A LICENSING & ENGINEERING SECURITY-BY-DESIGN MODEL FOR ADVANCED & SMALL MODULAR REACTORS.
Abstract not provided.
Williams, Adam↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “licenses”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Regulatory Treatment of Non-Core Sources of Radioactivity for Advanced Reactor Designs
The recent resurgence in advance (non-light water) reactor development has been paralleled by the development of risk-informed performance-based (RIPB) licensing pathways. Specifically, the creation of the RIPB Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) approach and subsequent endorsement by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) now provides advanced reactor vendors with a defined RIPB method to develop an affirmative safety case for licensing. In addition, the Technology Inclusive Content of Applications Project (TICAP) has published guidance on developing a license application based on the LMP approach. To support the utilization of risk information as part of advanced reactor design and licensing efforts, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)/American Nuclear Society (ANS) Joint Committee on Nuclear Risk Management (JCNRM) has developed a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) standard for advanced reactors. The standard, which was formerly approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in 2021 and recently endorsed by the NRC in trial use Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.247, is an integral standard, covering from initiating events to offsite consequence. A major feature of the standard is that it permits the inclusion of any source of radioactivity material at the site within the plant PRA. Therefore, non-core sources of radioactivity, such as fuel storage, fuel processing, and purification systems, can be included within a single comprehensive plant PRA. For those advanced reactor vendors utilizing a RIPB licensing approach, there is an opportunity to include the non-core sources of radioactivity within the RIPB framework for licensing decision-making, such as the categorization of events, classification of structures, systems, and components (SSCs), and evaluation of the adequacy of defense-in-depth (DID). For advanced reactor designs that contain multiple non-core sources of radioactivity, or for monolithic plant sites that include associated fuel facilities, this approach could potentially simplify licensing applications through the use of a single, uniform, and consistent decision-making framework across all radioactive sources at the site. In addition, a RIPB approach could provide additional insights regarding plant behavior, flexibility regarding licensing decision-making, and potentially allow the use of risk information as part of the plant oversight process. Risk-informing these aspects of advanced reactor licensing would also be consistent with the NRC’s risk policy statement. However, there is diverse regulation and guidance regarding the licensing of non-core sources of radioactivity and generally limited experience using RIPB approaches for the evaluation as part of licensing.
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
Planning for Material Control and Accountancy at Liquid Fueled Molten Salt Reactors
The purpose of this report is to provide molten salt reactor (MSR) developers and future US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license applicants with recommendations for developing an effective and practical material control and accounting (MC&A) plan, focused primarily on MSR designs that use circulating liquid fuel. Because of the breadth of MSR designs, there is no single, generic, detailed MC&A plan that will work for every design. The wide variation of fresh fuel salts, the method and frequency of loading fresh fuel, the reactor system design components (e.g., tanks, filtration systems, chemical processing streams), and waste streams will determine the specific measurement locations and instrumentation that can best meet MC&A objectives throughout an MSR facility. Additionally, MSR designs are rapidly evolving, and new design features and deployment scenarios that will affect MC&A are being explored and pursued. This report defines a generic MC&A approach that was developed for terrestrial (as opposed to maritime) deployments to meet the intent of NRC domestic safeguards and MC&A. MSR license applicants should consider nuclear safeguards (both domestic and international) and security throughout the design, as early as the preconceptual design phase. MC&A of special nuclear material (SNM) is an aspect of the NRC’s domestic safeguards program, alongside physical protection. Because liquid-fueled MSRs are reactors with SNM in nondiscrete (or item) form, it is likely that the NRC may require liquid-fueled MSR license applicants to submit a formal MC&A plan as a part of their license application. Currently, the NRC licensing protocol presents a challenge because the NRC MC&A regulations have not been updated to accommodate advanced reactors, including types of MSRs. Because no liquid-fueled MSR has been licensed for operation at the time of this report, no template or precedence for a successfully licensed MSR MC&A plan exists. However, the MSR license applicant can take advantage of the NRC’s published commitments to performance-based regulations. The authors recommend that the license applicant, or MSR designers, develop an MC&A plan throughout the design lifecycle and plan to submit a detailed MC&A program description, or MC&A plan, to the NRC as a part of a license application. No MC&A plan template or guidance exists that is specific to liquid-fueled MSRs. The authors recommend that license applicants discuss the topic of MC&A during preapplication engagement. Because of the uniqueness of MC&A for liquid fueled MSRs, the authors recommend that liquid fueled MSR developers engage with the NRC on the topic of MC&A in the early phases of its design development and follow up any time there are significant modifications in design plans that would affect MC&A. For example, topics like modifications in fuel handling processes, changes in uranium enrichment, or additional chemical processing streams added to the design could be discussed with the NRC specifically on the topic of MC&A.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Environmental Impacts of Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower
