composites General through-life performance Through-life performance of advanced manufacturing technologies, graphite, and composites The NEA Working Group on New Technologies (WGNT) is developing a report on qualification and through-life performance of NLWR materials. The report will include workshop conference proceedings and summarize best practice attributes for addressing regulatory needs.

Workshop time and location: June 3-5, 2025, in Rockville, MD (hybrid option available)

The call for abstracts has been released Topics Tentative Timeline To receive the call for abstract, be included on future distributions, or for more information, please contact ryann.bass@nrc.gov and wendy.reed@nrc.gov Feb. 17, 2025 - Abstract submission May 12, 2025 - Paper submission May 28, 2025 - Presentation submission June 3-5, 2025 - Workshop July 21, 2025 - Final paper submission 2026/2027 - Report completed

Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act of 2024)

Section 207 - Combined License Review Procedure Samuel Lee, Deputy Director, Division of New and Renewed Licenses Michelle Hayes, Chief, Licensing and Regulatory Infrastructure Branch Carolyn Lauron, Project Manager, Licensing and Regulatory Infrastructure Branch December 12, 2024 Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Meeting

Opening Remarks NRC Core Team For the Implementation of the ADVANCE Act of 2024 Mike King, Special Assistant for ADVANCE Act Shilp Vasavada, Executive Technical Assistant Luis Betancourt, Executive Technical Assistant Aaron McCraw, Sr. Communications Specialist

Purpose To share information on the ADVANCE Act Section 207 -

Combined License Review Procedure through:

An Overview of ADVANCE Act Section 207

A Discussion of NRC Staff Considerations

Identification of Opportunities for Stakeholder Feedback

Questions and Answers

This Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Meeting was first noticed on November 2, 2024.

ADVANCE Act of 2024 The ADVANCE Act of 2024 was passed with bipartisan support and signed by President Biden in July 2024. It requires the NRC to take a number of actions, particularly in the areas of licensing of new reactors and fuels, while maintaining the NRCs core mission to protect public health and safety. The Act affects a wide range of NRC activities, including by supporting the recruitment and retention of the NRC workforce, adding flexibility in the NRCs budgeting process, enhancing the regulatory framework for advanced reactors and fusion technology, and requiring initiatives to support the NRCs efficient, timely, and predictable reviews of license applications.

ADVANCE Act of 2024, Section 207 Combined License Review Procedure (a) IN GENERAL.In accordance with this section, the Commission shall establish and carry out an expedited procedure for issuing a combined license pursuant to section 185 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2235(b)).

ADVANCE Act of 2024, Section 207 Combined License Review Procedure (b) QUALIFICATIONS.To qualify for the expedited procedure under subsection (a), an applicant (1) shall submit a combined license application for a new nuclear reactor that (A) references a design for which the Commission has issued a design certification (as defined in section 52.1 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation)); or (B) has a design that is substantially similar to a design of a nuclear reactor for which the Commission has issued a combined license, an operating license, or a manufacturing license under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.);

ADVANCE Act of 2024, Section 207 Combined License Review Procedure (2) shall propose to construct the new nuclear reactor on a site (A) on which a licensed commercial nuclear reactor operates or previously operated; or (B) that is directly adjacent to a site on which a licensed commercial nuclear reactor operates or previously operated and has site characteristics that are substantially similar to that site; and (3) may not be subject to an order of the Commission to suspend or revoke a license under section 2.202 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation).

ADVANCE Act of 2024, Section 207 Combined License Review Procedure (c) EXPEDITED PROCEDURE.With respect to a combined license for which the applicant has satisfied the requirements described in subsection (b), the Commission shall, to the maximum extent practicable (1) not later than 18 months after the date on which the application is accepted for docketing (A) complete the technical review process and issue a safety evaluation report; and (B) issue a final environmental impact statement or environmental assessment, unless the Commission finds that the proposed agency action is excluded pursuant to a categorical exclusion in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);

ADVANCE Act of 2024, Section 207 Combined License Review Procedure (2) not later than 2 years after the date on which the application is accepted for docketing, complete any necessary public licensing hearings and related processes; and (3) not later than 25 months after the date on which the application is accepted for docketing, make a final decision on whether to issue the combined license.

ADVANCE Act of 2024, Section 207 Combined License Review Procedure (d) PERFORMANCE AND REPORTING.

(1) DELAYS IN ISSUANCE.Not later than 30 days after the applicable deadline, the Executive Director for Operations of the Commission shall inform the Commission of any failure to meet a deadline under subsection (c).

