ML19294A009
| ML19294A009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/20/2019 |
| From: | Quynh Nguyen Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Nguyen, Q, ACRS | |
| References | |
| NRC-0574 | |
| Download: ML19294A009 (115) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Regulatory Policies & Practices Subcommittee Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
Friday, September 20, 2019 Work Order No.:
NRC-0574 Pages 1-93 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1
1 2
3 DISCLAIMER 4
5 6
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 7
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 8
9 10 The contents of this transcript of the 11 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 13 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions 14 recorded at the meeting.
15 16 This transcript has not been reviewed, 17 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 18 inaccuracies.
19 20 21 22 23
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
(ACRS) 5
+ + + + +
6 REGULATORY POLICIES & PRACTICES SUBCOMMITTEE 7
+ + + + +
8 OPEN SESSION 9
+ + + + +
10 FRIDAY 11 SEPTEMBER 20, 2019 12
+ + + + +
13 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 14
+ + + + +
15 The Subcommittee met at the Nuclear 16 Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, Room 17 T2B10, 11545 Rockville Pike, at 8:30 a.m., Matthew W.
18 Sunseri, Chair, presiding.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
1 MATTHEW SUNSERI, Chair 2
DENNIS C. BLEY, Member 3
CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 4
MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, Member*
5 VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 6
WALTER KIRCHNER, Member*
7 DAVID PETTI, Member*
8 HAROLD B. RAY, Member 9
JOY L. REMPE, Member 10 PETER RICCARDELLA, Member*
11 12 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
13 QUYNH NGUYEN 14 15 ALSO PRESENT:
16 ANNA BRADFORD, NRO 17 JOSEPH COLACCINO, NRO 18 CAROLYN LAURON, NRO 19 SCOTT MOORE, Executive Director, ACRS 20 JAMES O'DRISCOLL, NMSS 21 22
- Present via telephone 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
8:31 a.m.
2 CHAIR SUNSERI: Good morning. The meeting 3
will now come to order. This is a meeting of the 4
regulatory policies and practices subcommittee of the 5
advisory committee on reactor safeguards. My name is 6
Matt Sunseri, chairman of the subcommittee meeting.
7 ACRS members in the room today are Harold 8
Ray, Joy Rempe, Charlie Brown, Vesna Dimitrijevic, and 9
members on the phone are Pete Riccardella, Michael 10 Corradini, Dave Petti, and Walt Kirchner. Did I miss 11 anybody on the phone? Got them all? All right.
12 Quyhn Nguyen is the ACRS staff member designated 13 official for this meeting.
14 The subcommittee will hear from 15 representatives of the staff regarding lessons learned 16 on 10 CFR Part 50 and 52 activities. I'm going to 17 depart from the script a little bit here. This 18 meeting was called at our request.
19 The motivation for that is we have several 20 members that have quite a bit of experience with 21 implementing Part 50 and Part 52. Because this 22 rulemaking is so far in our future, and because of the 23 tenure of some of these members, they won't be around 24 when the opportunity comes for ACRS to be in process 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 review of this potential rule change or this 1
rulemaking. We wanted to have an opportunity for them 2
to share some of their experiences and wisdom with the 3
staff as you consider the changes that you want to 4
make in the proposed rulemaking.
5 That's the motivation for today's meeting, 6
as opposed to a normal meeting, where we're going to 7
be reviewing and providing opinions in preparation for 8
a full committee review. There will not be -- we are 9
not planning a full committee review following this 10 meeting.
11 What you will hear today is opinions and 12 ideas from individual members and not representative 13 of ACRS' position on anything. I want to be clear on 14 that. The ACRS was established by statute and is 15 governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This 16 means that our committee can only speak through its 17 published report.
18 The parties who wish to provide comments 19 can contact our office requesting time. That said, we 20 set a time for spur of the moment comments from 21 members of the public attending or listening to our 22 meeting. Written comments are also welcome. The ACRS 23 section of the U.S. NRC public website provides our 24 charter, bylaws, letters, and full transcripts of full 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 and subcommittee meetings, including slides presented 1
at this meeting. As of the start of this meeting, we 2
have received no written comments or requests for time 3
from members of the public to make any statements 4
today. We have a bridge line established for 5
interested members that would like to listen in.
