ML18026B110: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:U.S.NRCRegulatoryPerspec tive onAircraftImpa c tAss e s smentsDennis AndrukatU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors 2Presenta summ a ryof t heU.S.NRC asse ssments bei ng cond uctedfor the n e wreact o rdesi g ns un d er 10CFR 50.1 50 ,"AircraftImp act As sessment"(AIA)Purpose 3*Bac k g r o u nd on NRCAIAreg u l at i on a n d g u i d a n c e*Summa r y of in d u s try g u i d a nce(NEI 0 7-13)*NRC i nsp ecti o n pr oce dure*Exp e rie n c e w i th De si g n C ert i fic at i on a p p l ic antsOverview
{{#Wiki_filter:U.S. NRC Regulatory Perspective on Aircraft Impact Assessments Dennis Andrukat U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors
*Immediately af t er9/11/01, N RC evaluatedrepre s en tati v e e xistingrea ctorsforaircraftimpact ut ilizing Na tional Labs(200 1-20 0 4)*Regulatory requirements for aircraft impact mitigation were imposed on existing reactors via NRC Orders
 
*SpentFuel P ool swere evaluated
Purpose Present a summary of the U.S. NRC assessments being conducted for the new reactor designs under 10 CFR 50.150, Aircraft Impact Assessment (AIA) 2
;In terfacedwith NAS(200 5-2 0 07)*NRC in-house preliminary e valuationsof newrea c to r design s(AP1000, A B W R , E SBWR, E PR, and A P W R)utilizing RESstaff(200 6-2008)4Assessment of Existing and New Reactors  
 
*N R Camend e ditsregulationtocodify NRC O r ders to mi tigatethe ef f e cts ofloss e sof lar g eareas oftheplanttofires orexplosio n s (1 0 CFR 50.54 (hh))(2009)*ALLreactors*mitigation strategies
Overview
*N R Camend e ditsregulationtorequi r eappli cantsfor new nu clear po w errea ctorsto pe rform an a s s e s s m e nt ofthe ef f e cts ofthe impact of alarge,commercialair craft(10CFR 50.150)(2009)*NEWreactor designs only
* Background on NRC AIA regulation and guidance
*design features and functional capabilities 5Assessment of Existing and New Reactors 610 CFR 50.150 "Aircraft Impact Assessment
* Summary of industry guidance (NEI 07-13)
"*Published June 2009
* NRC inspection procedure
*AIA rule ap pli es t o newreacto r a pp licants af t erJuly 1 3 , 2009**Impact of a l a r ge , comm erci a l a ircr aftis a b e y ond-desig n-b a sisevent*U s e r e alistic a n a l y s es*Both safety-related and nonsafety-related features can be relied upon*Reduced use of operator action is a goal*[74 FR 28146, June 12, 2009]AIA Regulation 710 CFR 50.150(a) "Aircraft Impact Assessment "Id e nt ify a n d i n c o r p o rate intothe d e s i gnth o sefe atu r es a n d f u nc t i o n a l c a p a bil ities to sh owthat:*the r e a ctorcore remai ns co o l edOR t h e c onta i nment remai n s inta c tAND*Spent fuel pool cooling OR spent fuel pool integrity is maintainedAIA Regulation 810 CFR 50.150(b) "Content of application"This section discusses the what must be documented in the DCD
* Experience with Design Certification applicants 3
*Must identify & describethe credited key design features and functional capabilities from the assessment
 
*Must describe howeach key design feature and functional capability meets the rule*What is its role(s)
Assessment of Existing and New Reactors
*Which acceptance criterion/criteria is applicableAIA Regulation 910 CFR 50.150(c) "Control of Changes"This section discusses the change control process required for key design features credited to meet 10 CFR 50.150.
* Immediately after 9/11/01, NRC evaluated representative existing reactors for aircraft impact utilizing National Labs (2001-2004)
*Any plant design change evaluated against the AIA
* Regulatory requirements for aircraft impact mitigation were imposed on existing reactors via NRC Orders
*Change must not invalidate the AIAAIA Regulation R egulatory Guide1.217*IssuedAugust2011*Endor s esNEI 07-13,"Methodologyfor Perfor mingAirc raft I m pa c t As s e s s mentsfor NewPlantDe sign s"whichwasdeveloped byNEI andrev iewed bythe N RC staff*Con side r edinsightsgainedfrom N RC and indu stry a s s e s s ments of ope rating andnew rea ctor de signs*Provides an a c c eptable, reasonably formulatedmethodologyto a s s e ssthe ef f e cts of a large , c ommercial air craftimpact on newrea ctordesign s10NRC Regulatory Guidance NEI 07-13, Revision 8
* Spent Fuel Pools were evaluated; Interfaced with NAS (2005-2007)
*IssuedApril2011*Methodologydivided intothree pa r t s:-Conta inment and s pent fuelpool evaluat i on-Heatremovalevaluat i on-Design enhan cements*Sour c es of c o n serva t i s m-Centerl i ne c onta inmentstri k es-Normalimpact withmaximumforce-Nocredit forlargeequipment in lim itingdamage 11Industry Guidance NEI 07-13, Revision 8
* NRC in-house preliminary evaluations of new reactor designs (AP1000, ABWR, ESBWR, EPR, and APWR) utilizing RES staff (2006-2008) 4
*Unc ertainties-Definition ofthreat and l oa d-time fun ction-Fire-indu c edspuriousactuat i on-10 C F R 50.5 4 (hh)(2),"Loss ofLargeArea s"of theplant due tofire or e xplosionprov i de amea sure of defen s e-i n-depth12Industry Guidance 13*Metho d ol o gy in N E I 0 7-13is acombin ation of a n a l ys i s a n drulesets-S tructu r alanalysisfor a s s e s sing c ontainment&s pent fuel poolintegrity(lo c al andglobal e ffects)-Rule setsfor a s s e s singfire and s h o c k ef f e cts-Rule setsfor a s s e s singphysi c aldamagetobuildings otherthan c ontainment and s p entfuel poolstr uctures-U s e offini te elementanalysiswhererule s ets donot apply-Based uponexperiments,analysisrepo rts, andexpert judgementAIA Methodology 14AIA Analysis Process 15 T hr e e p o te ntialsta ges o f l ocal l o a d i n g*M i ss ile penetrati o n i nto the t a r ge t (dep th o f entry of themiss ile i nto thetar get) -N R DC Emp iric a lFormu l a*S p a l l i ng a n d sca b b i ngof the t ar get (e jecti o nof tar get mater i alfrom t he tar get fro n tface -sp a l l i n g a nd from the b a ck face -sca b b i n g)-R e d uced C h a n g Emp iric a lFormu l a*M i ss ile perfor a ti o nthr oug hthe t a r ge t-Miss i leful ly p e n etratesthe t ar g et-P erforati o n ve l oc i tyis themissi l e ve l oc i ty j u stsuffici e nt toful l y p e n etrate with o ut e xiti n g-R e si d u a l ve l oc i tyis the e x it ve l oc i tyof a miss i le with i niti a l ve l oc ity gr e at e r th a n perf orati o n ve l oc i ty-CE A-EDF Empir icalFormu l a-Prev enti o nof p erforati o n-R e d uced D e g e n Emp iric a lFormu l aLocal Structural Assessment Riera Fun c t i on Te s ts*Eng ine Tests-G E-J7 9engine-481mph(705 f t/s)-2'-5.25'thicktargets*F-4Test-8'dia meter-481mph(705 f t/s)-12'thicktarget16See ADAMS Accession No. ML112690136 for more publically
 