ADVANCE Act of 2024, Section 207 Combined License Review Procedure (2) DELAYS IN ISSUANCE EXCEEDING 90 DAYS. If any deadline under subsection (c) is not met by the date that is 90 days after the applicable date required under that subsection, the Commission shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report describing the delay, including a detailed explanation accounting for the delay; and a plan for completion of the applicable action.

NRC Staff Plans to Address ADVANCE Act Section 207

The NRC staff has initiated seeking stakeholder input on an expedited review procedure for COL applications.

The NRC staff plans to conduct a comment-gathering meeting in early 2025.

The NRC staff is considering issuing a Regulatory Issue Summary to address the requirements in Section 207.

NRC Public Website for ADVANCE Act of 2024

To Stay Informed of Progress Follow NRCs ADVANCE Act implementation with this Dashboard

For Upcoming and Past Meetings For NRCs public meeting information on ADVANCE Act 21

For Your Questions and Ideas Contact us with ADVANCE Act questions, comments and ideas 22

Steve Jones Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CNSC-NRC Memorandum of Cooperation:

Joint Report on Classification of Structures, Systems, and Components 24

AGENDA

Work Plan

Scope of Safety Classification Project

Findings Safety Significance Determination Classification of Structures, Systems, and Components Engineering Design Rules and Specifications

Use in Application Development 25

WORK PLAN OBJECTIVES

Identify key similarities and differences in the safety significance determination process, the scope of SSCs subject to the process, and the process outcomes

Identify key similarities and differences in the engineering design rules and specifications applied to each safety class and how this impacts the outcomes

Review how each organization applies existing codes and standards and interacts with Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) to verify appropriate codes and standards are being developed, applied, and endorsed.

26

SCOPE

New Water-Cooled Small Modular and Advanced Non-Water-Cooled Reactors

Safety Significance Determination and SSC Classification 27

Design rules and specifications Reliability Programs SSC Design Hazard Protection

REGULATORY BACKGROUND 28

CNSC places detailed requirements in license

NRC has more detailed regulations Many regulations specific to LWRs Exemption process provides flexibility

SAFETY ANALYSIS APPROACHES 29 Element CNSC NRC Traditional NRC LMP Use of PRA Level 2 -

Complementary to deterministic analysis Level 1 - Confirmatory and identification of risk insights Level 3 - Foundational; supported by deterministic analyses Defense in Depth Structured defense-level review Established by design criteria and special regulations Structured review of capabilities and programs Safety classification Applicant designated classifications of important to safety SSCs; safety systems selected for accident mitigation Safety-related SSCs selected to mitigate accidents; important to safety for defense in depth functions Safety-related SSCs selected to mitigate accidents; nonsafety-related with special treatment for defense in depth functions Accident Classification Sequence frequency Guidance (Qualitative assessment)

Sequence frequency

SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION 30 Similarities and Differences AOO Baseline/ GDC 13/ LMP essentially the same AOO conservative analysis captured among LMP DBEs DBA analysis methods reasonably consistent LMP dose/consequence target at DBE/BDBE boundary inconsistent with CNSC DBA dose criterion NRC Traditional Approach limiting LWR analyses (LOCA, GDC 28 reactivity accidents, maximum hypothetical accident [MHA], and regulated events) help with DID in absence of quantitative risk criteria Containment bounding analysis (maximum hypothetical accident - MHA) for traditional NRC vs. mechanistic DBA (CNSC and LMP)

CNSC Design Extension substantially overlaps with NRC BDB regulations and LMP BDBE analysis

SAFETY CLASSIFICATION 31

CNSC Safety System performs DBA prevention/mitigation function like NRC Safety-Related

Risk-informed NRC classification schemes better aligned with CNSC graded classification

Safety classification has more prescriptive relationship with engineering design rules under NRC regulations than under CNSC.

SPECIAL TREATMENT SCOPE 32 Special Treatment Similarity Important Considerations Quality Assurance Substantial Improved by NRC risk-informed programs Operational Reliability High Identical for TSs; risk-based availability monitoring scope for CNSC; flexible testing and condition monitoring scope supports alignment Pressure-Retaining High Similar quality group definitions Electrical / I&C High Same types of electrical and I&C components Civil Structures High Structures perform identical functions Seismic Qualification Moderate CNSC qualifies more defense-in-depth SSCs Fire protection High Similar goals to control and confine fires Environmental Qualification High Similar definitions of required scope

SPECIAL TREATMENT EXTENT 33 Special Treatment Similarity Important Considerations Quality Assurance Substantial Appendix B more prescriptive; NRC &CNSC support graded application of QA measures Operational Reliability High Similar programs for availability, performance, and condition monitoring; ASME Code ISI/IST Pressure-Retaining High Equivalent reliance on ASME Code Electrical / I&C High Many overlapping IEEE and IEC standards Civil Structures Substantial Overlapping standards; but many country-specific standards as well.

