NRC Update 2009 New Reactor Licensing Activities Brad Harvey, CCM Senior Physical Scientist (Meteorologist) Office of New Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 13th NUMUG Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Oct 21-23, 2009

Presentation Topics NRC Mission Ongoing Application Reviews Updating Regulatory Guidance Staff Feedback from Reviewing Combined License Applications

NRC Mission To regulate the nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment

Early Site Permits (ESPs) Issued Exelon – Clinton (IL) Entergy – Grand Gulf (MS) Dominion – North Anna (VA) Southern – Vogtle (GA) Expected New Applications Exelon – Victoria Cty (TX) PSEG Unannounced

Design Certifications (DCs) Issued Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) – General Electric System 80+ – Westinghouse Advanced Passive 600 (AP600) – Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) – Westinghouse Applications Currently Under Review AP1000 Amendment – Westinghouse Electric Company Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR) – GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (U.S. EPR) – AREVA Nuclear Power U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor (US-APWR) –Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Combined Licenses (COLs) Applications Currently Under Review ABWR Design Center Review South Texas Project (TX) (2) AP1000 Design Center Review Southern – Vogtle (GA) (2) TVA – Bellefonte (AL) (2) Duke - Lee Station (SC) (2) Progress Energy – Harris (NC) (2) South Carolina E&G - Summer (SC) (2) Progress Energy - Levy County (FL) (2) Florida Power & Light - Turkey Pt (FL) (2) U.S. EPR Design Center Review Unistar - Calvert Cliffs (MD) (1) PPL Generation - Bell Bend (PA)(1) Unistar - Nine Mile Pt (NY) (1) ESBWR Design Center Review Dominion - North Anna (VA) (1) DTE - Fermi (MI) (1) US-APWR Design Center Review Luminant - Comanche Peak (TX) (2)

Updating Regulatory Guidance (Completed) Rev 0 to RG 1.206 (June 2006) “Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants” C.I.2: Site Characteristics C.III.1: Information Needed for a Combined License Application Referencing a Certified Design C.III.1.2: Site Characteristics C.III.2: Information Needed for a Combined License Application Referencing a Certified Design and an Early Site Permit C.III.2.2: Site Characteristics

Updating Regulatory Guidance (Completed) NUREG-0800 (Standard Review Plan) (March 2007) “Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants” 2.0: Site Characteristics and Site Parameters (Rev. 0) 2.3.1: Regional Climatology (Rev. 3) 2.3.2: Local Meteorology (Rev. 3) 2.3.3: Onsite Meteorological Measurements Programs (Rev. 3) 2.3.4: Short-Term Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates for Accident Releases (Rev. 3) 2.3.5: Long-Term Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates for Routine Releases (Rev. 3)

Updating Regulatory Guidance (Completed) Rev 4 to RG 1.97 (June 2006) “Criteria For Accident Monitoring Instrumentation For Nuclear Power Plants” Rev 1 to RG 1.23 (March 2007) “Meteorological Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants”

Updating Regulatory Guidance (Completed) Rev 2 to RG 1.76 (March 2007) “Design-Basis Tornado and Tornado Missiles for Nuclear Power Plants” Rev 2 to RG 1.21 (June 2009) “Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactive Material in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents and Solid Waste” RG 1.76 Implemented the Enhanced Fujita Scale RG 1.21 Meteorological data do not need to be reported in the ARERR (Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report) but the data should be summarized and maintained as documentation (records). An annual meteorological summary report that provides the joint frequency distributions of wind direction and wind speed by atmospheric stability class (see Regulatory Guide 1.23) should be prepared and maintained on site for the life of the plant. In addition, hourly meteorological data should be recorded and available if needed for assessing abnormal gaseous releases. When calculating long-term, annual average frequency distributions, 5 (or more) years of data should be used. If long-term, annual average χ/Q and D/Q values are used in determining dose to individual members of the public, the values should be revalidated or updated periodically (e.g., every 3 to 5 years).

Updating Regulatory Guidance (Completed)

Updating Regulatory Guidance (Completed) DC/COL-ISG-007 (July 2009) “Assessment of Normal and Extreme Winter Precipitation Loads on the Roof of Seismic Category I Structures” Normal Winter Precipitation Live Load Normal winter precipitation event Extreme Winter Precipitation Live Load PLUS Extreme Frozen Winter Precipitation Event OR Extreme Liquid Winter Precipitation Event The normal winter precipitation roof load is a function of the normal winter precipitation event whereas the extreme winter precipitation roof loads are based on the weight of the antecedent snowpack resulting from the normal winter precipitation event plus the larger resultant weight from either (1) the extreme frozen winter precipitation event or (2) the extreme liquid winter precipitation event. The extreme frozen winter precipitation event is assumed to accumulate on the roof on top of the antecedent normal winter precipitation event whereas the extreme liquid winter precipitation event may or may not accumulate on the roof, depending on the geometry of the roof and the type of drainage provided. The ISG further states: The normal winter precipitation event should be the highest ground-level weight (in lbf/ft2) among (1) the 100-year return period snowpack (2) the historical maximum snowpack, (3) the 100-year return period two-day snowfall event, or (4) the historical maximum two-day snowfall event in the site region. The extreme frozen winter precipitation event should be the higher ground-level weight (in lbf/ft2) between (1) the 100-year return period two-day snowfall event and (2) the historical maximum two-day snowfall event in the site region. The extreme liquid winter precipitation event is defined as the theoretically greatest depth of precipitation (in inches of water) for a 48-hour period that is physically possible over a 25.9-square-kilometer (10-square-mile) area at a particular geographical location during those months with the historically highest snowpacks.