6 To preclude interruption of the meeting, 7
the phone bridge will be placed in a listen-in mode 8
during the presentation and the committee discussion.
9 We will unmute the bridge line at a designated time to 10 afford the public an opportunity to make comments or 11 provide statements.
12 At this time, I ask that all the meeting 13 attendees and participants silence their cell phones 14 or other electronic devices that make audible noises.
15 A transcript of the meeting is being kept and will be 16 made available. Therefore, we request participants in 17 this meeting to use the microphones located throughout 18 the meeting room when addressing the subcommittee.
19 Participants should fist identify 20 themselves and speak with sufficient clarity and 21 volume so that they may be readily heard. Just as a 22 lesson learned, make sure that the green light on your 23 microphone is on when you're speaking, and then turn 24 it off when you're not because of the feedback. In 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 particular, now that we're using remote tools for 1
members to listen in, the feedback can get pretty 2
annoying. We will now proceed with the meeting. I 3
call upon Anna Bradford, senior manager at NRO, for 4
any remarks.
5 MS. BRADFORD: Thank you. As you 6
mentioned, my name is Anna Bradford. I'm the acting 7
director of the division of licensing, siting, and 8
environmental analysis in the office of new reactors.
9 Again, as you mentioned, the purpose of today's 10 meeting was for us to come and tell you where we are 11 on a rulemaking that will affect 10 CFR Part 52 and 12 Part 50.
13 The idea is to align those processes for 14 new reactor applications, as well as incorporate some 15 lessons learned over our years of using Part 52. We 16 know that the committee has been very involved with a 17 lot of implementation of Part 52 and Part 50, between 18 your reviews and design certifications and early site 19 permits and combined licenses.
20 We know that you probably had a lot of 21 thoughts, maybe, on Part 52 and what could be improved 22 or what we need to remove or clarify, anything like 23 that. That was the purpose of today's meeting. The 24 input that we get, we'll consider it when we are 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 developing the regulatory basis, which is the next 1
step, as you'll hear. With that, I will turn it over 2
to the project managers to give you more details.
3 Thank you.
4 CHAIR SUNSERI: Thank you. James, floor 5
is yours.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Good morning. I'm Jim 7
O'Driscoll, the lead rulemaking project manager on 8
this activity. I am in the office of nuclear material 9
safety and safeguards, division of rulemaking.
10 Joining me today is Carolyn Lauron, senior project 11 manager in the NRC's Office of New Reactors, Division 12 of Licensing, Siting, and Environmental Analysis.
13 Also joining me today is Joe Colaccino, 14 author of the SECY Paper 19-0084. We also have other 15 NRC staff in the audience, as well. We'll have a 16 brief NRC staff presentation, where we'll cover the 17 NRC staff's scoping activities and items chosen for 18 consideration in the rulemaking.
19 Then we will hand it over to the HRS 20 members to hear their views on this activity. Please 21 note that the list of ADAMS section numbers to the 22 documents referenced in the NRC staff's presentation 23 can be found at the end of the staff's slide 24 presentation. Also, please be careful not to discuss 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 any safeguard security-related classified or 1
proprietary information during the meeting. Although 2
we intend to have an open dialogue, please note that 3
the NRC will not make any regulatory commitments 4
during the meeting.
5 CHAIR SUNSERI: Jim, while you're turning 6
the slides here, I just want, for the record, to 7
acknowledge that Dennis Bley has joined the meeting.
8 Thank you.
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, sure. As Anna 10 stated, the purpose of today's meeting is to receive 11 the ACRS subcommittee's observations on implementation 12 of 10 CFR Part 52 process, based on the subcommittee's 13 perspectives from its reviews of early site permits, 14 design certification, and combined license 15 applications.
16 We hope this interaction will help the 17 staff understand your views on this rulemaking 18 activity. Your input will help us develop a 19 regulatory basis for the rule that includes your 20 perspective. We expect today's meeting will help the 21 staff develop a high-quality inclusive document.
22 We'll take this information, perspectives, and 23 questions we'll hear today into consideration when 24 developing the regulatory basis. We plan to hold 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 additional public meetings, as needed.
1 CHAIR SUNSERI: While you're taking a 2
breath again, I would say we appreciate the remarks 3
about security and, I'll call it OUO information.