The goal of this report is to help license applicants, resource agencies, and other members of the hydropower community involved in closed-loop pumped storage hydropower permitting and licensing process, focus the scope of environmental reviews, and more quickly identify impacts with project nexus and potential mitigation measures for these impacts. Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) is an energy storage technology that uses energy to pump water up from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir where water is stored until electricity is needed and the water is released to a lower reservoir passing through turbines. Closed-loop PSH—PSH that is not continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature—is one of the lowest greenhouse gas emitting energy storage technologies and is therefore a critical part of the transition to renewable energy (Simon et al. 2023). Proposals for closed-loop PSH facilities in the United States currently account for more than 40% of original licenses and 99% of potential generation capacity in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower licensing pipeline (Johnson et al. 2023). While closed-loop PSH facilities can have lower environmental impacts than open-loop PSH facilities, no closed-loop facilities have been constructed in the United States to enable direct accounting of project impacts and efficacy of mitigations. Many proposals for closed-loop PSH submitted to FERC are abandoned early in the permitting and licensing process prior to license applications and environmental assessments, so there is little documentation describing potential project impacts and proposed mitigations. The newness of closed-loop PSH proposals in the United States may mean that tribal, federal, and state agencies with authorities for cultural and natural resources protection and management involved in the FERC licensing process may not have experience with closed-loop PSH regulation. Moreover, many proposed closed-loop PSH facilities are in areas that do not have high concentrations of conventional hydropower, so these agencies may also be unfamiliar with the FERC hydropower licensing process. The goal of this report is to help license applicants, resource agencies, and other members of the hydropower community focus the scope of environmental review for the closed-loop PSH development, licensing, and federal authorization process enabling quicker identification of potential impacts, mitigations, and situations where mitigation may not be possible. We found that environmental impacts of closed-loop PSH are highly site-specific, and generalizations about the types of environmental impacts across closed-loop PSH projects are difficult to make. Environmental impacts of closed-loop PSH are like those for open-loop PSH with a few exceptions including water sourcing, which can lead to delays and contention due to potential complexities with water rights, impacts to aquatic resources, and greenhouse gas emission potential. Cultural resource impacts were commonly reported in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents reviewed and discussed in interviews, but in many cases such impacts cannot be mitigated.
13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
Chemical Process Safety at TRISO-Based, Metal-Based, and Salt-Based Fuel Fabrication Facilities: Technical Assessment and Guidance Assessment
As part of efforts to prepare for potential and ongoing safety reviews for licensing of advanced non-light-water reactor fuel cycles, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tasked Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to prepare an assessment on the state of knowledge of potential chemical processes at fuel cycle facilities supporting the front end of these fuel cycles, and to assess the associated regulatory guidance. This report provides a technical assessment of chemical process safety considerations to support NRC licensing reviews of fabrication processes for tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) based, metallic-based, and salt-based fuels. The assessments involved collecting publicly available information on the fuel fabrication processes to (i) identify the operational process steps, characteristics and chemicals involved, (ii) identify the physical safety considerations and health safety considerations during licensing reviews of the various process steps, and (iii) collect information to support assessments of severity of accidents and potential mitigative measures to be implemented. The assessment provides a foundational basis on chemical process safety considerations for advanced fuel fabrication activities, although it is recognized that licensing reviews may necessitate design-specific considerations. The specific conditions under which chemical hazards emerge will require process-specific considerations, highlighting the importance of process-informed interpretation. The assessment also determined that exposure guidelines and limits to assess the consequences of acute