Updating Regulatory Guidance (Ongoing) Rev 1 to RG 1.194 “Atmospheric Relative Concentrations for Control Room Radiological Habitability Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants” Rev 2 to RG 1.145 “Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants” RG 1.194 Addresses two errors: The guidance on estimate initial diffusion coefficients when an area source and the control room intake are on the same building surface interchanged the words “vertical” and “horizontal” which results in a mismatch of initial diffusion coefficients. Delete double reduction for dual control room intakes when using the old “Murphy-Campe” approach. RG 1.145 Uses hourly data and sliding window approach

Updating Regulatory Guidance (Ongoing) Rev 1 to RG 1.183 (DG-1199) “Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors” Comments due December 11, 2009 Rev 0 to DG-XXXX (New RG) “Design-Basis Hurricane and Hurricane Missiles for Nuclear Power Plants” RG 1.183 Section 5.3: Meteorological Assumptions Atmospheric dispersion factors (χ/Q values) for the EAB, the LPZ, and the control room that the staff approved during initial facility licensing or in subsequent licensing proceedings may be used in performing the radiological analyses identified by this guide, provided such values remain relevant to the particular accident, its release points, and receptor locations. If the previously approved values are based on a misapplication of a methodology or calculational errors are identified in the values, the NRC staff will pursue necessary corrections with the applicant or licensee. Regulatory Guides 1.145 (Ref. 28) and 1.194 should be used if the FSAR χ/Q values are to be revised or if values are to be determined for new release points or receptor distances. EAB χ/Q values are determined for the limiting 2-hour period within a 30-day period following the start of the radioactivity release. Control room χ/Q values are generally determined for initial averaging periods of 0–2 hours and 2–8 hours and the LPZ χ/Q value for a 0–8 hour averaging period. The period of the most adverse release of radioactive materials to the environment should be assumed to occur coincident with the period of most unfavorable atmospheric dispersion. If the 0–2 hour χ/Q value is calculated, this value should be used coincident with the limiting portion of the release to the environment. The 2–8 hour χ/Q value is used for the remaining 6 hours of the first 8-hour time period. Part of this 6-hour interval may occur before and/or after the limiting 2-hour period.

Tornado Intensity Regions for the Contiguous United States for Exceedance Probabilities of 10-7 Per Year

Updating Regulatory Guidance (Planned) Rev 3 to RG 1.27 “Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants” Rev 2 to RG 1.78 “Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release” RG 1.27 Requirements for passive plants that have a passive containment cooling system RG 1.78 RG suggests the use of the NRC HABIT/EXTRAN model whereas applicants have been using the EPA and NOAA ALOHA code

AP1000 Containment and Shield Buildings

Updating Regulatory Guidance (Planned) Rev 2 to RG 1.91 “Evaluations of Explosions Postulated to Occur on Transportation Routes Near Nuclear Power Plants” Rev 2 to RG 1.111 “Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors” RG 1.91 Guidance for liquid and gaseous explosive compounds RG 1.111 Areas to review: Hourly met data instead of JFDs Mix mode releases Dry deposition curves Wet deposition??

Staff Feedback on COL Application Reviews SRP Section 2.3.1, Regional Meteorology Establishing offsite data sources that are representative Identifying NCDC climate division Identifying normal and extreme snow loads Using the NCDC local storm events database 100-Yr MRI vs. historic extreme temperatures Comparing site parameters and site characteristics 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)(iii) states that the most severe temperatures reported for the site and surrounding area as historical limits shall include sufficient margin for the limited accuracy, quantity, and time in which the historical data have been accumulated. The staff considers temperatures based on a 100-year return period to provide sufficient margin for the limited accuracy, quantity, and period of time in which the historical data have been accumulated as required by the regulation. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) released a report to the President and Members of Congress in June 2009 entitled “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” This report, produced by an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, summarizes the science of climate change and the impacts of climate change on the United States.

Staff Feedback on COL Application Reviews SRP Section 2.3.2, Local Meteorology Evaluating impact of cooling tower plumes and salt deposition on plant design and operation Providing SACTI computer code inputs and outputs Discussing consequences of EPA non-attainment status designation on plant design and operation

Staff Feedback on COL Application Reviews SRP Section 2.3.3, Onsite Met Programs Providing FSAR descriptions for both Preoperational and Operational monitoring programs Identifying and justifying deviations from RG 1.23 Evaluating impact of nearby trees and structures Submitting “Edited” hourly data in RG 1.23 format Comparing current onsite data with previous onsite data and available offsite data Providing 2nd year of data for greenfield sites

Staff Feedback on COL Application Reviews SRP Section 2.3.4, Short-Term Dispersion Estimates for Accident Releases Justifying adequacy of dispersion models (e.g., terrain and water influences) Describing dispersion modeling inputs and assumptions Comparing site parameters and site characteristics

Staff Feedback on COL Application Reviews SRP Section 2.3.5, Long-Term Dispersion Estimates for Routine Releases Justifying adequacy of dispersion models out to 50 miles (e.g., terrain and water influences) Describing dispersion modeling inputs and assumptions Comparing site parameters and site characteristics

Conclusion Thank You! Questions?