4 Help keep us honest on that. We take no offense to 5
saying no, we can't go there.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, will do. Purpose 7
of the rulemaking. The purpose of the rulemaking is 8
to implement the commission's direction on 9
SRM-SECY-15-0002. The goal of the rulemaking is to 10 better align the Part 50 and Part 52 licensing 11 processes, such that equivalent designs submitted for 12 NRC review under each process are assessed against 13 consistent technical standards that yield outcomes 14 with equivalent demonstrations of adequate safety, 15 security, and environmental protection.
16 In SECY-15-0002, issued in January 8, 17 2015, the staff made several recommendations to the 18 commission regarding policy and regulatory updates to 19 ensure consistency in new reactor licensing reviews.
20 The staff also made recommendations to address 21 staff-identified lessons learned obtained through the 22 licensing reviews completed to date. These changes 23 are intended to improve clarity and reduce unnecessary 24 burden on applicants and staff. The four alignment 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 items are more fully described in Enclosure 1 of 1
SECY-15-0002. Examples of lessons learned, as they 2
were at the time of the SECY's issuance, are described 3
in Enclosure 2 of that SECY. As well as these, the 4
staff has addressed or intends to address editorial 5
and administrative changes, as well.
6 In addition, the staff is considering 7
various transformational changes. In the context of 8
this activity, transformational changes means a 9
significant new idea or revised approach to an issue 10 that has a potential to significantly reduce burden on 11 the applicant and staff, while not compromising 12 safety.
13 The project was deliberately budgeted to 14 start in fiscal year '19. The staff commenced work 15 last October. The staff's first task was to clearly 16 define the scope of the regulatory basis for the 17 rulemaking. From the staff's outreach efforts inside 18 and outside the NRC, the staff collected a large 19 number of items to consider for inclusion.
20 On January 15th of this year, the staff 21 held a Category 3 public meeting to request feedback 22 from external stakeholders. NEI arranged for a panel 23 of industry representatives to attend. Using input 24 from the staff, the stakeholders -- the staff aligned 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 on scope in July 11th. In late August, the staff 1
issued information, SECY Paper 19-0084, which provided 2
information to the commission on the status and scope 3
of the regulatory basis. The staff requested input on 4
5 MEMBER RAY: Just a second. Let me 6
interrupt. Matt, do you want to go all the way to the 7
end, and then come back?
8 CHAIR SUNSERI: No, we talked to him 9
before. We can ask some questions along the way, make 10 it a little more conversational.
11 MEMBER RAY: In going through what you've 12 said so far, the material you've covered so far, I 13 haven't seen anything that indicates that one of the 14
-- that the circumstances recognized that we were 15 talking about first of a kind experience. One of the 16 reasons for alignment that's given in one of these 17 documents you listed up there is that potential 18 applicants are thinking that Part 50 might be best for 19 first of a kind.
20 Certainly, although the -- a reason for 21 Part 52 being created is given as better control over 22 standardization, in reality, there was another reason, 23 at least, which was to make available a one-step 24 process, often referred to as one step. But at the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 time, anyway, it was conceived -- and I can say this 1
from a different perspective than I have now, which 2
was in the industry at the time that it was developed, 3
the idea of one step emerged from the post-TMI period 4
for people like myself, who had a CP & OL at the time.
5 The idea, therefore, was to make it 6
possible to have a one-step licensing process, but at 7
that time, the people I was involved with never 8
imagined that for first of a kind. To get back to my 9
intended question, is there, in any of this -- I 10 haven't seen it if there is -- the idea that maybe 11 first of a kind wasn't intended to be used for a 12 design certification?
13 Standard design approval exists under Part 14 52, and then, of course, you have the Part 50 process, 15 which isn't usable by a vendor who doesn't have a 16 customer, so standard design approval is the Part 52 17 alternative to design certification and was imagined, 18 then, to be applicable to a first-of-a-kind design to 19 avoid having to detail the whole plant design for 20 certification purposes.
21 That's a long-winded premise. Let me boil 22 it down just -- to what extent has the option of 23 saying wait, we ought not to be trying to make design 24 certification fit first-of-a-kind designs that have 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 never been built, and don't even have a plant 1
customer, but rather, we should use standard design 2
approval, for example? To what extent is that part of 3
the discussion? I don't see it.