-available informationAIA Experiments Wa t erSlug(WS) TestsNote: WStestswereNOTintendedtosimulate a ctualmis silesor targets*Testsdemonstra t eddamagepoten tial of"s of t"missile*Te stsprovided s o meinsightrega rdingfluiddispe r s a lis s ues*U s edto ben chmark c o des17AIA Experiments 18 T w o Alt e rn ative A n a l ysisMet h o d s*Force T im e-H istory A n a l ysisMet h od-R ieraFu nctio n:Imp a ctforce time-h istoryis d etermi n edfrom aircr a ft mass d istrib utio n ,crus h i n gstre ngthinf ormati o n a n d im p u lse co nserv ation pr i nc i p les,ass u mi n g th at t he tar get is rig i d-Prov i d e sforce t im e-h istory with sp ecific ch aract eristics-Pr e scr ibe dto de si g ne rs by U S N R C(SGI i nform a ti on)*Miss i l e-T ar get Int eracti o n A n a l ysisMet h od-C o mb i n e d d y n amic a n a l ysis mo d elof b oth missi l e a n dtar g et-R e q u ir e s d e mo nstrati o n th a t:*Inte grat e dforc e-time h istory (im p u lse)matc hes o r e x ce eds pr e scri b ed R iera fu nctionimp ulse*R i g i d w a l l im pact re p ro d uc e s ch aract eristicsof pr e scri b ed R iera fu nction ch aract eristics(res p o n sefilter e d at 50 to 1 0 0Hz)Global StructuralAssessm e nt 19 Te c hni c alSuppo r t andDetailsProvidedinNEI 0 7-13,Appendix B Material S trengthPrope rties Ta k e In t o Ac c ount:*S trainrate ef f e cts*Dynamicincrea s efactors*Con creteagingstrengthinc reaseMaterialFailure C riteria*Cast and S tainle s s S teel platestr ainlimi t s*Reinfor cing S teel strainlimi t s*Reinfor c ed andPre stre ssedCon cretefailuremodelingMaterial Characterization and Failure Criteria 20ContainmentAnal y s e s*Air craft andengineimpactperpendiculartostru ctu r ecenterline
Assessment of Existing and New Reactors
*Po tential c ontainmentdomeimpa c tis aplan t-s p e cif i c c o n side ration*Fre e-sta ndingsteel c ontainmentsmayrequi r eairframemodel*Newplantdesignsmayconta i ndesignfea turesforwhi c hpastexperienceislacking,withpotentialfailuremodesoutsidetheexistingexperience ba s e*Regions ofthe c ontainmentwith poten tiallycritical pen etrations requi r e s p e cial c o n side rationStructural Assessment:Major Assumptions 21SpentFuel Pool Analyses*Engine andair craftfuselageimpact at mi d-height and mi d-s p an ofthe poolwall*Otherlocationswithgreaterdamagepotential s hould be a s s e s s e d*Engine andair craftfuselageimpactperpendiculartothewall s urfa c e*If c reditistaken of poolwaterinven tory, c a re s hould be exer cisedin as suringthatthe add e dmass ofthewateris modeled c o n serva t i vely*Po tentialdamagefromwallmotion onfuel a s s emblies adja c enttothewalls s hould beevaluatedStructural Assessment:Major Assumptions 22 C ontai nmentIntact*Thecontainmentremai n s i ntact if structural an alys e s performed showthatperforationof a steel conta inmentor c oncrete conta inment w ith steel l iner do e s notoccur on impactAND t hattheconta inment ultimate pressurecap a bi lity,giv e n a core damage ev ent, w o uld n o t be e x ce e d e d b efore ef fecti v e mitigati o n st rateg ies canbe impl emented*Effectivemitigati o n st rateg ies are those that,foran i ndefi niteperi o dof time,providesufficie n tcoo l i n gto the d amag e dcore or co ntai nmentto l imit temperature a n dpressure chal l en g es be l owthe ultimate pressurecap a bi lityof theconta inmentas defi n edin D CD/F S AR C hapter 19.Structural Assessment:Sufficiency Criteria 23 S pent Fuel P o olIntegrity*Loc a l izedcrushing and c racki n gof theconcrete wall of the po o lis acce ptableprovid e dthatno l eaka ge through the spe n tfuel po o l l i nercompromisesthe requ iredminimumwater l evelof the po o l*Ifthefuel po o l l i ner do es nothavea l eaka g epath b e l o wthemin imum w ater l e ve l ,thefuelis protected andthere w ou l d be no unacc eptab l erele a seof radi o nuc l i d esto the env ironment*Anaircraft impact at anelev ation be l owthespe n tfuel p o ol w iththe p otenti a lfor ca u si n g su b se q u ent co l l apse ofthe spent fuel po o lsup porting st ructure must be eva luated,as appropri ateStructural Assessment:Sufficiency Criteria 24*S tructu r al orphysi c aldamagedetermined u singrule s etsin NEI 07-13*Thephysi c aldamagerule s etsidenti fied we r e de r i v ed ba s ed on studies ofstr uctu r e swith typical reinfor c ed c o n cretewalls rep resen t ativ e of e xistingplantdesign s:-24inch ex teriorwalls, 18inchinteriorwalls*Some newplantsemploystr ucturessimilartothose of c u r rent plants,othershavestr ucturesthataresignificantlymorerobu st.*Ifthe a ctualstr ucturetobe analyzedvariessignificantl y, "Mis sil e-Targ e tIn tera c t i on A nal ysis Method"should be employedtodeterminethenumber ofreinfor c ed c o n cretewalls ne c e s s a r ytostopfurther pe rforationintothestr uctu r e on a de sign-s peci fic ba sis.Structural Assessment:Buildings Other than Containment and Spent Fuel Pool 25*T hefre q u ency sp ectrum ass o ci ated with anaircr aftimp a ctis co n si d er a b l y h i g h erth an the sp ectrum ass o ci ated with e arth q u akes.*All e q u i pm e nt with i nthe sh ock d a ma g efo otpri n tis ass umedto fa il at the timeof im pact.*R ulesets inNEI 0 7-13are us e dto d efinethe sh o ckaffectsfor six cat e g o ri e sof e q u i pm e nt b ased on f ra g i lit y.*T he sh ock d a ma g e d ista ncesare me asur e dfrom t he ce nter of i niti al im pact a n dth e n a l o nga structur al p ath w a yto theaffect e d e q u i p me nt (i.e., sh o ckis tra nsmitted t hr o u g h w a lls,flo ors a n d ce i l i n g s b u t n ot acr oss o p en a i r sp ace).*NSSS ve n d o rs h a vethe o ption of us i ngtheval u esfor SD1 t hr o u gh S D 6 co ntaine dinNEI 0 7-1 3 or d e v e l o p i n gth eir o w n dist an c e s ba s ed onacc e l erati o n va l u e sfilter e dat 2 00 Hz for sp ecificim pact l ocati ons.Shock DamageAssessm e nt 26*Fire s preadrule s etsprovidedin NEI 0 7-13*Rule setsare ba s ed onpreviousres earchrepo rts and experiments
* NRC amended its regulation to codify NRC Orders to mitigate the effects of losses of large areas of the plant to fires or explosions (10 CFR 50.54(hh)) (2009)
*Fire damage footprint starts where physical damage ends -interface boundary
* ALL reactors
*Rule set consists of either the 1
* mitigation strategies
-barrier option or two
* NRC amended its regulation to require applicants for new nuclear power reactors to perform an assessment of the effects of the impact of a large, commercial aircraft (10 CFR 50.150) (2009)
-barrier option
* NEW reactor designs only
*1-barrier utilizes 5 psid, 3-hour fire rated barriers
* design features and functional capabilities 5
*2-barrier utilize 3-hour fire rated barriers*Firedamage sp r eadis as s es s edinall 3dimensionsFi re DamageAssessm ent 27*Firedamage c a n ex t endwellbeyondthephysi callydamag e d area duetotheoverp r e s su r e ef f e ctsfromtheinitial fireball and the s pread offuelthrough openpathw a yswithin t hestr uctu r e.*Ventilatio n duct w o r kinth e physical d a ma g efootp rintis expectedto beseverely c rush e d ,torn, and/orsevered.*Eachfiredamagefoo tprintisfullyencap sulatedwith 3-hourfirerated ba rrie r s (walls,floor s , c eilings).Encaps ulationisintendedto c ontain:-Fire/The rmal ef f e cts-Fuel Spread-Overp ress u refromdeflagr ationFi re DamageAssessm ent Fi re DamageAssessm ent28*Allcabling a n delect rical equip me ntwithin damage footprints:
 