exposures are limited for some chemicals, although alternative limits and supplementary information from databases or safety data sheets provide sufficient information to evaluate consequences of acute exposures. In addition, it was identified that metallic and salt fuel fabrication processes may involve beryllium, which is an exposure hazard. The regulatory framework for the licensing of advanced fuel cycle facilities, per 10 CFR Part 70 Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, is deemed robust and flexible to address the chemical safety considerations in this report. A review was conducted on various regulatory guidance and technical basis documents. This included reviewing NUREG-1520, Revision 2, Standard Review Plan for Fuel Cycle Facilities License Applications – Final Report and the process descriptions in Appendix A of NUREG/CR-6410, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook, to address advanced fuel types. As new fuels will involve process-specific chemical uses, process-specific considerations are provided in this report. Additionally, it is noted that the U.S. Department of Energy protective action criteria database includes Temporary Emergency Exposure Limits (TEELs) for process-specific chemicals. This report provides technical information to support chemical safety assessments of new advanced fuel cycle facilities and identifies technical and safety information to support licensing reviews. No regulatory barriers were identified for the licensing of advanced fuel cycle facilities.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Proposed guidance for preparing and reviewing a molten salt non-power production or utilization facility application
Development of non-power molten salt reactors (MSRs) are under consideration to further establish an MSR experience base, support the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.43(e), and provide any additional analyses needed for development of a full-scale MSR. Guidance provided in this report is based on MSRs operating with liquid fuel (i.e., fuel dissolved within a molten salt). These reactors, unless owned by the DOE or DOD, will require licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. Standard review plan (SRP) guidance for large light water reactors (LWRs) is available in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants; Light Water Reactor (LWR) Edition. However, NRC staff observed that NUREG-0800 is very cumbersome to apply to non-power reactors “because of the great differences in complexity and hazards between non-power reactors and nuclear power plants.” Therefore, a program to develop performance-based guidance applicable to non-power reactors was initiated. In 1996, NUREG-1537, Parts 1 and 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, was published. Part 1, the format and content guide, suggests a uniform format for presenting information in non-power reactor applications that is acceptable to the NRC staff, but conformance with the format and content is not required. Part 2, the SRP, ensures the quality and uniformity of the staff review of an application. Unfortunately, the application guidelines and SRP do not provide adequate guidance for all advanced non-LWR technologies and applications. This discrepancy eventually led to the 2012 development of interim staff guidance (ISG) for NUREG-1537, which includes criteria for describing and reviewing aqueous homogeneous reactors (AHRs). Specifically, NUREG-1537 ISG, 2012 expanded the original document to address three areas: 1. updated criteria for heterogeneous non-power reactors, 2. criteria for licensing AHRs, and 3. criteria for licensing a Part 50-licensed isotope production facility. In 2015, the US Department of Energy (DOE) opted to build on the AHR NUREG-1537 ISG experience by performing a gap analysis of the guidance that would be used to license a non-power MSR. MSRs represent one of the advanced non-LWR technologies selected by DOE for development through a multiyear cost share award with Southern Company Services. Under this Advanced Reactor Concepts 2015 (DOE Advanced Reactor Concepts [ARC] 15) award program, the DOE tasked Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to evaluate the guidance changes that the NRC may need to consider when licensing an MSR non-power reactor. ORNL staff, with support from Boston Government Services, LLC, focused on five system-related chapters in NUREG-1537 that were considered most relevant to inform the effort that would be required for a non-power MSR applicant. ORNL documented this review in a technical report, ORNL/TM-2018/834, Proposed Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing Molten Salt Non-Power Reactor License Applications (NUREG-1537). The report was subsequently shared with industry and the NRC. The 2018 review was limited in scope, focusing on key system chapters based on the expected significance of each chapter relative to expected differences in addressing advanced non-LWR technologies, specifically non-power MSRs, compared with heterogeneously fueled non-power reactors. In the ORNL report, proposed generic adaptations were suggested for the following NUREG-1537 chapters: Chapter 4, “Reactor Description”; Chapter 5, “Reactor Coolant Systems”; Chapter 6, “Engineered Safety Features”; Chapter 9, “Auxiliary Systems”; Chapter 11, “Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management” The inclusion of Chapter 11 in the previous review effort was intended to provide guidance for categorizing the waste-handling process for an MSR operating with homogenous fuel. The introductions from Parts 1 and 2 of the 2012 NUREG-1537 ISG provide guidance for the application and review of production facilities. After a period of