ACRS MEETING WITH CRS MEETING WITH THE U THE U.S. .S. NUCLEAR - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ACRS MEETING WITH CRS MEETING WITH THE U THE U.S. .S. NUCLEAR NUCLEAR REGULA REGULATOR ORY Y COMMISSION COMMISSION October 6, 2016

Ov Over erview view Dennis C. Bley

Accomplishments Since our last meeting with the Commission on March 4, 2016, we issued 15 Reports • Non-Power Production or Utilization Facilities License Renewal Rulemaking • Fukushima: Interim Staff Guidance, JLD-ISG-2016- 01, “Guidance for Activities Related to Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1, Flooding Hazard Reevaluation; Focused Evaluation and Integrated Assessment” 3

Repor eports ts • NuScale Licensing Topical Report, “Risk Significance Determination” • Draft Final Regulatory Guide 1.230, “Regulatory Guidance on the Alternative Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule,” and Draft Final Report NUREG- 2163, “Technical Basis for Regulatory Guidance on the Alternative Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule” 4

Reports • COLAs – Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 – Exemptions to the AP1000 Certified Design Included in the Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Combined License Application • License Renewal Applications – LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 – Fermi 2 5

Reports • Fukushima – Closure of Tier 3 Recommendations Related to Containment Vents, Hydrogen Control, and Enhanced Instrumentation – Updated Assessment of Tier 2 Recommendations Related to Evaluation of Natural Hazards Other Than Seismic and Flooding 6

Reports • Guidance and Bases – Regulatory Guide 1.229, “Risk -Informed Approach for Addressing the Effects of Debris on Post Accident Long-Term Core Cooling” – NUREG- 1927, “Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Specific Licenses and Certificates of Compliance for Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel” 7

Reports • Topical Report WCAP-16996-P , “Realistic Loss -of-Coolant Accident Evaluation Methodology Applied to the Full Spectrum of Break Sizes” • Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Digital Replacement of the Process Protection System • Biennial Review and Evaluation of the NRC Safety Research Program 8

Visits • Site and Region Visit – Vogtle Units 3&4 – Vogtle Units 1&2 – Region II • AREVA Fuel Fabrication Facility 9

Ongoing / Future Reviews • Fukushima – Evaluations of Natural Hazards other than Seismic and Flooding – Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events Rulemaking • Radiation Protection – 10 CFR Part 61 Rulemaking 10

Ongoing / Future Reviews • Design Certification – APR 1400 • COLA – North Anna (ESBWR) • NuScale Safety-Focused Review • License Renewal – Grand Gulf – South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 11

Ongoing / Future Reviews • GSI-191 – WCAP Related to GSI-191 Debris Issues – PWR Owners Group In-vessel Debris Test Results – South Texas Project Risk-Informed License Amendment Request 12

Ongoing / Future Reviews • Digital I&C – SECY Paper on Cyber Security for Fuel Cycle Facilities – 10 CFR 50.59 Guidance • Reliability and PRA – Level 3 PRA – Human Reliability Analysis Methods 13

Ongoing / Future Reviews • Metallurgy and Reactor Fuels – Consequential Steam Generator Tube Rupture – Consolidation of Dry Cask and Dry Fuel Storage Standard Review Plans • Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomenology – AREVA Extended Flow Window (Monticello) – Supplement to Topical Report on BISON code 14

Non-power Production or Utilization Facility (NPUF) License Renewal Rulemaking Dana A. Powers

Class 104 a, c Reactors • Resea esearch r h react eactor ors s and T and Test est Facilities acilities • 31 o 31 oper perating ting facilities acilities – Most Most in univ in univer ersities sities (25) (25) – Often the distance to the ‘public’ is small small • Typicall ypically – Lo Low w rad adionu ionuclide lide in inven entor tory – Unpr Unpressu essuriz rized ed – Na Natur tural al coo cooling ling 16

Low Power Reactors • 4 < 1k 4 < 1kW • 1kW < 1kW < 12 < 1 MW 12 < 1 MW • 1 MW < 10 < 2 MW 1 MW < 10 < 2 MW • 5 > 2 MW 5 > 2 MW 17

Low Usage • 4 use 4 used a f d a few ew hour hours pe s per y r year ear • 16 used 16 used a f a few hour ew hours per w s per week eek • 7 used 7 used f for or 20 20-40 h 40 hour ours pe s per w r week eek • 4 ha 4 have high u e high usa sage ge le level el – 24/7 24/7  Aging Aging of of f facilities acilities is is ver ery slo y slow  Few ew design design c chang hanges es 18