*infire damage footprint  
AIA Regulation 10 CFR 50.150 Aircraft Impact Assessment
-available for five minutes only*in physical damage footprint  
* Published June 2009
-lost upon impact
* AIA rule applies to new reactor applicants after July 13, 2009*
*A ventilation controlled internal fire will burn for several hours, thus preventing operations personnel from being able to take manual actions in these areas for several hours.*Additional considerations:
* Impact of a large, commercial aircraft is a beyond-design-basis event
*Evaluate st ructu r alsteel n otencasedinconcrete*Smoke/Heat at air intakes C o m positeDamage F ootprint29*The c ompo sitedamagefoo tprintfor ea c himpa c tlocation s c ena riois developed byenvelopingtheto tal damagefrom str uctural,fire, and s h o c kdamage*As eachimpa c tlocation s c ena riois evaluated,thesystemicand funct i onal ef fectsthatarepre cludingprotection ofthefuel (reactor vessel and spent fuel pool) s hould be identi fiedFire DamageShock DamagePhysical Damage C o m positeDamage F ootprint30*U singplantinformation s u ch asfireanalyses,firePRAs,internal floodingstudie s , andplantdrawing s ,therule s ets and methodologywillthendeterminewhich s p e cif i cequipment, including c able s ,is a s s umedto bedamag e d*Thecombinedlist ofdamagedcables and SS Cs de finesthe threattomaintaining c ooling offuelin t heves s el and s p entfuel pool*As eachimpa c tlocation s c ena riois evaluated,thesystemic and funct i onal ef fectsthatarepre cludingprotection ofthefuel (reactor vessel and spent fuel pool) s houldbe identi fied 31Des ign Enh anc ementsPlant Design, Rev X+1Assess perNEI 07-13Identify existing/new featuresIncorporate into Design
* Use realistic analyses
*Ruleacceptancecriteria must be met forall postu latedimpact l ocationscen arios*10 CFR 5 0.150requ ires ap p l icantsto i de ntify andincorporate des i gnfeatures andfunctional cap a bi liti e sto meet theacceptance criteria*A p p lic ants sh o u l d d ocume n tthe ratio n a l eforthe se lected ap proach(s) 32*Three categoriesof e nh ancements-Prevent i ngIn ternalDamage*S trengthening ex ternalwalls orrelocatingintervening str uctures-MinimizingIn ternalDamage*Relocateequipment,str engtheninternalwalls, add and/or upg r adefire doo r s-Desig n-Specific S ystemEnhan cements*I mplementsystem enh a n ceme ntstofacilita t emaintaini n g fuel c oolingDes ign Enh ancements
* Both safety-related and nonsafety-related features can be relied upon
*Appli c a n tsare not re q ui r ed to s u bmit t h e a c t ual as s e s sm e nt of t h e a i r craftimpact*As s e s s m e n t s will be s u bj e ct to in s pectio n*NRC m aytak e a p p r o pr i a t e e nf o r ceme nt a c ti o n f o r a ny v i o l a t i o n s , in cl u d i ng t h epreparat io n o f a n i nadequat eassessment orfailu re to p r e p a r e an a ss e s s m ent33Inspection Activities NRC Inspection Manual InspectionPro c edu r e 378 0 4*Mo s t-r e ce n t r evisi o n(Fe b r uary 2 0 1 2)*Verify t hat ap plic a ntide n t i f ied and in c o r p o r a t e din t othe d esignall t he n ec e s sary d esignfeatures a n dfun ctional c a p a bili tiesthat p rovide a ddition a lin h e r e nt p rote ctionto withstand ai rc r aftimp ac t*Verify re alismin a ss e s s m e nt of stru ctu ral, fire, s hock , a n d pl a nt s p ecif i clo s s ef f e cts*Verify AIA do c um entationisbeing mai ntained c o ns i stent withthe r e q uir e me nts oftherule34Inspection Procedure 35*Westi n g h o u se AP1 0 00*Gen eral El ectric Hi tachiESBWR*AREVA EPR*Tosh i baABWR (So u thTexas)*GEH Renewal ABWR
* Reduced use of operator action is a goal
*Mi tsubishi US-APWR*KHNP APR1400Experience with Design Certification Applicants 36*Appl ying Fire DamageRule Se t s*5psidfire ba rrie r sversus 5p s idfire doors*Clo s earrange m ent of ba rrie r s und e r tw o-ba rrieroption*Ph y si cal andFirefoo tprintinterface a s s umptions and requi rements*Fireintru sion v i a ex ternalwall impacts*Use of Intervening Structures
*[74 FR 28146, June 12, 2009]
*Gantry C r anes to beevaluated*Mesh Size AnalysisLessons Learned 37*Documentation
6
*Identi f y i ngALL c redited k e y de signfea tures*Everything credited in assessment must be identified in DC application
 