Seismic Qualification High Similar qualification process and standards Fire protection High Overlapping standards and program goals Environmental Qualification High Overlapping standards

USE IN APPLICATIONS 34 Compliance with regulatory requirements:

Good agreement on design criteria (Appendix A of report)

CNSC approach flexibility supports alignment of SSCs with highest safety significance to those classified as safety-related (risk-informed classification)

CNSC design-extension aligned with NRC special regulations and LMP BDBEs Defense-in-depth:

Evaluation necessary to ensure NRC traditional approach supports structured defense-level evaluation

LMP aligns with CNSC; provides structured evaluation Assignment of design rules:

Significant commonality in scope and extent of design rules supported by many shared standards

Conservative use of Appendix B to Part 50 for quality assurance of SSCs with highest safety significance (Appendix B of Report)

Justification of seismic qualification scope and civil structure standards may be necessary

AVAILABILITY OF JOINT REPORT 35 Expected to be available on NRC and website December 2024 Availability will be under the following link:

https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/who-were-working-with/international-cooperation/nrc-cnsc-moc/joint-reports.html

Response to NRC Comments & Questions on Subject NEI White Paper

©2024 Nuclear Energy Institute 38 Please discuss how the approach can be implemented at the construction permit stage The design of the SSCs will already be at the stage where a margin assessment can be performed. This being the case, the fragility parameters will be available that are needed to perform the calculation of C10%. This will be shown in a Tabletop.

Level-3 PRA is not required. All that is needed is a source term and dose calculation model that can be set up to evaluate the specified seismic scenario (plant damage state). This will be shown in the Tabletop.

Comment/Question #1

©2024 Nuclear Energy Institute 39 Please discuss (i) appropriateness of C10% criterion (2 x GMRS), and (ii) assumption that any SSC that has C10% capacity greater than 2 x GMRS is considered fully successful (i) is shown to be appropriate through the detailed analysis provided in Section 5 of the NEI White Paper. As explained, a holistic consideration of the insights from past SPRAs with knowledge of the safety improvements in new plant designs indicates that a scenario based on 2 x GMRS adequately represents the conditions where emergency response should be required.

(ii) is based on the approach approved by NRC for use in the assessment of seismic MSA per R.G. 1.226, which endorses NEI 12-

06. The use of the C10% as a pass-fail criterion for success is a fundamental part of Appendix H of NEI 12-06.

Comment/Question #2

The check for cliff edge effects is discussed in Section 10 of the NEI White Paper. The scenario (plant damage state) will add the additional failures of any SSCs whose C10% is within 10% of 2 x GMRS. This captures the concept of what would be the impact on the results of a step increase in the earthquake severity.

This will be illustrated in the Tabletop.

Comment/Question #2 (continued)

It will be stated that the GMRS to be used is that specified in R.G.

1.208, i.e., a site-specific, performance-based GMRS, satisfying the requirements of paragraphs (c), (d)(1), and (d)(2) of 10 CFR 100.23, and leading to the establishment of an SSE to satisfy the design requirements of Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50.

This is what was used as the basis for the evaluations in the NEI White Paper.

Comment/Question #3

©2024 Nuclear Energy Institute 42 It is not clear why the cut-o of 1.0g PGA is needed and is appropriate for sites with higher seismicity. In addition, PGA, as a ground motion measure, is by itself, not a good determinant for damage.

As discussed in Section 6 of the NEI White Paper, there is a need to establish some upper severity above which Emergency Planning is not practical, accounting for the post-earthquake status of the necessary infrastructure to support implementation.

While PGA is used as a common reference point for ease of understanding (which has always been the practice), all of the analysis done for the NEI White Paper used the entire spectral shape.

Comment/Question #4

Comment/Question #5 (1/3)

©2024 Nuclear Energy Institute 46 Please provide examples that show how the C10% criterion is applied at a cutset level, how a plant damage state is determined, and how the doses were calculated. The examples should also include evaluation of cli-edge eects.

This will be illustrated in the Tabletop.

The examples should include sensitivity studies considering various design options under the non-LLWR RIPB based seismic design.

We believe that the single design example in the Tabletop will be adequate to demonstrate the approach.

Comment/Question #6

A single scenario.

This will be demonstrated in the Tabletop.

Comment/Question #7

ANL_NSE-21-56 does not actually propose an approach, but rather investigates using a PRA-based margin assessment for the purpose of determining the challenges, opportunities, and next steps.