operation, non-power MSRs with homogenous fuel will include gaseous and soluble fission products. The gaseous fission products will be collected and held for decay in an off-gas system. There might also be an initiative to polish or filter the soluble fission products in the fuel salt by some mechanical or chemical means. The treatment and handling of fission products in the non-power MSR fuel salt and the description of this process in the safety analysis report (SAR) must be very precise to avoid the waste treatment facility being construed as a co-located special nuclear material (SNM) fuel cycle facility (see Section 2.3 of this report). Subsequent to the release of ORNL/TM-2018/834, NRC staff expressed a desire to continue the regulatory gap analysis that was begun in that report. This would provide additional clarity and information addressed in certain sections of the original report, while also providing new guidance on certain topics not addressed in the original report. This revision would benefit the NRC staff reviewing applications involving non-power MSR designs and would help developers understand how the NRC staff might approach the review of such applications. The focus of this report is to provide infrastructure support to the NRC staff for the regulatory review of non-power MSRs.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
SAS4A/SASSYS-1 Commercial Grade Dedication Example Report for a Generic Sodium Pool-Type Fast Reactor Application
In the U.S., a key component of the commercialization of advanced reactors is completion of a license application, which must ultimately be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The approval of the license application by the NRC is contingent on satisfactory demonstration of the design basis and the response of the advanced reactor design to transient and accident scenarios using accepted codes and methods. This report describes the qualification and dedication requirements that the advanced reactor safety analysis system software SAS4A/SASSYS-1 are expected to need to fulfill to be used for sodium-cooled pool-type fast reactor licensing. The qualification and dedication requirements are identified through performance critical characteristics and evaluation model acceptance criteria representative of the advanced reactor design considered for licensing. This document captures, additionally, the verification process developed to demonstrate that the software fulfills the qualification and dedication requirements for a generic sodium-cooled pool-type fast reactor as part of the commercial grade dedication process. Like most software that has primarily existed in the research and development space, the most significant challenge facing SAS4A/SASSYS-1 for use in a licensing framework is the availability of a documentation basis describing the code pedigree. SAS4A/SASSYS-1 has been used for licensing of the fast flux test facility (FFTF) and the JOYO sodium-cooled fast reactor in Japan, as well as the design of the CRBR Plant. However, the historical verification and validation (V&V) activities supporting SAS4A/SASSYS-1 development do not align with modern software quality assurance (SQA) and V&V requirements. Two approaches to use of SAS4A/SASSYS-1 in a commercial licensing framework have been identified: commercial-grade dedication (CGD) and software qualification. The methods and requirements prescribed in the ASME NQA-1-2008/2009 Standard and Regulatory Guide 1.203 on the evaluation model development and assessment process (EMDAP) have been used as guidance to define the CGD and qualification processes, respectively. A qualification and dedication requirements matrix has been developed which utilizes fundamental software verification. In this process, software verification is defined as a software quality process aimed at defining software requirement specifications, developing software design documentation, and performing and documenting acceptance testing of the code against requirements. A key element of software qualification and dedication includes determination of software acceptance with respect to critical characteristics relevant to the functional requirements of the software. To assist with identification of cross-cutting transient phenomena and functional requirements, domestic SFR vendor designs have been reviewed to identify a reference SFR design. For this report, the reference design is defined as a pool-type reactor with metal alloy fuel, a liquid-metal intermediate heat transport system, and passive decay heat rejection systems. Given this reference, a series of high-level cross-cutting phenomena was identified for a general class of single-fault undercooling or reactivity insertion transients that scopes the design basis space, with the goal of assisting with prioritization of documentation development efforts for key transient models in SAS: 1) Reactivity feedback response prior to scram; 2) System-wide thermal inertia; 3) Transition in natural circulation flow regime in heat removal systems; 4) Decay heat generation; 5) Steady-state fuel characterization; 5) Clad/fuel behavior at elevated temperatures; 6) Point kinetics and decay heat; 7) Pump coastdown behavior; 8) Core flow redistribution in loss of forced convection; 9) Pool stratification. As a demonstration of CGD of SAS4A/SASSYS-1 for a sodium pool reactor, a software qualification and dedication gap analysis as it relates to code documentation has been performed. This effort leverages the framework established as part of the SAS4A/SASSYS-1 SQA Program. This CGD demonstration provides a framework that vendors can build upon to demonstrate the applicability of the SAS4A/SASSYS-1 software for licensing a sodium-cooled pool-type fast reactor.