4 MS. BRADFORD: Do you want to take it, or 5
do you want me to take that, Jim?
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Go ahead.
7 MS. BRADFORD: It's an interesting 8
question, but more of a philosophical kind of 9
question. We did consider -- we didn't want to go to 10 the point where we were starting with a blank piece of 11 paper for Part 52. We kind of wanted to work within 12 the bounds that had been set up.
13 The SDAs are available. Applicants can 14 use them. There's some applicants now that are 15 considering standard design approvals, when I say 16 SDAs. You can also use a custom COL under Part 52.
17 I do want to point that out.
18 I know that there are some advanced 19 reactors that don't want to go the design 20 certification route. It will be a first of a kind, so 21 in their mind, they're going to do a custom COL. A 22 custom COL does not refer to an approved design 23 certification. There are some flexibilities within 24 there that have been really explored for advanced 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 reactors and laid out in, I think it's called the 1
regulatory roadmap.
2 MEMBER RAY: Would you consider a custom 3
COL a one-step licensing process?
4 MS. BRADFORD: I would.
5 MEMBER RAY: We're going to come back to 6
this issue of one step versus two step --
7 MS. BRADFORD: I would consider --
8 (Simultaneous Speaking) 9 MEMBER RAY: -- later in the discussion, 10 but I just wondered if that was the case.
11 MS. BRADFORD: Yes, I would.
12 MEMBER REMPE: There's another thing, when 13 I reviewing this material, that came up. We discussed 14 amongst ourselves. You used the term standard design 15 approval. If you go back and look through things, 16 really, there used to be final design approvals.
17 There aren't many SDAs. Out of curiosity, when did 18 the term change from FDA to SDA, and what happened?
19 Because I --
20 (Simultaneous Speaking) 21 MS. BRADFORD: If I remember right, it was 22 during the last revision of Part 50, which was about 23 2007, something like that. There used to be an 24 Appendix O to Part 50, which talked about FDAs. There 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 was PDAs, which was preliminary design approval.
1 There was several different terms, meaning different 2
things. At that time, the commission, for whatever 3
reason, decided they wanted to change the approach and 4
they revised -- they wanted some flexibility, but 5
maybe not the FDA, the PDA and all that. That's when 6
the SDA went into effect. I think it was 2006-2007, 7
something like that.
8 MEMBER REMPE: Thank you.
9 MEMBER RAY: To put a pin on what you just 10 said, please, as you look at input now to this 11 rulemaking, and as you look at experience and lessons 12 learned, are there things that you say wait a minute, 13 that's something that we would treat differently 14 because it is a consequence of being first of a kind, 15 and we're not going to change design certification to 16 make it -- facilitate the ease of certifying a 17 first-of-a-kind design, and then changing it later?
18 We'll have more discussion about that later, I know, 19 but has that ever been discussed or considered?
20 Because I don't see it in any of the material.
21 MS. BRADFORD: I can't say that we started 22 with the thought of how can we make first of a kind 23 licensing easier. I don't know that was one of our 24 thoughts when we went into what changes do we want to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 make to Part 52. But if you have comments along those 1
lines on what you think we should consider, we would 2
be happy to hear those.
3 MEMBER RAY: Okay, we'll put that off 4
until later. Certainly, lots of folks have observed 5
first of a kind are unique when it comes to 6
certification. As I say, at least from the 7
perspective of where I sat 20 years ago, first of a 8
kind wouldn't have been thought possible to certify.
9 That's just history. Anyway, thank you for the 10 diversion. Go ahead.
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: To continue on Slide 7, 12 this is on background. The staff requested input on 13 the scope of the regulatory basis from a wide variety 14 of stakeholders, including the general public, 15 industry organizations and non-governmental 16 organizations. In addition, the staff solicited input 17 internally.
18 In all, about 250 separate scoping items 19 were received. Staff initially screened each item to 20 determine if it aligned with the overall purpose of 21 the rulemaking. The item was screened in if it met at 22 least one of the following criteria. It addressed 23 alignment or requirements for the contents of 24 applications submitted under Part 50 or Part 52, or it 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 addressed a lessons learned from new reactor licensing 1
activities, or it was a potential transformational 2
change that could significantly improve the licensing 3
process or the change would clarify the regulations or 4
reduce unnecessary burden and would not adversely 5
impact other requirements.