ANL and NEI have been exchanging information, and the NEI White Paper was one input to ANL_NSE-24-42, the next steps from ANL_NSE-21-56 are currently in draft.

ANL_NSE-24-42 proposes to use the same 2 x GMRS and C10% as its check on cliff-edge effect. This is the base case for the NEI White Paper, which has then a further, stricter cliff-edge check.

Difference is that ANL_NSE-24-42 is intended to develop plant-level safety insights per Part 53; the NEI White Paper is intended to identify the single scenario required for EPZ determination.

Comment/Question #8

NuScale considers their approach to be proprietary and has chosen not to make it available to NEI or other industry organizations.

As a note, we expect that the NuScale approach (while it could probably be adapted to other designs in some way) was designed specifically for use with that design. The NEI White Paper is intended to be technology neutral with regard to any light-water or non-light-water SMR.

Comment/Question #9

The NEI White Paper is not a stand-alone document for compliance with 10 CFR 50.160. The result is simply one input into the overall risk-informed, performance-based approach to emergency planning described in NEI 24-05.

The white paper is limited to describing the approach to defining the seismic scenario and plant damage state to be used in the overall assessment (i.e., it feeds into Chapter 4, Section 4.3.4, of NEI 24-05 as an Alternative Hazard Event).

All other interfaces with the rule are handled identically to the other EPZ scenarios as described in NEI 24-05.

Comment/Question #10

The approach in the NEI White Paper is only for the purpose of determining the boundary of the EPZ.

The need for changes would be addressed in accordance with Section 5.1 of NEI 24-05, Maintenance of Performance -

50.160(b)(1)(i).

Comment/Question #11

Discussion

53 LUNCH BREAK Meeting will resume at 1:00 pm EST December 12, 2024 Microsoft Teams Meeting Bridge line: 301-576-2978 Conference ID: 765 241 117#

ADVANCE Act Section 203 Nonelectric Uses William Reckley Ryan Mott December 12, 2024

Scope of Meeting

Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act of 2024

#ADVANCENRC Todays Discussions

Section 203 - Licensing Considerations Relating to the Use of Nuclear Energy for Nonelectric applications

Seeking insights into unique licensing issues or requirements

Added to stakeholder meeting agenda on November 28, 2024

To Stay Informed of Progress Follow NRCs ADVANCE Act implementation with this Dashboard

For Upcoming and Past Meetings For NRCs public meeting information on ADVANCE Act 57

For Your Questions and Ideas Contact us with ADVANCE Act questions, comments and ideas 58

Section 203 - Nonelectric Applications ADVANCE Act § 203.

LICENSING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR NONELECTRIC APPLICATIONS.

- General Issues

- Specific Applications

- Framework (a) IN GENERAL. Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit... a report addressing any unique licensing issues or requirements relating to (1) the flexible operation of advanced nuclear reactors, such as ramping power output and switching between electricity generation and nonelectric applications; (2) the use of advanced nuclear reactors exclusively for nonelectric applications; and (3) the colocation of nuclear reactors with industrial plants or other facilities.

Section 203 - Nonelectric Applications Key Topics Siting

- Onsite. Within boundaries of NRC licensed facility.

- Offsite. In proximity to but outside boundaries of NRC licensed facility.

Routine operations (effluents)

Postulated accidents

Section 203 - Nonelectric Applications BACKGROUND - Licensing and Siting Nuclear Plants

Reactor Design Reviews

Light-Water Reactor (LWR) Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800)

Non-Light-Water Reactor (non-LWR) Advanced Reactor Content of Applications Project (ARCAP) Roadmap (ISG-DANU-2022-01)

Plant Systems Designed Considering External Hazards

- Natural Hazards (e.g., seismic, flooding, winds, precipitation)

- Constructed Hazards (e.g., industrial, military, transportation)

Siting Considerations

Site Characteristics - External Hazards

Population Considerations

Environmental Reviews

Section 203 - Nonelectric Applications ADVANCE Act § 203.

LICENSING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR NONELECTRIC APPLICATIONS.

- General Issues

- Specific Applications

- Framework (c) CONTENTS.

(1) IN GENERAL.The report under subsection (a) shall describe (A) any unique licensing issues or requirements relating to the matters described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (a), including, with respect to the nonelectric applications referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of that subsection, any licensing issues or requirements relating to the use of nuclear energy

- for specific applications

Section 203 - Nonelectric Applications ADVANCE Act § 203.

LICENSING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR NONELECTRIC APPLICATIONS.

- General Issues

- Specific Applications

- Framework (c) CONTENTS.