Accorded Special Consideration by Atomic Energy Act • Minimal regulation consistent with Commission obligations to protect public health and safety • 20 year license period 19

Novel Approach from Staff • Licenses for research reactors don’t expire • Updated final safety analysis report submitted every five years • Continued program of inspection and monitoring 20

ACRS Concluded • Non Non-expiring xpiring license license would ould not not degrade de ade saf safety ety • Simil Similar c ar conc onclusion lusion on oth on other er chang hanges es – Accident Accident dose dose criterion incr criterion increased eased to to 1 1 rem co em consist nsistent ent with Pr with Protectiv otective Action e Action Guidelines Guidelines – 10 C 10 CFR 5 FR 50.59 0.59 applica pplicable ble regar gardless of dless of decommissioning decommissioning sta status tus – Timing f Timing for submiss or submission ion of of license license renew enewal al applica pplications tions for test or test facilities and acilities and ir irradia adiation f tion facilities acilities 21

Guidance for Flooding Hazard Reevaluation; Focused Evaluation and Integrated Assessment John W. Stetkar

COMSECY COMSECY-15 15-0019 0019 Focused evaluations confirm that key • safety functions are protected by existing barriers and equipment or by plant modifications Integrated assessments evaluate • plant-specific protection and mitigation strategies Revised integrated assessment of • local intense precipitation (LIP) is not required 23

FLEX Str FLEX Strate tegies gies • Indu Industr stry y de develop eloped ed guid guidanc ance e for or ass assessing essing FLEX str FLEX strate tegies gies • Licen Licensee see may cons may consider ider alter alterna nate te or or tar targete geted d mitiga mitigating ting str strate tegy y to to compens comp ensate te for limi or limita tations tions • JLD-ISG-2016-01 endorses NEI 16-05 – Paths 1-3: Focused Evaluations – Path 4: Effective Mitigation Integrated – Path 5: Scenario-Based Assessments 24

Evalua Evaluation Options tion Options • Path 1 th 1: R : Refined efined anal analysi ysis s of of flooding flooding par parameter ameters; s; bounded bounded by licensing by licensing basis basis • Path 2 th 2: Demonstr : Demonstrate te adequa adequate te physical physical mar margin f gin for pr or protection otection of of k key saf ey safety func ety functions tions • Path 3 th 3: A : Applies pplies onl only to LIP; pr y to LIP; protection otection of of key ey saf safety func ety functions o tions or mitiga r mitigation of tion of dama damage ge • Path 4 th 4: Str : Strate tegies to mitiga gies to mitigate flooding te flooding dama damage; ge; primar primaril ily conside y consider f r flooding se looding severity erity • Path 5 th 5: Str : Strate tegies to mitiga gies to mitigate flooding te flooding dama damage; ge; consider consider scenario scenario-specific specific flooding flooding fr frequenc equency y and and se severity erity 25

Conc Conclusions and lusions and Recommenda ecommendations tions • Gr Graded aded a appr pproac oach h pr provides an vides an appr ppropria opriate te evalua valuation tion fr framew amewor ork – Focu ocused sed evalua valuations tions emph emphasiz asize e pr prote otect ction ion against gainst flooding flooding dam damage ge – Mitiga Mitigation tion str strate tegie gies s examine xamined onl only y if if pr prote otect ction ion can cannot not be be assu assured ed – Supp Suppor orts ts def defense ense-in in-de dept pth a approa oach to s to saf afety ety 26

Conc Conclusions and lusions and Recommenda ecommendations tions • Trea eatment tment of of LIP LIP – If If mitiga mitigation tion str strate tegie gies s ar are e nee needed ded for or flooding flooding cau caused sed by LIP by LIP , the , the staf staff sho should uld review view th those ose evalu valuation tions s in in the same man the same manner ner as the as the inte integrate ted asse assessmen ssments t ts tha hat t ar are e perf perfor orme med for or othe other r flooding flooding mec mechan hanisms isms 27

Conc Conclusions and lusions and Recommenda ecommendations tions • Reliability of mitigation strategies • Path 4 and higher-frequency Path 5 assessments – Guidance for equipment is very good – Guidance for personnel performance is weak, by comparison – Staff should better specify expectations for assurance of reliable personnel performance 28