*Needed support equipment must be included*Balancinglevel ofdetailrequi r edin DCDwithoutinclusionof unn e c e s s ar y SUNSI orSGIinformationLessons Learned 38*AIArule ap p l i esto n ewreactor a pp l ic antsafter Ju ly 13, 20 0 9**I mpactof alargecommercial aircraft is a beyo n d des i gn bas i seve n t*A p pl icantsto use real istic an alys e sto i de ntifyimp o rta n t d e si g nfeatures*N R C en dorsed N E I 0 7-13 as an acceptab l e method f ormeetingthe rule*Metho ds andresults are inspected
AIA Regulation 10 CFR 50.150(a) Aircraft Impact Assessment Identify and incorporate into the design those features and functional capabilities to show that:
*Lesso n s l earnedused inupdatingregu latory gu i da n ce andinsp ectionproceduresConclusion 39 Aircraft Impact Assessment rule:
* the reactor core remains cooled OR the containment remains intact AND
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR
* Spent fuel pool cooling OR spent fuel pool integrity is maintained 7
-2009-06-12/pdf/E9-13582.pdfAircraft Impact Assessment Inspection s: https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new
 
-reactors/oversight/aia
AIA Regulation 10 CFR 50.150(b) Content of application This section discusses the what must be documented in the DCD
-inspections.html#insrptRG 1.217: ML092900004NEI 07-13, Revision 8P: ML111440006Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses' Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures to Aircraft Crash Impact: ML112690136Links 40ABWRAdvanced Boiling
* Must identify & describe the credited key design features and functional capabilities from the assessment
-Water ReactorAIAaircraft impact assessmentAP1000Advanced Passive 1000APR1400Advanced Power Reactor 1400APWRAdvanced Pressurized
* Must describe how each key design feature and functional capability meets the rule
-Water ReactorCEA-EDFFrench Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission
* What is its role(s)
-Électricité de FranceCOLcombined license CFRCode of Federal RegisterDIFdynamic increase factors DCdesign certification DCDdesign certification document EPREvolutionary Pressurized
* Which acceptance criterion/criteria is applicable 8
-Water ReactorESBWREconomic Simplified Boiling
 
-Water ReactorFSARfinal safety analysis report GEGeneral Electric GEH GE-HitachiKHNPKorea Hydro & Nuclear PowerNASNational Academy of Sciences NRDCNatural Resources Defense CouncilNEINuclear Energy Institute NRCNuclear Regulatory CommissionPSIDpressure per square inch differentialPRAprobabilistic risk assessmentRESOffice of Research (NRC)
AIA Regulation 10 CFR 50.150(c) Control of Changes This section discusses the change control process required for key design features credited to meet 10 CFR 50.150.
RGregulatory guideSFPspend fuel pool SGIsafeguards informationSNLSandia National LaboratoriesSUNSIsensitive unclassified non
* Any plant design change evaluated against the AIA
-safeguards information WSwater slugAcronyms Than k you.Questions??41}}
* Change must not invalidate the AIA 9
 
NRC Regulatory Guidance Regulatory Guide 1.217
* Issued August 2011
* Endorses NEI 07-13, Methodology for Performing Aircraft Impact Assessments for New Plant Designs which was developed by NEI and reviewed by the NRC staff
* Considered insights gained from NRC and industry assessments of operating and new reactor designs
* Provides an acceptable, reasonably formulated methodology to assess the effects of a large, commercial aircraft impact on new reactor designs 10
 
Industry Guidance NEI 07-13, Revision 8
* Issued April 2011
* Methodology divided into three parts:
  - Containment and spent fuel pool evaluation
  - Heat removal evaluation
  - Design enhancements
* Sources of conservatism
  - Centerline containment strikes
  - Normal impact with maximum force
  - No credit for large equipment in limiting damage 11
 
Industry Guidance NEI 07-13, Revision 8
* Uncertainties
  - Definition of threat and load-time function
  - Fire-induced spurious actuation
  - 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2), Loss of Large Areas of the plant due to fire or explosion provide a measure of defense-in-depth 12
 
AIA Methodology
* Methodology in NEI 07-13 is a combination of analysis and rule sets
  - Structural analysis for assessing containment & spent fuel pool integrity (local and global effects)
  - Rule sets for assessing fire and shock effects
  - Rule sets for assessing physical damage to buildings other than containment and spent fuel pool structures
  - Use of finite element analysis where rule sets do not apply
  - Based upon experiments, analysis reports, and expert judgement 13
 
AIA Analysis Process 14
 
Local Structural Assessment Three potential stages of local loading
* Missile penetration into the target (depth of entry of the missile into the target) - NRDC Empirical Formula
* Spalling and scabbing of the target (ejection of target material from the target front face - spalling and from the back face - scabbing) -
Reduced Chang Empirical Formula
* Missile perforation through the target
    - Missile fully penetrates the target
    - Perforation velocity is the missile velocity just sufficient to fully penetrate without exiting
    - Residual velocity is the exit velocity of a missile with initial velocity greater than perforation velocity - CEA-EDF Empirical Formula
    - Prevention of perforation - Reduced Degen Empirical Formula 15
 
AIA Experiments Riera Function Tests
* Engine Tests
    - GE-J79 engine
    - 481 mph (705 ft/s) 5.25 thick targets
* F-4 Test
    - 8 diameter
    - 481 mph (705 ft/s)
    - 12 thick target See ADAMS Accession No. ML112690136 for more publically-available information 16
 