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
GCAM-Demeter-LU
This GCAM-Demeter-LU is made available under the Open Data Commons Attribution License:http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/. The dataset includes the projected global gridded land cover (excluding the Antarctic) for the period of 2015-2100 at 0.05-degree resolution and 5-year time step under fifteen SSP-RCP scenarios driven by five GCMs (i.e., gfdl, hadgem, ipsl, miroc, and noresm), using the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) and a geospatial downscaling model (Demeter). The data has been stored in self-describing NetCDF format. The dataset also includes the mean and standard deviation of the results driven by the five GCMs. More specifically, the data in each year includes grid-explicit fraction (in percent) of each of the 32 plant functional types that are widely used in current Earth system models. The NetCDF files are named as “GCAM_Demeter_LU_SSP_RCP_Model_Year.nc”, where “SSP” and “RCP” denote the SSP and RCP scenarios, including 'ssp1_rcp26', 'ssp1_rcp45', 'ssp1_rcp60', 'ssp2_rcp26', 'ssp2_rcp45', 'ssp2_rcp60', 'ssp3_rcp45', 'ssp3_rcp60', 'ssp4_rcp26', 'ssp4_rcp45', 'ssp4_rcp60', 'ssp5_rcp26', 'ssp5_rcp45', 'ssp5_rcp60', and 'ssp5_rcp85'. “Year” denotes the year of the land use data, and “GCM” denotes the source driving forcing data from five global climate models (gfdl, hadgem, ipsl, miroc, and noresm), or the mean (“modelmean”) and the standard deviation (“modelstd”) of the results from the five GCMs.See https://github.com/JGCRI/chen_et_al_2020a for details on how to reproduce this data. Rights and permissions Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ applies to the metadata files associated with this article
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
USABILITY EXTENSION OF THE ŠKODA VPVR/M CASK FOR TRANSPORTING IRRADIATED FUEL ASSEMBLIES
New abstract from the final version being submitted now: This paper discusses the evolution and enhanced usability of the ŠKODA VPVR/M cask for the transport of irradiated fuel assemblies, particularly within the context of the demand for the delivery of newly appearing irradiated HEU fuel types for which the cask did not yet have a license to transport. Over time, the cask’s internal basket construction has demonstrated notable adaptability to accommodate various exotic HEU fuel types from research reactors of differing origins. The paper outlines sever-al custom internal baskets developed for specific fuel types, including those from Belarus and Serbia, as well as from Georgia, Uzbekistan, and MNSR cores, as well as a recently designed basket for MTR and TRIGA assemblies. The findings high-light the high flexibility and adaptability of the cask, supported by successful rede-signs and licensing efforts, underscoring its value for the safe and secure transport of nuclear material. Old abstract from the draft version that was already approved: The Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return (RRRFR) program, since its inception, has continuously used the ŠKODA VPVR/M Cask fleet designed for the repatriation of irradiated highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel. As the program progressed (from shut-down and a quasi-abandoned reactor, and/or as it began to include fuels of Chinese and US origin), new challenges emerged for the transport Cask. These were fuel types that had not yet been licensed for the Cask. Although these requirements did not arise during the design of the basic ŠKODA VPVR/M Cask, as revealed by the retrospective analyses, the Internal Basket of the ŠKODA VPVR/M Cask gives a high degree of flexibility to accommodate additional fuel types. This paper provides a brief overview of the ŠKODA VPVR/M Cask, which holds a B(U) type license, and introduces the different types of Internal Baskets that have already been licensed to transport so-called exotic irradiated HEU fuel types, in addition to the original license. The paper presents a new Internal Basket design for accommodating MTR-type and TRIGA-type irradiated HEU fuel assemblies. This includes a detailed presentation of the design basis and the new MTR-TRIGA Internal Basket, as well as the licensing matters of the package under the name ŠKODA MTR-TRIGA Cask, and the conformity test (dry- and wet-run) operations made to verify compliance with the new Internal Basket. Then, as a summary, the usage record for the Cask fleet is presented, and finally, the paper concludes with the consolidated experiences gained during the utilization of the ŠKODA VPVR/M Cask fleet, emphasizing the high degree of Cask flexibility ensured by the Internal Basket’s construction.
42 - ENGINEERING↗
Construction Support for New Slab Creek Powerhouse Project (Final Technical Report)
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) has constructed a new powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Facility (BFRF) ¼ mile downstream of the existing Slab Creek Dam with the assistance of grant funding from the Department of Energy in the amount of $1.5 million. Slab Creek Dam impounds 16,600 acre-feet of storage and has a normal full pool elevation of 1850ft. Water is conveyed from Slab Creek Reservoir through a 4.9 mile power tunnel to the 224 MW White Rock Powerhouse which discharges into Chili Bar Reservoir. A small 450 kW powerhouse located at Slab Creek Dam utilizes the original license in-stream flow requirement. The new license (FERC Project No. 2101-084) requires significantly more instream flows immediately below the dam for aquatic preservation and recreational flows over the original license. The terms of the new license allow the Slab Creek Powerhouse to utilize the original required dam releases, while the new South Fork Powerhouse will use the new instream flow requirements above the original license requirement. The South Fork Powerhouse routes flows back to the South Fork of the American River via a new penstock that is tied into the White Rock Tunnel at Adit #3. This new penstock bifurcates at the Adit #3 portal with one leg going to the BFRF and the other to the new powerhouse. The South Fork Powerhouse is a single generating unit with a capacity of 2.98 kVA. The BFRF is valve house with an energy dissipation chamber for a 60” fixed cone valve capable of passing 1,300 cfs for meeting the recreational flow requirements of the license.