6 The staff did a second screening of the 7
items to obtain a manageable list of high-impact 8
items. An item was screened out if it would provide 9
neither a significant safety benefit or a clear burden 10 reduction on industry or staff. Items were also 11 screened out if they could be addressed through more 12 appropriate processes.
13 If the item was judged to be an 14 administrative correction, it was transferred to the 15 agency's periodic administrative corrections 16 rulemaking. If the item could be addressed through 17 guidance, alone, without any changes to regulation, it 18 was screened out.
19 In July, the staff aligned on the scope of 20 the regulatory basis. The current scope consists of 21 the four alignment items discussed in Pages 4 and 5 of 22 SECY-19-0084. The scope also includes 52 lessons 23 learned items listed in the enclosure to SECY-19-0084.
24 Four of these are considered transformational in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 nature. Eight administrative corrections identified 1
during the final screening process were transferred to 2
NRC's 2019 administrative corrections rulemaking.
3 I'll now hand it over to Carolyn Lauron of NRO's 4
division of licensing, siting, and environmental 5
analysis, who will provide a bit more detail on the 6
items.
7 MS. LAURON: Before I begin, I want to 8
point out an error on the slide for Item Bravo. It 9
should read
- develop, maintain, and upgrade a
10 plant-specific PRA. The first time submit appears in 11 that item should be deleted.
12 PARTICIPANT: Delete submit.
13 CHAIR SUNSERI: Which one is that? Oh, 14 I've got the wrong slide, I think.
15 MS. LAURON: Item Bravo.
16 CHAIR SUNSERI: Which one is in error?
17 Where's the error?
18 MS. LAURON: Item Bravo, develop, submit 19 and maintain and upgrade a plant-specific PRA. It 20 should state develop, maintain, and upgrade a 21 plant-specific PRA.
22 CHAIR SUNSERI: Delete the first submit, 23 I mean the submit?
24 MS. LAURON: Correct. Submit appears 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 twice in that item, on the same line.
1 CHAIR SUNSERI: Oh, okay.
2 MS. LAURON: Right.
3 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you.
4 MS.
LAURON:
You're welcome.
In 5
SECY-2015, the 2015 SECY, the staff discussed the 6
following four alignment items, which the commission 7
approved in its SRM. To apply the policy statement on 8
severe reactor accidents to new Part 50 applications 9
consistent with the Part 52 applications, which will 10 require construction permit and operating license 11 applicants to submit information on design features 12 for prevention and mitigation of severe accidents.
13 The second item was to modify the 14 licensing process to require all new reactor 15 applications to develop, maintain, and upgrade 16 plant-specific probabilistic risk assessments, or 17 PRAs, to submit a description of the PRA and its 18 results, and to maintain and upgrade the PRA 19 throughout the duration of the operating license.
20 The third item is to modify the Part 50 21 requirements to provide prospective applicants the 22 same exceptions to post-Three Mile Island requirements 23 given under Part 52, and finally, to modify the Part 24 50 licensing process to require a description and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 analysis of the fire protection design features and 1
plans.
2 MEMBER REMPE: Oh, sorry. Watch out for 3
the papers.
4 PARTICIPANT: Leave it on, just don't --
5 MEMBER REMPE: Go back to the prior slide, 6
please. Just for my memory, could you remind me what 7
the exceptions are for the 52 in Item C?
8 MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
There were some 9
exceptions in that because I think 5044 -- we're 10 talking about TMI stuff, right?
11 MEMBER REMPE: Right.
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's hydrogen control.
13 We issued a risk-informed rule in, I think, 2003 time 14 frame. For new reactors, we were telling folks to 15 follow that piece. We were accepting the hydrogen 16 control items that were listed in 34(f). That was an 17 exception. That's just one of them that I can think 18 of.
