Meeting Minutes of the ACRS NuScale Subcommittee Meeting

237 Pages·2016·0.77 MB·English

UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
WASHINGTON, DC 20555 - 0001

October 20, 2016

MEMORANDUM TO: ACRS Members

FROM: Maitri Banerjee, Senior Staff Engineer /RA/
Technical Support Branch
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ACRS NUSCALE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AUGUST 16, 2016, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

The minutes for the subject meeting were certified on October 14, 2016. Along with the
transcripts and presentation materials, this is the official record of the proceedings of that
meeting. A copy of the certified minutes is attached.

Attachment: As stated

cc with Attachment: A. Veil
M. Banks
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
WASHINGTON, DC 20555 - 0001

MEMORANDUM TO: Maitri Banerjee, Senior Staff Engineer
Technical Support Branch
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

FROM: Michael Corradini, Chairman
NuScale Subcommittee
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

SUBJECT: CERTIFIED MINUTES OF THE ACRS NUSCALE SUBCOMMITTEE
MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2016

I hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the minutes of the
subject meeting on August 16, 2016, are an accurate record of the proceedings for that
meeting.

/RA/ October 14, 2016

Michael Corradini, Chairman Dated
NuScale Subcommittee
Certified on: October 14, 2016
Certified by: Michael Corradini
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
MINUTES OF THE NUSCALE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2016, ROCKVILLE, MD
The ACRS NuScale Subcommittee held a meeting on August 16, 2016, in T2B1, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD. The meeting convened at 1:00 p.m. and adjourned at 4:56 p.m. The entire
meeting was open to public.
No written comments or requests for time to make oral statements were received from members
of the public related to this meeting.
ATTENDEES
ACRS Members and Staff
Michael Corradini, Subcommittee Chairman Gordon Skillman, Member
Ron Ballinger, Member Jose March-Leuba, Member
Joy Rempe, Member Dennis Bley, Member
Dana Powers, Member Harold Ray, Member
Charles Brown, Member Michael Snodderly, DFO
John Stetkar, Member Maitri Banerjee, ACRS Staff*
NRC
Mark Tonacci, NRO Mark Caruso, NRO Nanette Gilles, OCM
Greg Cranston, NRO Lynn Mrowca, NRO David Werkheiser, OCM
Tony Nakanishi, NRO Thomas Kendzia, NRO Amanda Marshall, NSIR
John Monninger, NRO Ann-Marie Grady, NRO Joseph Andersen, NSIR
Rich Clement, NRO Luis Betancourt, NRO Swagata Som, NRR
Jo Ashcraft, NRO Raj Auluck, NRO Sud Basu, RES
Andrea George, NRO Angelo Stubbs, NRO Sheila Ray, NRR
Antonio Dias, NRO Bob Caldwell, NRO Ann Hove, OGC
Michelle Hart, NRO Weijun Wang, NRO Jinsuo Nie, NRO
Raul Hernandez, NRO Bob Fitzpatrick, NRR Ata Ishtar, NRO
NuScale & Public
Steven Unikewicz, NuScale Steve Pope, NuScale
Nils Breckenridge, NuScale* Tom Bergman, NuScale*
Jana Bergman, Curtiss-Wright Sarah Fields, Public Participant *
Paul Colman, EPM Inc.*
*via telephone
1
SUMMARY
The purpose of the meeting was to receive a briefing from the NRO staff, regarding their
development of an enhanced safety focused review approach for the upcoming NuScale design
certification application for a Small Modular Reactor, which is of an integral pressurized water
reactor (iPWR) design. The meeting transcripts are attached and contain a description of each
matter discussed during the meeting. The presentation slides and handouts used during the
meeting are attached to these transcripts. Described below are significant issues discussed
during the meeting with the corresponding pages in the transcript referenced:
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Transcript
Issues & Members’ Comments
Page
In his opening remarks the Subcommittee Chairman Corradini noted the P5
purpose of the meeting was for NRO staff to brief the Subcommittee on their
development of an enhanced safety focused review approach for an
effective review of the upcoming NuScale design certification (DC)
application. He also noted that portions of the meeting may need to be
closed to protect information proprietary to NuScale.
Ms. Lynn Mrowca, NRO, introduced her staff and presented an overview of
P7-77
the staff plan to more fully integrate risk insights into pre-application activities
Slides 1-36
and review of NuScale Small Modular Reactor DC application.
Discussion on the NRC design specific review standards (DSRS) developed for P11-14
this review.
Slide 10