power tunnel↗
Management of Risks Associated with Application of Novel Materials in Novel Operating Environments in Novel Reactor Designs
There is currently no widely agreed, detailed general method for licensing a novel plant incorporating novel materials (or materials being deployed in novel environments); in many such situations, there are no directly applicable engineering code cases for decision-makers (including regulators) to rely on. This paper discusses a framework for solving this problem that is based on the Reliability and Integrity Management (RIM) approach delineated in ASME BPVC Section XI Division 2. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.246, Rev. 0, endorses, with conditions, the subject portion of the ASME Code. The proposed framework is meant to support development of a licensing case by addressing certain technical challenges. The framework discussed here is compatible with the Licensing Modernization Project, but applying it in a specific case will call for advances in the state of practice, if not the state of the art. The RIM approach calls for applicants to (a) allocate reliability targets to plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs), (b) show that they are able to relate the currently observed physical condition of each SSC in the program to its failure probability well enough to determine whether the target reliability allocations are being satisfied, allowing for uncertainty related to the novelty of the materials/designs/operating environments, and (c) be able to demonstrate that the proposed program of surveillances will reliably detect unacceptable degradation of an SSC before SSC failure occurs. These challenges are discussed in the paper, and a potentially applicable modeling approach based on cumulative damage rather than failure rates is briefly illustrated.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Risk Informed, Performance-Based, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Infrastructure: Technology-Inclusive Determination of Mechanistic Source Terms for Offsite Dose-Related Assessments for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Facilities
This report summarizes a risk informed, performance-based and technology-inclusive approach to determine source terms for dose related assessments at advanced nuclear facilities. This approach uses a graded process which allows both the non-mechanistic source terms calculation methods, which adopt conservative approaches and assumptions based on known physical and chemical principles, and more importantly the mechanistic source term calculation methods, which consider design-specific scenarios and use best estimate models with uncertainty quantification for a range of licensing basis events (LBEs), to be used for the design and licensing of advanced nuclear technologies. The source terms developed with this graded approach, and radionuclide inventories elsewhere in the facility that are determined during source term analysis, can be used to address licensing issues to support the application processes of 10 CFR Part 50 for a construction permit and operating license or 10 CFR Part 52 for a Combined Operating License (COL), Standard Design Certification, Early Site Permit, Standard Design Approval or Manufacturing License. They can also be used for other purposes including equipment environmental qualification, control room habitability analyses, and assessments of severe accident risks in environmental impact statements. There are many advanced reactor concepts being developed including high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HGTR), sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR), lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR), molten salt reactor (MSR), micro-reactor, etc. The graded approach presented in this report for source terms determination is, to the extent possible, generic to any of these reactor designs and to future reactor designs. This report provides information on the review of the regulatory foundation for use of conservative bounding source terms as well as event-specific mechanistic source terms for advanced nuclear reactor designs.
07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
Accelerated Materials Deployment in Advanced Nuclear Power Plants
The purpose of this report is to begin the development of a maximally efficient process for licensing and deploying new materials in Advanced Non-Light-Water Reactors (ANLWRs). Some new materials that are to be used in some new plants are seen as possibly introducing risks, because our understanding of those new materials’ behavior in the conditions generated by some novel plant designs is less complete than our understanding of the behavior of materials with long use histories in existing designs. In these cases, an approved code/standard or a code case to support the use of these materials in the novel design’s safety case may not exist for the regulator to utilize as part of the licensing determination. This circumstance creates the potential for an extremely long licensing process for new designs using new materials. The present strategy is to show how to manage these risks proactively, in such a way as to permit licensing decisions to be made in a timely manner, based on this risk management process. The present report outlines the gaps in the current codes to support deployment and use of novel materials and begins the development of the necessary risk management framework that is focused on the subject materials issues; it is based on risk-informed in-service surveillance practices, carried out in such a way as to compensate for current limitations in our state of knowledge. This development will enable licensing and deployment of the subject materials, conditional on the proactive surveillance process to be established. While this report is occasioned by limitations in our knowledge of certain materials issues that may arise in advanced designs, in-service surveillance is always done in order to compensate for a lack of knowledge: if we knew that components were not already failed and not