AIA Experiments Water Slug (WS) Tests Note: WS tests were NOT intended to simulate actual missiles or targets
* Tests demonstrated damage potential of soft missile
* Tests provided some insight regarding fluid dispersal issues
* Used to benchmark codes 17
 
Global Structural Assessment Two Alternative Analysis Methods
* Force Time-History Analysis Method
  - Riera Function: Impact force time-history is determined from aircraft mass distribution, crushing strength information and impulse conservation principles, assuming that the target is rigid
  - Provides force time-history with specific characteristics
  - Prescribed to designers by USNRC (SGI information)
* Missile-Target Interaction Analysis Method
  - Combined dynamic analysis model of both missile and target
  - Requires demonstration that:
* Integrated force-time history (impulse) matches or exceeds prescribed Riera function impulse
* Rigid wall impact reproduces characteristics of prescribed Riera function characteristics (response filtered at 50 to 100 Hz) 18
 
Material Characterization and Failure Criteria Technical Support and Details Provided in NEI 07-13, Appendix B Material Strength Properties Take Into Account:
* Strain rate effects
* Dynamic increase factors
* Concrete aging strength increase Material Failure Criteria
* Cast and Stainless Steel plate strain limits
* Reinforcing Steel strain limits
* Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete failure modeling 19
 
Structural Assessment:
Major Assumptions Containment Analyses
* Aircraft and engine impact perpendicular to structure centerline
* Potential containment dome impact is a plant-specific consideration
* Free-standing steel containments may require airframe model
* New plant designs may contain design features for which past experience is lacking, with potential failure modes outside the existing experience base
* Regions of the containment with potentially critical penetrations require special consideration 20
 
Structural Assessment:
Major Assumptions Spent Fuel Pool Analyses
* Engine and aircraft fuselage impact at mid-height and mid-span of the pool wall
* Other locations with greater damage potential should be assessed
* Engine and aircraft fuselage impact perpendicular to the wall surface
* If credit is taken of pool water inventory, care should be exercised in assuring that the added mass of the water is modeled conservatively
* Potential damage from wall motion on fuel assemblies adjacent to the walls should be evaluated 21
 
Structural Assessment:
Sufficiency Criteria Containment Intact
* The containment remains intact if structural analyses performed show that perforation of a steel containment or concrete containment with steel liner does not occur on impact AND that the containment ultimate pressure capability, given a core damage event, would not be exceeded before effective mitigation strategies can be implemented
* Effective mitigation strategies are those that, for an indefinite period of time, provide sufficient cooling to the damaged core or containment to limit temperature and pressure challenges below the ultimate pressure capability of the containment as defined in DCD/FSAR Chapter 19.
22
 
Structural Assessment:
Sufficiency Criteria Spent Fuel Pool Integrity
* Localized crushing and cracking of the concrete wall of the pool is acceptable provided that no leakage through the spent fuel pool liner compromises the required minimum water level of the pool
* If the fuel pool liner does not have a leakage path below the minimum water level, the fuel is protected and there would be no unacceptable release of radionuclides to the environment
* An aircraft impact at an elevation below the spent fuel pool with the potential for causing subsequent collapse of the spent fuel pool supporting structure must be evaluated, as appropriate 23
 
Structural Assessment:
Buildings Other than Containment and Spent Fuel Pool
* Structural or physical damage determined using rule sets in NEI 07-13
* The physical damage rule sets identified were derived based on studies of structures with typical reinforced concrete walls representative of existing plant designs:
    - 24 inch exterior walls, 18 inch interior walls
* Some new plants employ structures similar to those of current plants, others have structures that are significantly more robust.
* If the actual structure to be analyzed varies significantly, Missile-Target Interaction Analysis Method should be employed to determine the number of reinforced concrete walls necessary to stop further perforation into the structure on a design-specific basis.
24
 
Shock Damage Assessment
* The frequency spectrum associated with an aircraft impact is considerably higher than the spectrum associated with earthquakes.
* All equipment within the shock damage footprint is assumed to fail at the time of impact.
* Rule sets in NEI 07-13 are used to define the shock affects for six categories of equipment based on fragility.
* The shock damage distances are measured from the center of initial impact and then along a structural pathway to the affected equipment (i.e., shock is transmitted through walls, floors and ceilings but not across open air space).
* NSSS vendors have the option of using the values for SD1 through SD6 contained in NEI 07-13 or developing their own distances based on acceleration values filtered at 200 Hz for specific impact locations.
25
 
Fire Damage Assessment
* Fire spread rule sets provided in NEI 07-13
* Rule sets are based on previous research reports and experiments
* Fire damage footprint starts where physical damage ends - interface boundary
* Rule set consists of either the 1-barrier option or two-barrier option
* 1-barrier utilizes 5 psid, 3-hour fire rated barriers
* 2-barrier utilize 3-hour fire rated barriers
* Fire damage spread is assessed in all 3 dimensions 26
 
Fire Damage Assessment
* Fire damage can extend well beyond the physically damaged area due to the overpressure effects from the initial fireball and the spread of fuel through open pathways within the structure.
* Ventilation ductwork in the physical damage footprint is expected to be severely crushed , torn, and/or severed.
* Each fire damage footprint is fully encapsulated with 3-hour fire rated barriers (walls, floors, ceilings). Encapsulation is intended to contain:
  - Fire/Thermal effects
  - Fuel Spread
  - Overpressure from deflagration 27
 
Fire Damage Assessment
* All cabling and electrical equipment within damage footprints:
* in fire damage footprint - available for five minutes only
* in physical damage footprint - lost upon impact
* A ventilation controlled internal fire will burn for several hours, thus preventing operations personnel from being able to take manual actions in these areas for several hours.
* Additional considerations:
* Evaluate structural steel not encased in concrete
* Smoke/Heat at air intakes 28
 
Composite Damage Footprint
* The composite damage footprint for each impact          Fire location scenario is              Damage developed by enveloping the total damage from              Shock structural, fire, and shock      Damage damage
* As each impact location scenario is evaluated, the        Physical systemic and functional effects  Damage that are precluding protection of the fuel (reactor vessel and spent fuel pool) should be identified 29
 
Composite Damage Footprint
* Using plant information such as fire analyses, fire PRAs, internal flooding studies, and plant drawings, the rule sets and methodology will then determine which specific equipment, including cables, is assumed to be damaged
* The combined list of damaged cables and SSCs defines the threat to maintaining cooling of fuel in the vessel and spent fuel pool
* As each impact location scenario is evaluated, the systemic and functional effects that are precluding protection of the fuel (reactor vessel and spent fuel pool) should be identified 30
 