Discussion on NuScale GAP report that identified regulatory gaps. P15-18
Members questioned the staff intent to emphasize or deemphasize parts of the P19-26
review given the design of the plant including the risk assessment is on paper
only, noting such a plant to be more reliable than of an operating plant.
Graded review approach, PRA quality and thoroughness, how to address
P26-38
issues/items that do not show up on categorization results because they
Slide 6, 7
were in the “gap” and excluded. Could the new design include something
that isn't addressed in NRC regulations?
From the last question discussion went into how the staff is addressing new or P38-50
unique features, first of a kind engineering effort or testing, passive plant
response, aspects of plant behavior that is not known.
Presentation of Operational Programs – Verify capability, availability and P51-53
reliability.
Slide 8, 9
Technical review preparation by staff - Discussion on interaction with NuScale P54-64
expert panel for reliability assurance program (RAP) categorization. NRC will
Slide 11-13
use other area reviewers to collaborate with reviewer of RAP categorization.
Involvement of NRC working group and additional training for the staff
reviewers before review starts will enhance NRC review. NRC audit of the
2
NuScale expert panel, lessons learned from previous reviews, staff treatment
of an ESBWR non-safety but risk significant system were discussed.
ITAAC closing experience with AP1000 was mentioned. P64
Staff needs more detailed information to implement the SRP and DSRS.
P65
Some of the guidance will be clarified from the ongoing subject work.
Member question on staff working group, process of the multi-disciplinary effort P66-71
and need for adequate confidence on early assumptions regarding plant
design. AP1000 experience was mentioned.
Members’ question on quality of PRA and ITAAC/DAC. Members’ interest P71-76
in NuScale PRA was noted.
IAEA regulator forum two-year pilot program on three topics: graded approach; P76-77
defense-in-depth; and emergency planning zones. First IAEA report due
October to March time frame.
SSC review tool and a framework for categorization - Discussion on key P78-97
review considerations noted on Slide 14 (novel design, Multi-module aspects,
Slide 14-19
safety margin, defense-in-depth, interaction of non-safety related systems
with safety function, etc.) which will drive the scope and depth of staff review.
P85-97
Discussion on treatment of ATWS. Member questioned the level of detail
one needs to go down to identify essential components and address critical
functions the components perform in those systems.
SER Documentation Approach - example containment evacuation system –
P97-109
discussion went into staff reviewer leveraging other regulatory and operational
Slide 20-23
programs like the technical specification, maintenance rule, radiological
protection program etc. to reduce review scope. Discussion on change control.
Discussion on status of staff’s program development – staff noted preliminary P109-116
nature of it and that their goal was to at least have the concept in the reviewer's
mind during the readiness assessment (end of September) and certainly for the
application acceptance review. A question was raised about the potential error
in categorizing some support systems at a level lower than the system they
support.
Planning Tool for Programmatic or Non-SSC Reviews – A tool for reviewers P117-126
to determine the scope and depth of review. Members brought the past
Slide 24
experience with safety analysis where a gross error went undetected and
asked if part of the reviewer’s task was to identify things like assumptions that
have not yet been validated.
Use of Non-SSC Planning Tool – Staff presented examples using a couple of P126-132
SRP Chapter 19 review procedures. Discussion on reactor building crane.
Slide 25
Staff wrap up emphasized the need for documenting in the SER what the 132-141
reviewers emphasized or de-emphasized in their review. Staff noted the
Slide 26, 27
iterative nature of the process and that the SER would be a living document.
Members questioned if staff had looked at lessons from large passive plants.
Members raised the need for validating assumptions and to include in the SER
3
the limitations regarding the reviewer’s conclusion given the absence of
design completion at the certification stage.
Multi-module risk – Staff work recognizes that potential for fires and floods P142-161
spreading from one unit to another needs to be included in the PRA model, and
Slide 1-8
coupling and sharing of systems need to be considered. Acceptance criteria