trending toward failure, we would not perform surveillance, even in current-generation plants (except that prescriptive requirements would force us to do so). What is different about the surveillance program discussed here is that the issues are newer and the relevant experience base is less complete, so the surveillance presently contemplated may need to measure new things and/or measure them more often than has been traditional for surveillance coupons. The present report is devoted to the risk management framework and applies American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI, Division [1] to establish the structure of a protocol for carrying out the necessary surveillance. These documents are generic: they do not tell us how often to surveille, or what to surveille, or what to measure, but rather how to determine those things, given certain technical inputs. The Regulatory Development R&D Program [2] is currently developing the companion supporting technical basis for the materials surveillance technology that, when completed and validated, can be used by owner/operator and NRC to implement a materials degradation management program for ANLWRs. This report also outlines salient points of discussion, positive potential outcomes, and potential concerns from industry and the USNRC. These aspects of the report intend to inform future work to develop a proposed technical process for adoption by the industry and endorsement by the USNRC to allow developers to propose a risk informed and conservative approach for the use of materials where operating experience/data and codes and standards may not exist for use of a novel material in an operating reactor environment. Additionally, such a technology could be leveraged to potentially reduce part of the upfront materials data requirements from ongoing long-term materials testing so that early action on license application could be undertaken by NRC, in parallel with the continuation of long-term data collection. This could accelerate the schedule for a first-of-a-kind ANLWR deployment or a nth-of-a-kind new materials insertion for established ANLWR designs.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Advances in Integral and Separate Effects Experiments for Water Cooled Small Modular Reactors
This paper focuses on the progress being made in water-cooled small modular reactor (SMR) advanced integral effects and separate effects experiments for reactor licensing. SMRs, considered modular in design, are mostly factory-built and then shipped to the reactor site. Of the several types of SMR designs available, water-cooled SMRs are likely to receive regulatory approval faster than others, as most of the technologies involved (e.g., the fuel and coolant technologies) are matured. However, the unique safety systems of SMRs, which depend on specific SMR design features, require integral and separate effects experiments to achieve reactor licensing. Thus, of the many SMR designs being proposed, only a few have successfully undergone licensing and reached the final development and demonstration stage. Many nuclear vendors and newcomer companies are investing millions of dollars to develop integral and separate effects testing facilities for preparing final safety analysis reports to include in licensing applications. Development and analysis of these experimental facilities is costly and takes about four to five years. The unique challenges involved can be reduced when stakeholders synergistically apply lessons learned, knowing the critical role played by advancements in experiments that support the licensing of SMR safety systems. Identification of knowledge/research gaps with the phenomena identification and ranking table (PIRT) and designing experimental facilities focusing on the phenomena of interest (POI) and figures of merit (FOMs) are pivotal to select the critical path to successful design demonstration and licensing application.
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
The Regulatory Treatment of Low Frequency External Events as Part of a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Approach
To assist the developing advanced reactor industry in future licensing efforts, the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program Regulatory Development area initiated a project at Argonne National Laboratory to examine the regulatory treatment of external hazards as part of a risk-informed performance-based (RIPB) licensing framework. A RIPB licensing framework for advanced reactors built on establishing an affirmative safety case offers the benefits of increased flexibility regarding key design and licensing decisions based on a detailed assessment and understanding of plant risk. Historically, reactor licensing addressed events of very low frequency primarily through the application of design margin and defense-in-depth philosophy. In contrast, RIPB approaches attempt to evaluate these scenarios at a level of detail commensurate with their risk, which often necessitates an explicit treatment of their frequency and associated consequence. While the detailed analysis of low frequency events provides insights that can help justify alternative treatments to past conservatism, the findings are dependent on the quality and confidence associated with the analyses. The assessment of external hazards presents a unique challenge, as their potential frequency of occurrence, especially of large magnitude events, is inherently uncertain given the long return periods in question. This project aims to identify the benefits and challenges of such approaches for advanced reactor vendors and aid in the development of consistent and appropriate analysis methodologies. The paper summarizes project findings and explores the application of various approaches for different external hazards. In addition, the current work also evaluates the application of the quantitative health objectives as a limit on external event risk, as they are a potential regulatory requirement under the current draft 10 CFR Part 53, which is a new technology-neutral reactor licensing pathway in the U.S.