Specific applications under (c)(1)(A):

i.

for hydrogen or other liquid and gaseous fuel or chemical production; ii.

for water desalination and waste water treatment; iii.

for heat used for industrial processes; iv.

for district heating; v.

in relation to energy storage; vi.

for industrial or medical isotope production; and vii.

for other applications, as identified by the Commission

Section 203 - Nonelectric Applications ADVANCE Act § 203.

LICENSING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR NONELECTRIC APPLICATIONS.

- General Issues

- Specific Applications

- Framework From DOE report Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear

Section 203 - Nonelectric Applications ADVANCE Act § 203.

LICENSING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR NONELECTRIC APPLICATIONS.

- General Issues

- Specific Applications

- Framework (c) CONTENTS.

(1) IN GENERAL.The report under subsection (a) shall describe (B) options for addressing those issues or requirements i.

within the existing regulatory framework; ii.

as part of the technology-inclusive regulatory framework required under subsection (a)(4) of section 103 of [NEIMA]; or iii.

through a new rulemaking;

Section 203 - Nonelectric Applications ADVANCE Act § 203.

LICENSING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR NONELECTRIC APPLICATIONS.

- General Issues

- Specific Applications

- Framework (c) CONTENTS.

(1) IN GENERAL.The report under subsection (a) shall describe (C) the extent to which Commission action is needed to implement any matter described in the report.

(2) COST ESTIMATES, BUDGETS, AND TIMEFRAMES.The report shall include cost estimates, proposed budgets, and proposed timeframes for implementing risk-informed and performance-based regulatory guidance in the licensing of nuclear reactors for nonelectric applications.

Nuclear - Integrated Energy Systems Jason Marcinkoski, DOE-Nuclear Energy Federal Program Manager Richard Boardman, National Technical Director December 2024 Prepared for:

Bill Reckley, Senior Policy Analyst at US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Nuclear Reimagined (images from thirdway)

Liquid coolants enable low pressure cooling systems. (e.g. molten salt, liquid metal)

Higher temperature reactors enable more efficient and broader industrial use, as well as dry cooling. (e.g. molten salt, liquid metal, high temperature gas)

Fast reactors can be technically capable of making their own fuel inside the reactor core, and burning high-level waste.

Passive cooling and reactivity control enable walk-away safety.

Smaller Emergency Planning Zone allows close proximity to industrial applications High power density results in low land-use and low embodied emissions.

High availability and reliability-high capacity factor / good economics.

200 GW new nuclear expected by 2050 (DOE Nuclear Liftoff Report).

The Future Landscape for Nuclear Energy Systems 3

4 Integrated Energy Systems Program Affordable, clean, reliable energy generation and delivery systems How to achieve the vision

NUCLEAR INTEGRATED ENERGY SYSTEMS Systems that integrate nuclear reactors with industrial processes that produce fuels, chemicals, materials, and electricity Identify/develop novel energy use technologies resulting from greater availability of clean, reliable, low-cost nuclear heat and electricity.

FOUR PILLARS National Potential Nuclear Applications R&D Thermal Systems R&D Chemical Conversion R&D Objective & Goals

INDUSTRIAL Enable the deployment of nuclear reactors with distribution and control systems capable of delivering heat directly to major industrial and commercial applications.

Convert nuclear energy into fuels for industry (e.g.

substitute natural gas, synthetic liquid fuels)

ELECTRIC POWER Provide flexible electrical generation capacity with thermal energy storage

TRANSPORTATION Convert nuclear energy into transportation fuels Mission Statement

Maximize the use of nuclear energy by developing technologies to support chemical, thermal and electrical energy pathways that deliver nuclear energy to the industrial, transportation and commercial sectors.

Vision Statement:

Tyler.Westover@inl.gov, Thermal Systems R&D Pillar

Nuclear Integrated Energy Systems

Estimates the U.S. market potential and environmental impact of systems that integrate nuclear reactors and their thermal energy into industrial processes that produce fuels, chemicals, materials, and electricity.

National Impact of Nuclear Integrated Energy Systems

Develops industrial requirements, reference processes, and plant designs to support techno-economic assessments, site integration, and the safety basis for implementing nuclear energy applications.

Nuclear Applications R&D

Evaluates and develops thermal energy transport systems for a variety of temperatures, distances, and industrial uses. This includes heat extraction, thermal storage, temperature boosting, and control systems.

Thermal Systems R&D

Develops chemical conversion pathways and tests processes for synthesis of fuels, chemicals, and materials from nuclear energy.