Design Enhancements
* Rule acceptance criteria must be met for all postulated impact location scenarios Incorporate Plant Design,
* 10 CFR 50.150 requires into Design    Rev X+1      applicants to identify and incorporate design features and functional capabilities Identify  Assess per    to meet the acceptance existing/new                criteria features    NEI 07-13
* Applicants should document the rationale for the selected approach(s) 31
 
Design Enhancements
* Three categories of enhancements
  - Preventing Internal Damage
* Strengthening external walls or relocating intervening structures
  - Minimizing Internal Damage
* Relocate equipment, strengthen internal walls, add and/or upgrade fire doors
  - Design-Specific System Enhancements
* Implement system enhancements to facilitate maintaining fuel cooling 32
 
Inspection Activities
* Applicants are not required to submit the actual assessment of the aircraft impact
* Assessments will be subject to inspection
* NRC may take appropriate enforcement action for any violations, including the preparation of an inadequate assessment or failure to prepare an assessment 33
 
Inspection Procedure NRC Inspection Manual Inspection Procedure 37804
* Most-recent revision (February 2012)
* Verify that applicant identified and incorporated into the design all the necessary design features and functional capabilities that provide additional inherent protection to withstand aircraft impact
* Verify realism in assessment of structural, fire, shock, and plant specific loss effects
* Verify AIA documentation is being maintained consistent with the requirements of the rule 34
 
Experience with Design Certification Applicants
* Westinghouse AP1000
* General Electric Hitachi ESBWR
* AREVA EPR
* Toshiba ABWR (South Texas)
* GEH Renewal ABWR
* Mitsubishi US-APWR
* KHNP APR1400 35
 
Lessons Learned
* Applying Fire Damage Rule Sets
* 5psid fire barriers versus 5psid fire doors
* Close arrangement of barriers under two-barrier option
* Physical and Fire footprint interface assumptions and requirements
* Fire intrusion via external wall impacts
* Use of Intervening Structures
* Gantry Cranes to be evaluated
* Mesh Size Analysis 36
 
Lessons Learned
* Documentation
* Identifying ALL credited key design features
* Everything credited in assessment must be identified in DC application
* Needed support equipment must be included
* Balancing level of detail required in DCD without inclusion of unnecessary SUNSI or SGI information 37
 
Conclusion
* AIA rule applies to new reactor applicants after July 13, 2009*
* Impact of a large commercial aircraft is a beyond design basis event
* Applicants to use realistic analyses to identify important design features
* NRC endorsed NEI 07-13 as an acceptable method for meeting the rule
* Methods and results are inspected
* Lessons learned used in updating regulatory guidance and inspection procedures 38
 
Links Aircraft Impact Assessment rule:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-06-12/pdf/E9-13582.pdf Aircraft Impact Assessment Inspections:
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/oversight/aia-inspections.html#insrpt RG 1.217:
ML092900004 NEI 07-13, Revision 8P:
ML111440006 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures to Aircraft Crash Impact:
ML112690136 39
 
Acronyms ABWR    Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor            PSID  pressure per square inch differential AIA    aircraft impact assessment                PRA  probabilistic risk assessment AP1000  Advanced Passive 1000                    RES  Office of Research (NRC)
APR1400 Advanced Power Reactor 1400              RG    regulatory guide APWR    Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor        SFP  spend fuel pool CEA-EDF French Alternative Energies and Atomic   SGI  safeguards information Energy Commission-Électricité de France  SNL  Sandia National Laboratories COL    combined license                         SUNSI sensitive unclassified non-safeguards CFR    Code of Federal Register                        information DIF    dynamic increase factors                 WS    water slug DC      design certification DCD    design certification document EPR    Evolutionary Pressurized-Water Reactor ESBWR  Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor FSAR    final safety analysis report GE      General Electric GEH     GE-Hitachi KHNP    Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power NAS    National Academy of Sciences NRDC    Natural Resources Defense Council NEI    Nuclear Energy Institute NRC    Nuclear Regulatory Commission 40
 
Thank you.
Questions??
41}}

Revision as of 01:01, 22 October 2019

U.S.Nrc Regulatory Perspective on Aircraft Impact Assessments
ML18026B110
Person / Time
Issue date: 01/26/2018
From: Dennis Andrukat
Office of New Reactors
To:
Dennis Andrukat
Shared Package
ML18026B126 List:
References
Download: ML18026B110 (41)


Text

U.S. NRC Regulatory Perspective on Aircraft Impact Assessments Dennis Andrukat U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors

Purpose Present a summary of the U.S. NRC assessments being conducted for the new reactor designs under 10 CFR 50.150, Aircraft Impact Assessment (AIA) 2

Overview

  • Background on NRC AIA regulation and guidance
  • NRC inspection procedure
  • Experience with Design Certification applicants 3

Assessment of Existing and New Reactors

  • Immediately after 9/11/01, NRC evaluated representative existing reactors for aircraft impact utilizing National Labs (2001-2004)
  • Regulatory requirements for aircraft impact mitigation were imposed on existing reactors via NRC Orders
  • Spent Fuel Pools were evaluated; Interfaced with NAS (2005-2007)
  • NRC in-house preliminary evaluations of new reactor designs (AP1000, ABWR, ESBWR, EPR, and APWR) utilizing RES staff (2006-2008) 4

Assessment of Existing and New Reactors

  • NRC amended its regulation to codify NRC Orders to mitigate the effects of losses of large areas of the plant to fires or explosions (10 CFR 50.54(hh)) (2009)
  • ALL reactors
  • mitigation strategies
  • NRC amended its regulation to require applicants for new nuclear power reactors to perform an assessment of the effects of the impact of a large, commercial aircraft (10 CFR 50.150) (2009)
  • NEW reactor designs only
  • design features and functional capabilities 5

AIA Regulation 10 CFR 50.150 Aircraft Impact Assessment

  • Published June 2009
  • AIA rule applies to new reactor applicants after July 13, 2009*
  • Impact of a large, commercial aircraft is a beyond-design-basis event
  • Use realistic analyses
  • Both safety-related and nonsafety-related features can be relied upon
  • Reduced use of operator action is a goal
  • [74 FR 28146, June 12, 2009]

6

AIA Regulation 10 CFR 50.150(a) Aircraft Impact Assessment Identify and incorporate into the design those features and functional capabilities to show that:

  • the reactor core remains cooled OR the containment remains intact AND
  • Spent fuel pool cooling OR spent fuel pool integrity is maintained 7

AIA Regulation 10 CFR 50.150(b) Content of application This section discusses the what must be documented in the DCD

  • Must identify & describe the credited key design features and functional capabilities from the assessment
  • Must describe how each key design feature and functional capability meets the rule
  • What is its role(s)
  • Which acceptance criterion/criteria is applicable 8

AIA Regulation 10 CFR 50.150(c) Control of Changes This section discusses the change control process required for key design features credited to meet 10 CFR 50.150.