Grabaskas, David↗
A Comparison of the Environmental Effects of Open-Loop and Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower
Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) capabilities are generally characterized as either open-loop or closed-loop. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defines open-loop PSH as “continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature,” and closed-loop PSH as “not continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature.” All the PSH projects constructed in the United States to date are open-loop, so the potential environmental effects of closed-loop systems are not as well documented as the effects of open-loop systems. To address this knowledge gap, the DOE Water Power Technologies Office, under its HydroWIRES Initiative, has prepared this report to: (1) compare the potential environmental effects of open-loop PSH projects with those of closed-loop PSH projects; (2) describe how these effects are being avoided, minimized, or mitigated at existing projects in other countries and proposed projects in the United States; and (3) discuss the relative significance of the environmental issues. The report begins with a brief introduction on the current status of PSH development in the United States. Next, the report describes the current Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower licensing process, emphasizing some recent regulatory changes that affect closed-loop PSH development. The report then provides a summary comparison of the environmental effects of constructing and operating open-loop and closed-loop PSH systems and discusses the relative significance of those issues. This comparison and discussion are based on the results of a literature review and a review of FERC licensing records. The literature review includes journal articles, technical reports, and presentations on the environmental effects of PSH systems. It includes literature from the United States as well as countries where closed-loop PSH projects have been constructed. The FERC records review examines the FERC licensing record (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act documents and license orders) to identify the environmental effects anticipated and mitigation measures proposed for six of the closed-loop PSH projects currently licensed or permitted in the United States. For comparison, the FERC records review also discusses the environmental effects and mitigation measures for four open-loop PSH projects proposed or currently operating in the United States. The comparison of effects between open-loop and closed-loop projects is relative; that is, it characterizes the impacts of each project type as generally lower or higher than another project type. The comparison reflects general trends among project types because there are sometimes exceptions to the examples cited. The comparison is based on both spatial (location) and temporal (duration) factors and reflects both the severity and likelihood of effects. The report concludes that the environmental effects of closed-loop PSH projects are generally lower (i.e., more localized and of shorter duration) than those of open-loop PSH projects because they are located “off-stream,” minimizing aquatic and terrestrial impacts, and often have greater siting flexibility than open-loop PSH projects. For certain closed-loop project designs, however, impacts to groundwater may be higher relative to open-loop projects and should be considered in any environmental review.
13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
Probabilistic Risk Assessment of a Light-Water Reactor Coupled with a High-Temperature Electrolysis Hydrogen Production Plant
This report details an expansion of the original two generic probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) for the addition of a heat extraction system (HES) to a light-water reactor, one for a pressurized-water reactor and one for a boiling-water reactor. The new material in this revision includes a new HES design, direct electrical coupling of the nuclear power plant to the High-Temperature Electrolysis Facility (HTEF), and a smaller 100-MWt HTEF analysis. The results investigate the applicability of the potential licensing approaches, which do not require a full United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing review. The PRAs are generic and include some assumptions. We eliminated many conservative assumptions from the preliminary pressurized-water reactor PRA report using design data for both the HES and HTEF. The PRA results indicate that the 10 CFR 50.59 licensing approach is justified due to the minimal increase in initiating event frequencies for all design basis accidents, with none exceeding 5.6%. The PRA results for core damage frequency and large early release frequency support the use of RG 1.174 as further risk information that supports a change without a full licensing amendment review. Further insights provided through hazard analyses and sensitivity studies confirm with high confidence that the safety case for licensing an HES addition and an HTEF sited 1.0 km from the nuclear power plant is strong and that the placement of a HTEF at 0.5 km is also a viable case. Site-specific information can alter these conclusions.
08 HYDROGEN↗
Expansion of Hazards and Probabilistic Risk Assessments of a Light-Water Reactor Coupled with Electrolysis Hydrogen Production Plants
This report builds upon the body of work sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) Light-Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Flexible Power Operation and Generation (FPOG) program that presented generic probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) for the addition of a heat extraction system (HES) to light-water reactors to support the co-location of a high temperature hydrogen electrolysis facility (HTEF). Probabilistic and deterministic hazards assessments and risk analyses are leveraged throughout this report. Several improvements and new analyses are included in this report. First, higher amounts of detail in the specifications of the generic HTEFs are used to produce scaled results for a 100, 500, and 1000 MW nominal hydrogen production facility. An additional hazard assessment of 1000 kg of hydrogen storage is performed. The facility hazards and footprint are assessed to determine the safe distance required for placement near the nuclear power plant (NPP). Second, specific designs for corresponding HESs for the different levels of support required by the HTEFs are analyzed in the PRA model. Third, a hazards analysis of the specified HTEFs leads not only to effects of the quantified risk assessment for the NPP, but also qualitative hazards assessment for the community. Finally, a seismic analysis and a high winds analysis have each been added to the PRA. The results investigate the applicability of the potential licensing approaches which do not require a full United States (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing review. The PRAs are generic and include listed assumptions. The HTEF design built for this project has further eliminated many conservative assumptions from the prior PRAs in this series. The PRA results indicate that the 10 CFR 50.59 licensing approach is justified due to the minimal increase in initiating event frequencies for all design basis accidents, with none exceeding 7.7%. The PRA results for core damage frequency and large early release frequency support the use of NRC Regulation Guide 1.174 as further risk information that supports a change without a full licensing amendment review. The hazard analyses and PRA confirm the need for engineered blast barriers of storage tanks and the common production header leaving the HTEF. The hazards analyses and PRA also confirm with high confidence that using the assumptions of design in this report that the safety case for licensing an HES addition and an HTEF sited with its unprotected high-pressure stage components 187 meters from the NPP’s transmission towers (the most fragile structure, system, and component) is strong.
08 HYDROGEN↗