Chemical Conversion R&D

Advanced Nuclear Energy Pathways by Sector Future Nuclear Energy Currencies are Chemical Feedstocks (Syngas, FT liquids, Methanol, H2)

significant additional electricity use not shown to simplify diagram Jet INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL SECTORS Nuclear Plant Thermal Energy Storage Flexible Dispatch TRANSPORTATION FUELS diesel gas H2 Methanol CO2 Utilization Fertilizer/Ammonia

Paper/Pulp Industrial heat District Heating Minerals Syngas Iron/Steel*

Refineries*

Polymers / Chemicals ELECTRICITY SECTOR Fuels to Industry Power plants Ethanol plants Ammonia plants (conventional)

Direct Air Capture Industrial boilers Fischer Tropsch /

Refining H2 Bioprocess Biomass SNG/

RNG MTD MTG Methanol Biofuel

Crude Oil Refinery Integrated Steel Manufacturing Plant Wood Pulp Plant First-Order Embedding of Nuclear Reactors with Process Industries Heat and Power

Go-generation or combined

Heat delivery systems Clean hydrogen production CO2 capture and management Methanol Plant

8

Plan: Develop a modular, reconfigurable technology test facility at MW-scale to reduce risk of commercial deployment of nuclear power for production of hydrogen, biofuels, and chemicals Functions include testing of components, integrated thermal and electrical systems (including grid connections), controls and concepts of operations Initial focus: HXers and thermal energy storage System will be built at INL and will be accessible to connect to industrial demonstration equipment

In FY25: Develop (1) functional & operational requirements, (2) conceptual design, and (3) five-year facility plan

In FY26: (1) Develop front-end engineering design (FEED), and (2) purchase long lead-time items.

MW-Scale Thermal Component Test System (INL)

Site of the MW Thermal Component Test System

Provides test capabilities to assess the integrated performance of industrial processes with adv.

nuclear power to validate modeled performance and reduce the risk commercial deployment

Specifically addresses critical materials and heat transfer design and testing activities for HTGR systems to improve system efficiencies and increase economic value Impact:

Take aways and inferences

1. Thermal systems component and heat delivery systems is needed to reduce technical, economic, safety, and regulatory risks.

2. Systems testing supports development of operating concepts for industrial applications, including potential remote operation

https://ies.inl.gov https://ies.inl.gov Nuclear Integration with Petroleum Refineries 9

tpd: Tons per day bbl: Oil barrel HTSE: High temperature steam electrolysis SMNR: Small modular nuclear reactor PRELIM: Petroleum Refinery Life Cycle Inventory Model SMNR integration with Refinery Refinery Take aways and inferences

1. Nuclear energy can reduce ~50% of refinery without any modification to the refinery unit operations

2. Nuclear energy can be incrementally added with small modular reactors

3. Deeper emissions reduction requires new approaches to manage refinery by-product fuel gas

https://ies.inl.gov https://ies.inl.gov Nuclear Integration with Methanol Production Three methanol production processes using nuclear energy were modeled 1.

Natural gas-based methanol (conventional, top figure)

Autothermal reforming Nuclear-supplied heat below 850°C cannot be used Hydrogen can be used to replace the heat from natural gas CO2 reduction could be achieved from stack gas scrubbing, hydrogen to fuel, or alternative syngas or methanol production processes.

2.

CO2-based methanol with reverse water gas shift (bottom figure)

(CO2 + H2 CO + H2O; CO + 2H2 CH3OH) 90% reduction overall from RWGS reduces emissions by 90%

64% reduction in plant emissions by eliminating the NG import for SMR furnace, replaced by nuclear H2 blending (top diagram) 3.

CO2-based methanol with one-step (CO2 + H2 CH3OH + H2O)

>90% CO2 emissions reduction is achievable Reduces capital cost 10 RWGS reactor 600oC, 25 bar Selexol (CO2 removal)

Methanol synthesis 300oC, 52 bar Cooling and separation Fractionation Syngas Water Methanol HTSE SMNR or NPP Steam H2 CO2 CO2 Recycle Steam/Heat Power

Combusted for heat to RWGS Syngas Recycle Light Ends*

Methanol plant with RWGS 47 Feed gas purification Steam methane reformer Methanol synthesis 260oC, 92 bar Cooling and separation Fractionation Natural Gas Syngas Water Methanol HTSE SMNR Steam H2 Power CO2 Flue Gas Steam Fuel Gas Light Ends NG Syngas Recycle Heat recovery & integration Power Standard Methanol Synthesis via Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) with HTSE and use of H2 for Fuel Substitution NG: Natural Gas NPP: Nuclear Power Plant Take aways and inference