19 MEMBER REMPE: Thank you.
20 MS. LAURON: For the lessons learned 21 items, the staff is also considering revising the 22 regulations as described in the enclosure to 23 SECY-19-0084 in the following categories. PRA 24 requirements as it relates to risk-informed 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 initiatives, operator licensing, based on experiences 1
with Vogtle, security, based on recent experiences and 2
applicability of requirements before fuel load, 3
emergency planning to eliminate duplicative 4
requirements, revise application of requirements, and 5
provide clarifications, licensing process under Part 6
52, which includes several
- topics, design 7
certification renewal and expiration date, aligning 8
the design certification, early site permit and 9
limited work authorization processes with requirements 10 in 10 CFR 50.59, design scope and standardization, 11 standard design approval, and content of applications, 12 environmental review to allow for an environmental 13 assessment for COL applicant and to submit the COL 14 application in two parts, separating the environmental 15 report from seismic, siting, financial, and emergency 16 planning information, applicability of other processes 17 to Part 52 to clarify the regulations that define 18 applicability of other requirements to early site 19 permits, design certification, and combined license 20 applications, and finally, miscellaneous topics to 21 remove outdated requirements and to clarify existing 22 requirements. As noted in the recent SECY, some of 23 the changes under consideration are transformational.
24 These changes have the potential to significantly 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 reduce unnecessary burden on the applicant and staff.
1 For example, modify the design certification renewal 2
requirements and expiration date would preserve the 3
ability of an applicant to reference a certified 4
design until the applicant is ready to submit its 5
application.
6 In another example, aligning the design 7
certification change process with 10 CFR 50.59 and 8
applying the definitions for tier information 9
described in SECY-19-0034, would eliminate challenges 10 for changes during construction. I'll hand it back to 11 Jim.
12 MEMBER RAY: That statement you last said, 13 eliminate challenges, right now, there's what's called 14 a, quote, 50.59 like process that applies to Tier 2 15 information. At least I understand what's been said 16 up until now, that wouldn't change. In other words, 17 you have that ability today to make changes under 18 50.59 like criteria. It would just be extended to 19 other things than just Tier 2 information. Is that 20 correct?
21 MS. LAURON: I believe it would allow the 22
-- under consideration, it would allow changes that 23 would not significantly affect the safety of the 24 change. Joe, is that correct?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 MEMBER RAY: 50.59 has a bunch of 1
criteria. You've got to go through six or eight of 2
them, whatever it is, and decide if a change is 3
required. If not -- I mean if an amendment's 4
required. If not, then you go ahead and make the 5
change.
6 You have to then update it in the FSAR 7
when the FSAR is submitted or updated every two years.
8 But when you said eliminate, it just seemed like a 9
very strong consequence of extending the applicability 10 of whatever it is you're going to ultimately do 11 because it already exists.
12 I'm just asking the question, at this 13 point, to try and get you to elaborate on is it 14 something different than what exists today, or is it 15 just being extended to other things? What are you 16 referring to?
17 MS. BRADFORD: What we were thinking about 18 there was, like you said, there's a 50.59 process that 19 has a series of steps or considerations, and then 20 there's the 50.59 like process, which has additional 21 steps or considerations. You could say it's more 22 restrictive than the 50.59 process. What we wanted to 23 do was go back and look and see has that served us 24 well? Is it a good thing for it to be more 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 restrictive? Are there reasons for it to be more 1
restrictive? Should we make it even more restrictive 2
or less restrictive, given our experience with 3
construction in Part 52. It was just to look at it 4
and see if we're in the right place with the 50.59 5
like process.
6 MEMBER RAY: At some point -- and this 7
probably isn't the best time to try and do it -- there 8
was elaboration on what I think you're referring to 9
now in the January public meeting, January 2019 public 10 meeting, talking about the notion that the licensee 11 would be at risk for changes that would be made.
12 We'll come back to that later. I just was 13 reacting to what she said about eliminate challenges 14 because right now, we have a process. Changing the 15 criteria or making it applicable to other things, I 16 understand, but I don't think it goes so far as to 17 eliminate --
18 MS. BRADFORD: Decrease challenges, maybe 19 not eliminate challenges. You're right that it's a 20 very strong word, but we can come back to that if 21 you'd like.
22 MEMBER BLEY: I've got a couple questions 23 on this one. One's kind of simple. Transformation 24 has become a special word around here. You're using 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 it in its more traditional sense here, or do you think 1
it's transforming the regulatory process for the 2
commission?
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: We're using it in the 4
spirit of the efforts the agency is trying to do.