  • Any plant design change evaluated against the AIA
  • Change must not invalidate the AIA 9

NRC Regulatory Guidance Regulatory Guide 1.217

  • Issued August 2011
  • Endorses NEI 07-13, Methodology for Performing Aircraft Impact Assessments for New Plant Designs which was developed by NEI and reviewed by the NRC staff
  • Considered insights gained from NRC and industry assessments of operating and new reactor designs
  • Provides an acceptable, reasonably formulated methodology to assess the effects of a large, commercial aircraft impact on new reactor designs 10

Industry Guidance NEI 07-13, Revision 8

  • Issued April 2011
  • Methodology divided into three parts:

- Containment and spent fuel pool evaluation

- Heat removal evaluation

- Design enhancements

  • Sources of conservatism

- Centerline containment strikes

- Normal impact with maximum force

- No credit for large equipment in limiting damage 11

Industry Guidance NEI 07-13, Revision 8

  • Uncertainties

- Definition of threat and load-time function

- Fire-induced spurious actuation

- 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2), Loss of Large Areas of the plant due to fire or explosion provide a measure of defense-in-depth 12

AIA Methodology

  • Methodology in NEI 07-13 is a combination of analysis and rule sets

- Structural analysis for assessing containment & spent fuel pool integrity (local and global effects)

- Rule sets for assessing fire and shock effects

- Rule sets for assessing physical damage to buildings other than containment and spent fuel pool structures

- Use of finite element analysis where rule sets do not apply

- Based upon experiments, analysis reports, and expert judgement 13

AIA Analysis Process 14

Local Structural Assessment Three potential stages of local loading

  • Missile penetration into the target (depth of entry of the missile into the target) - NRDC Empirical Formula
  • Spalling and scabbing of the target (ejection of target material from the target front face - spalling and from the back face - scabbing) -

Reduced Chang Empirical Formula

  • Missile perforation through the target

- Missile fully penetrates the target

- Perforation velocity is the missile velocity just sufficient to fully penetrate without exiting

- Residual velocity is the exit velocity of a missile with initial velocity greater than perforation velocity - CEA-EDF Empirical Formula

- Prevention of perforation - Reduced Degen Empirical Formula 15

AIA Experiments Riera Function Tests

  • Engine Tests

- GE-J79 engine

- 481 mph (705 ft/s) 5.25 thick targets

  • F-4 Test

- 8 diameter

- 481 mph (705 ft/s)

- 12 thick target See ADAMS Accession No. ML112690136 for more publically-available information 16

AIA Experiments Water Slug (WS) Tests Note: WS tests were NOT intended to simulate actual missiles or targets

  • Tests demonstrated damage potential of soft missile
  • Tests provided some insight regarding fluid dispersal issues
  • Used to benchmark codes 17

Global Structural Assessment Two Alternative Analysis Methods

  • Force Time-History Analysis Method

- Riera Function: Impact force time-history is determined from aircraft mass distribution, crushing strength information and impulse conservation principles, assuming that the target is rigid

- Provides force time-history with specific characteristics

- Prescribed to designers by USNRC (SGI information)

  • Missile-Target Interaction Analysis Method

- Combined dynamic analysis model of both missile and target

- Requires demonstration that:

  • Integrated force-time history (impulse) matches or exceeds prescribed Riera function impulse
  • Rigid wall impact reproduces characteristics of prescribed Riera function characteristics (response filtered at 50 to 100 Hz) 18

Material Characterization and Failure Criteria Technical Support and Details Provided in NEI 07-13, Appendix B Material Strength Properties Take Into Account:

  • Strain rate effects
  • Dynamic increase factors
  • Concrete aging strength increase Material Failure Criteria
  • Cast and Stainless Steel plate strain limits
  • Reinforcing Steel strain limits
  • Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete failure modeling 19

Structural Assessment:

Major Assumptions Containment Analyses

  • Aircraft and engine impact perpendicular to structure centerline
  • Potential containment dome impact is a plant-specific consideration
  • Free-standing steel containments may require airframe model
  • New plant designs may contain design features for which past experience is lacking, with potential failure modes outside the existing experience base
  • Regions of the containment with potentially critical penetrations require special consideration 20

Structural Assessment:

Major Assumptions Spent Fuel Pool Analyses

  • Engine and aircraft fuselage impact at mid-height and mid-span of the pool wall
  • Other locations with greater damage potential should be assessed
  • Engine and aircraft fuselage impact perpendicular to the wall surface
  • If credit is taken of pool water inventory, care should be exercised in assuring that the added mass of the water is modeled conservatively
  • Potential damage from wall motion on fuel assemblies adjacent to the walls should be evaluated 21

Structural Assessment:

Sufficiency Criteria Containment Intact

  • The containment remains intact if structural analyses performed show that perforation of a steel containment or concrete containment with steel liner does not occur on impact AND that the containment ultimate pressure capability, given a core damage event, would not be exceeded before effective mitigation strategies can be implemented
  • Effective mitigation strategies are those that, for an indefinite period of time, provide sufficient cooling to the damaged core or containment to limit temperature and pressure challenges below the ultimate pressure capability of the containment as defined in DCD/FSAR Chapter 19.

22

Structural Assessment:

Sufficiency Criteria Spent Fuel Pool Integrity

  • Localized crushing and cracking of the concrete wall of the pool is acceptable provided that no leakage through the spent fuel pool liner compromises the required minimum water level of the pool
  • If the fuel pool liner does not have a leakage path below the minimum water level, the fuel is protected and there would be no unacceptable release of radionuclides to the environment
  • An aircraft impact at an elevation below the spent fuel pool with the potential for causing subsequent collapse of the spent fuel pool supporting structure must be evaluated, as appropriate 23

Structural Assessment:

Buildings Other than Containment and Spent Fuel Pool

  • Structural or physical damage determined using rule sets in NEI 07-13
  • The physical damage rule sets identified were derived based on studies of structures with typical reinforced concrete walls representative of existing plant designs:

- 24 inch exterior walls, 18 inch interior walls

  • Some new plants employ structures similar to those of current plants, others have structures that are significantly more robust.
  • If the actual structure to be analyzed varies significantly, Missile-Target Interaction Analysis Method should be employed to determine the number of reinforced concrete walls necessary to stop further perforation into the structure on a design-specific basis.