1. Nuclear reactors can significantly reduce the emissions of methanol and other basic chemicals manufacturing

2. When methanol is used to produce synthetic fuels, a significant reduction in total U.S. CO2 emissions can be realized

https://ies.inl.gov https://ies.inl.gov 11 Midrex Hot Direct Reduced Iron Shaft Furnace is ready to add hydrogen to Midrex Reformer gas without process modifications Nuclear Integration with Iron and Steel Manufacturing https://www.midrex.com/assets/user/media/Midrex_2017_DFM3QTR_FinalPrint.pdf

https://ies.inl.gov https://ies.inl.gov 12 Direct-Reduced Iron

& Steel Mill Ion Ore Electric Arc Furnace Scrap Metals Recycle Metals & Metals Products Fe2O3 + {H2 + CO} = Fe + H2O + CO2 Step 1.

Produce Syngas Step 2.

Directly Reduce Iron Ore Step 3.

Refine in Electric Arc Furnace Midrex Voestalpine HBI plant Corpus Christi, Texas/USA POSCO Electric Arc Furnace Changwon, Korea Nuclear Integration with Iron and Steel Manufacturing

Integrated System for Clean e-Fuels Potential CO2 sources:

Natural Gas Electricity Generators Biomass Electricity Generators Ethanol Plants Ammonia Plants Refineries Paper/pulp plants Comments

1. Tightly integrated systems require joint nuclear and industry safety risk assessments and fire protection engineering evaluations

2. Systems testing will provide important data for permit applications

Comments

1. Tightly integrated systems introduce potentially new failure modes and fires hazards not considered in Final Safety Analysis Reports for nuclear plants

2. Probabilistic and deterministic risk assessments are needed to address license requirements

1.25 MWe Low Temperature Electrolysis H2 production began February 2023 1-2 MWe 345kV plant upgrade with new switch gear at the plant transmission station 150 kWe High Temperature Electrolysis Tie into plant thermal line H2 production beginning ~July 2024 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Plant Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant First of a kind Nuclear-H2 production demonstration projects Hazards, PRAs, human factors, full-scope simulation for 100, 500, 1000 MWe Scale-up DOE-NE/Light-Water Reactor Sustainability Program and DOE-EERE/Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office are Supporting R&D to Power Large-scale Electrolysis up to 1,000 MW

S&L Pre-Conceptual Plant Designs

NPP Reference Plant Based upon typical for 1/3 of operating US NPP Units

Westinghouse 4-loop PWR

1200MWe / 3,700MWth /

SWYD: 345kV

Hydrogen Steam Supply (HSS) Equipment

Hydrogen Facility Plants 100MWDC Thermal Load - 20MWth Hydrogen Production - 60 tons/day 500MWDC Thermal Load - 100MWth Hydrogen Production - 300 tons/day Spacing Based upon INL PRA Model HSS

Hazard Assessment:

Considering the Modifications to the NPP 17 500 MW Facility Steam Supply to Reboilers Steam to H2 Plant Supply Demin Water Comments

1. Adding a reboiler to the turbine deck allows efficient and safe thermal energy extraction and deliver to users such as an electrolysis plants.

2. PEPSI modeling has been completed to address the impacts on the thermal hydraulic systems of the nuclear plant

Hazard Assessment:

Defining the High Temp Electrolysis Facility 18 Typical 500 MW nom HTEF Layout.

Demin Water to Reboiler Steam from Reboiler HP Compression Stage Underground Header (1500 psi) 1400 ft 1000 ft Low Pressure (<5 PSIG) Intermediate Pressure (200-300 PSIG) High Pressure (~1500 PSIG)

Comments

1. A conceptual design of a modular electrolysis plant provides a reference plant for generic safety and hazards evaluation

2. Deterministic evaluation of fire and explosion hazards have been completed to evaluate the consequences of accidental hydrogen releases at critical points in the hydrogen plant

Modular HTSE Component Design

Low Pressure, high temperature electrolysis (HTE) prototype modules installed at INL for performance testing

100 kW each Other module types under development

Rated for outdoor service

Combined into 1.8 MW ganged units (Stamps)

Various open-air field layout configurations including single and stacked level

The enclosures in the layouts above measure 52 x 8 x 8.5 ft.