needed for SRP 19.0 reviews of pending applications for design certification.
The NRC working group had developed four high level options, and
recommended one. Review considerations and criteria were discussed.
Members’ questions – Staff noted that establishing new requirements or P161-181
regulations was not within the current scope. Members voiced concerns that
given multiple units being in close proximity and shared systems, potential
multi module events could result from external events like seismic, and
aircraft impact. Members noted that technical acceptance criteria for such
review had not been established. Staff noted the possibility of tailoring their
guidance in future to be more specific. Staff was doing an audit related to
control room staffing.
Discussion on multi-module risk as a prominent contributor to risk when total
risk is still within acceptable range – staff pointed out that in order to be
acceptable it has to be not a significant contributor to total risk.
Opportunity for comments from members of the public attending the meeting - P182-186
Chairman Corradini asked for comments from members of the public
attending the meeting by being in the room or over the telephone bridge line.
Some comments were provided.
Members’ comments – 1) Need for the staff to establish a review schedule P186-191
where a decision on a more safety significant issue or item is not hindered
by lack of information on a needed less safety significant item; and 2)
comment on staff choice of the word “enhanced safety.” After some
discussion, members decided a follow-up Full Committee meeting and an
ACRS letter were not needed at this time. A short discussion on NuScale
design certification application staff readiness review took place.
The meeting ended at 4:56 p.m. P191
ACTION ITEMS
Reference Pages
Action Item
in Transcript
Action item 1: ACRS members requested a copy of the staff audit report
P29
of NuScale PRA.
Action item 2: Members look forward to seeing more information
P59
regarding the workings of the working group.
4
Documents provided to the Subcommittee
a. NuScale Gap Analysis Summary Report NP-RP-0612-023, Rev. 1, July 2014,
ML14212A832
b. NRC letter to NuScale, Response to Gap Analysis Summary Report Containment
regulatory Issues, March 24, 2016, ML15266A264
c. NUREG-0800, Introduction - Part 2, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety
Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: Light-Water Small Modular Reactor Edition
d. SRP 19.0, Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Severe Accident Evaluation for New
Reactors, ML15089A068
e. NRO Slides - NuScale Safety-Focused Review Approach, April 18, 2016
f. NuScale Enhanced Safety-Focused Review SSC Review Tool (NRO draft)
g. NRO Slides - 4th and 6th NuScale Safety-Focused Review Approach Working Group
Meeting
h. NuScale Slides Multi-Module Topics, September 16, 2014, ML14245A088
i. NRO NuScale Safety-Focused Review Group charter
5
Official Transcript of Proceedings
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
NuScale Subcommittee
Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: Rockville, Maryland
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Work Order No.: NRC-2538 Pages 1-181
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
[phone]
1
1
2
3
4 DISCLAIMER
5
6
7 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION’S
8 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
9
10
11 The contents of this transcript of the
12 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory
13 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards,
14 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions
15 recorded at the meeting.
16
17 This transcript has not been reviewed,
18 corrected, and edited, and it may contain
19 inaccuracies.
20
21
22
23
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
[phone] WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
(ACRS)
+ + + + +
NUSCALE SUBCOMMITTEE
+ + + + +
TUESDAY
AUGUST 16, 2016
+ + + + +
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
+ + + + +
The Subcommittee met at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, Room
T2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, at 1:02 p.m., Michael
Corradini, Chairman, presiding.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, Chairman
RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member
DENNIS C. BLEY, Member
CHARLES H. BROWN, JR. Member
JOSE A. MARCH-LEUBA, Member
DANA A. POWERS, Member
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
[phone] WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 [phone]