24

Shock Damage Assessment

  • The frequency spectrum associated with an aircraft impact is considerably higher than the spectrum associated with earthquakes.
  • All equipment within the shock damage footprint is assumed to fail at the time of impact.
  • Rule sets in NEI 07-13 are used to define the shock affects for six categories of equipment based on fragility.
  • The shock damage distances are measured from the center of initial impact and then along a structural pathway to the affected equipment (i.e., shock is transmitted through walls, floors and ceilings but not across open air space).
  • NSSS vendors have the option of using the values for SD1 through SD6 contained in NEI 07-13 or developing their own distances based on acceleration values filtered at 200 Hz for specific impact locations.

25

Fire Damage Assessment

  • Rule sets are based on previous research reports and experiments
  • Fire damage footprint starts where physical damage ends - interface boundary
  • Rule set consists of either the 1-barrier option or two-barrier option
  • 1-barrier utilizes 5 psid, 3-hour fire rated barriers
  • 2-barrier utilize 3-hour fire rated barriers
  • Fire damage spread is assessed in all 3 dimensions 26

Fire Damage Assessment

  • Fire damage can extend well beyond the physically damaged area due to the overpressure effects from the initial fireball and the spread of fuel through open pathways within the structure.
  • Ventilation ductwork in the physical damage footprint is expected to be severely crushed , torn, and/or severed.
  • Each fire damage footprint is fully encapsulated with 3-hour fire rated barriers (walls, floors, ceilings). Encapsulation is intended to contain:

- Fire/Thermal effects

- Fuel Spread

- Overpressure from deflagration 27

Fire Damage Assessment

  • All cabling and electrical equipment within damage footprints:
  • in fire damage footprint - available for five minutes only
  • in physical damage footprint - lost upon impact
  • A ventilation controlled internal fire will burn for several hours, thus preventing operations personnel from being able to take manual actions in these areas for several hours.
  • Additional considerations:
  • Evaluate structural steel not encased in concrete
  • Smoke/Heat at air intakes 28

Composite Damage Footprint

  • The composite damage footprint for each impact Fire location scenario is Damage developed by enveloping the total damage from Shock structural, fire, and shock Damage damage
  • As each impact location scenario is evaluated, the Physical systemic and functional effects Damage that are precluding protection of the fuel (reactor vessel and spent fuel pool) should be identified 29

Composite Damage Footprint

  • Using plant information such as fire analyses, fire PRAs, internal flooding studies, and plant drawings, the rule sets and methodology will then determine which specific equipment, including cables, is assumed to be damaged
  • The combined list of damaged cables and SSCs defines the threat to maintaining cooling of fuel in the vessel and spent fuel pool
  • As each impact location scenario is evaluated, the systemic and functional effects that are precluding protection of the fuel (reactor vessel and spent fuel pool) should be identified 30

Design Enhancements

  • Rule acceptance criteria must be met for all postulated impact location scenarios Incorporate Plant Design,
  • 10 CFR 50.150 requires into Design Rev X+1 applicants to identify and incorporate design features and functional capabilities Identify Assess per to meet the acceptance existing/new criteria features NEI 07-13
  • Applicants should document the rationale for the selected approach(s) 31

Design Enhancements

  • Three categories of enhancements

- Preventing Internal Damage

  • Strengthening external walls or relocating intervening structures

- Minimizing Internal Damage

  • Relocate equipment, strengthen internal walls, add and/or upgrade fire doors

- Design-Specific System Enhancements

  • Implement system enhancements to facilitate maintaining fuel cooling 32

Inspection Activities

  • Applicants are not required to submit the actual assessment of the aircraft impact
  • Assessments will be subject to inspection
  • NRC may take appropriate enforcement action for any violations, including the preparation of an inadequate assessment or failure to prepare an assessment 33

Inspection Procedure NRC Inspection Manual Inspection Procedure 37804

  • Most-recent revision (February 2012)
  • Verify that applicant identified and incorporated into the design all the necessary design features and functional capabilities that provide additional inherent protection to withstand aircraft impact
  • Verify realism in assessment of structural, fire, shock, and plant specific loss effects
  • Verify AIA documentation is being maintained consistent with the requirements of the rule 34

Experience with Design Certification Applicants

  • Mitsubishi US-APWR

Lessons Learned

  • Applying Fire Damage Rule Sets
  • Close arrangement of barriers under two-barrier option
  • Physical and Fire footprint interface assumptions and requirements
  • Fire intrusion via external wall impacts
  • Use of Intervening Structures
  • Gantry Cranes to be evaluated
  • Mesh Size Analysis 36

Lessons Learned

  • Documentation
  • Identifying ALL credited key design features
  • Everything credited in assessment must be identified in DC application
  • Needed support equipment must be included
  • Balancing level of detail required in DCD without inclusion of unnecessary SUNSI or SGI information 37

Conclusion

  • AIA rule applies to new reactor applicants after July 13, 2009*
  • Impact of a large commercial aircraft is a beyond design basis event
  • Applicants to use realistic analyses to identify important design features
  • NRC endorsed NEI 07-13 as an acceptable method for meeting the rule
  • Methods and results are inspected
  • Lessons learned used in updating regulatory guidance and inspection procedures 38

Links Aircraft Impact Assessment rule:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-06-12/pdf/E9-13582.pdf Aircraft Impact Assessment Inspections:

https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/oversight/aia-inspections.html#insrpt RG 1.217:

ML092900004 NEI 07-13, Revision 8P:

ML111440006 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures to Aircraft Crash Impact:

ML112690136 39

Acronyms ABWR Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor PSID pressure per square inch differential AIA aircraft impact assessment PRA probabilistic risk assessment AP1000 Advanced Passive 1000 RES Office of Research (NRC)

APR1400 Advanced Power Reactor 1400 RG regulatory guide APWR Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor SFP spend fuel pool CEA-EDF French Alternative Energies and Atomic SGI safeguards information Energy Commission-Électricité de France SNL Sandia National Laboratories COL combined license SUNSI sensitive unclassified non-safeguards CFR Code of Federal Register information DIF dynamic increase factors WS water slug DC design certification DCD design certification document EPR Evolutionary Pressurized-Water Reactor ESBWR Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor FSAR final safety analysis report GE General Electric GEH GE-Hitachi KHNP Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power NAS National Academy of Sciences NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 40

Thank you.

Questions??

41