19 Comments

1. Commercial unit operating data support probabilistic risk assessments.

2. Commercial-scale hydrogen plants are based on modular unit expansion.

Hydrogen Safety Analysis Detonation Consequences:

TNT equivalent method Current standard for the 1.0 psi safe distance in RG 1.91

Alternate Bauwens method for hydrogen leak jet detonation Hydrogen-specific methodology More precise than TNT equivalence 20 Hydrogen Fuel Production Risks Very difficult to detonate an uncontrolled leak in open air Low ignition event frequency Lower detonation event frequency Contained hydrogen can detonate as a cloud NFPA standards primary concern is to avoid structures that can contain the hydrogen

Hydrogen Safe Siting Distance - 500 MWnom RG 1.91 TNT Equivalent 21 Comments

1. Selective replacement of hydrogen compressors and storage tanks reduces the safe separation distance between the nuclear plant and hydrogen electrolysis plant.

2. The footprint of a commercial scale, ~500 MWe hydrogen electrolysis plant is approximately the same dimensions as the controlled area of the nuclear power plant.

Human Factors Simulation and Operations Team 22 Comments 1.

Nuclear power plant control concepts are being developed and testing with support of relevant industries and university research faculty 2.

Experienced nuclear power plant operators are proving it is possible to rapidly dispatch thermal and electrical power to the hydrogen electrolysis plant.

3.

Nuclear reactors can be used to supply spinning reserve when switching between hydrogen production and dispatching power entirely back to the grid.

Hazards and Risk Assessment - Putting it all together 23 H2 Facility Siting Considerations Licensing Support Large Early Release Frequency Changes Core Damage Frequency Changes Initiating Event Frequency Changes Required Standoff Distances Economic Risks (inferred)

Public Safety Risk Avoidance Minimal Impact on Public Health and Safety

Risk Informed Performance Based Regulation Ryan Mott Jackie Harvey Advanced Reactor Policy Branch Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced.html December 12, 2024

Content

Background

Development of the RIPB Approach

Current Approach

Questions 69

=

Background===

The purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of the NRCs risk-informed, performance-based (RIPB) approach to regulation for advanced reactors.

The NRC uses this approach for regulatory decision-making for advanced reactors.

The NRC continues to welcome feedback on the topic and aims to engender an open dialogue with stakeholders.

70

Development of the RIPB Approach 1997

- SRM, January 22, 1997. Commission decision to include performance-based strategies as part of the risk-informed regulatory decision-making process (SECY-96-218) 1999

- SRM, March 1, 1999. Commission approves publication of white paper describing RIPB framework (SECY-98-144) 2006

- SRM, June 1, 2006. Commission instructs Staff to adopt implementation plan to reach a holistic, risk-informed and performance-based regulatory structure. (See: SECY-06-0217, SECY-07-0074) 71

Development of the RIPB Approach Deterministic Risk-Informed Prescriptive Performance-Based 72

Current Approach with the Advanced Reactor Program

Risk-informed and performance-based

Does not entirely replace deterministic and prescriptive approaches

Flexible, holistic approach

E.g., ARCOP, Part 53, functional containment and ARCAP/TICAP A risk-informed, performance-based regulation is an approach in which risk insights, engineering analysis and judgment (including the principle of defense-in-depth and the incorporation of safety margins), and performance history are used, to (1) focus attention on the most important activities, (2) establish objective criteria for evaluating performance, (3) develop measurable or calculable parameters for monitoring system and licensee performance, (4) provide flexibility to determine how to meet the established performance criteria in a way that will encourage and reward improved outcomes, and (5) focus on the results as the primary basis for regulatory decision-making.

(1999 White Paper) 73

Questions?

74

Traditional deterministic and heavily Risk-Informed (LMP) should be OK Risk - Informed NEI White Paper: Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Approaches Sept 2021

Performance - Based Prescriptive (Current Proposed Part 53)

More Performance-Based (NEI Proposals)

Performance-Based (Informed by NUREG-0303) 53.450(a) requires PRA assessing internal and external hazards Current draft comment suggests a Risk Evaluation allowing flexibility to use PRA or other risk-informed and/or performance-based methods.

Subpart B - Technology-Inclusive Safety Requirements defines Performance-Objectives (currently including Part 20, traditional DBA - 25 rem, and comprehensive risk metrics). Analysis methodologies in Subpart D to meet those criteria are not needed and can be handled in guidance 53.530(c) prescribes siting away from population centers regardless of risk profile Current draft comment suggests deleting prescription including 25,000 in 53.020 population center distance definition Dose requirements in Subpart B would be informed by siting which can be considered in guidance.

Much more information on these topics in the February 2021 Part 53 Industry Concerns and Alternative (ML21042B889), December 2020 Industry Comments on Part 53 Rulemaking (ML20363A227), and the October 2020 Industry Comments on Part 53 Rulemaking Plan

Open Discussion 78

Public Comments

Closing Remarks

ML24347A247

Text

=

Navigation menu

Search