5 MEMBER BLEY: You are? Okay.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: We're trying to make 7
ourselves a
better regulator using the 8
transformational philosophies that were the culture 9
that's being put out.
10 MEMBER BLEY: It's kind of hard to see the 11 transformational nature of some of this to me. The 12 last one on consider reducing the requirements for 13 standardization, we already have a process where a COL 14 applicant can take exceptions or make changes to the 15 standard design. What are you thinking about here?
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I think, just going back 17 to what we were saying before, a little bit earlier, 18 was that we just want to look at what standardization 19 and our emphasis on standardization when we put out 20 the Part 52 process and how well that's actually --
21 how important that is compared to its impact on 22 licensees when they try to make changes. It's 23 something that we want to just examine again and see 24 if we maybe can de-emphasize the emphasis on 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 standardization in the change process, such that that 1
would allow licensees to better make changes.
2 MEMBER BLEY: Okay. We haven't had 3
anybody really get all the way through this thing yet, 4
but we, here, have seen a number of COL applications.
5 From the review point, if you accept the standard 6
design, it flies through a whole lot easier. I'm not 7
even sure what you're thinking about. It seems almost 8
a tautology that works pretty well, even though we 9
never built a plant.
10 MEMBER BROWN: There are two plants being 11 built based on the design certifications we 12 participated in, and there's a COL building the plans.
13 I don't remember any --
14 (Simultaneous Speaking) 15 MEMBER BLEY: Changes have come in. I 16 know they were the lead plant.
17 MS. BRADFORD: I think one practical 18 effect of this is the LARs. Vogtle is building the 19 two units right now, as you mentioned. They've 20 submitted, I think we're at 164 license amendment 21 requests. They have changed that design. When 22 Westinghouse comes in to renew that design 23 certification, it's expected that they'll take all 24 those LARs and put those into the new design. Because 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 when it was constructed, they learned that these 1
changes needed to be made. Reducing requirements for 2
standardization, one thing it makes me think about is 3
for every LAR, if you look at our safety evaluation, 4
there's a section that talks about what's the effect 5
on standardization, and does the effect on 6
standardization, is it outweighed by the benefit that 7
you're getting by making this change.
8 Every LAR there's a paragraph or two that 9
talks about that. Is that worthwhile? We almost 10 always say yes, they should be allowed to make this 11 change, and it's not going to adversely affect 12 standardization or the impact of standardization on 13 safety. Is that the place where we want to be?
14 That's what we wanted to stop and think about.
15 MEMBER BROWN: Is there a difference 16 between how you treat a LAR for the new design as 17 opposed to how you would treat or require a LAR for an 18 existing plant?
19 MS. BRADFORD: An operating plant, you 20 mean?
21 MEMBER BROWN: An operating plant --
22 (Simultaneous Speaking) 23 MS. BRADFORD: The operating plant, I 24 would --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 MEMBER BROWN: We're dealing with an 1
operating plant issue right now, in terms of the 2
digital I&C world. That pretty much governed -- the 3
argument on that is 50.59 and the eight requirements 4
or the eight items within the Item C. All I know is 5
we approved -- we reviewed that final design.
6 We gave, whatever, the Betty Crocker Good 7
Housekeeping Seal of Approval based on our letters, 8
but none of the LARs that I'm aware of have raised to 9
the level of massive change, where they had to be 10 re-presented to the committee. I presume -- did they 11 do that under 50.59, or was there some other change 12 process part of Part 52 that they were allowed to do 13 that? I've only seen Part 52.
14 Twelve years, I've never seen a Part 50 15 thing. I've never seen a PDA, an FDA, or an SDA, 16 standard design application. It's only the design 17 certs for the new design plants that we've gone 18 through and one modification to Diablo Canyon.
19 MS. BRADFORD: One interesting point that 20 may be flying under your radar is that, for example, 21 the
- APR1400, when we finished the design 22 certification, we also simultaneously issued an SDA.
23 You guys actually have seen an SDA; it was just in 24 parallel with the design certification. When we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 finished the technical review, we sent out a letter --
1 it was only about two pages -- saying hey, we finished 2
the technical review. We've gone through the ACRS.
3 We've done all these things. Here's your standard 4
design approval. Because they want that without 5
having to wait for the year of the rulemaking for the 6
design cert. I'll just point that out. In terms of 7
the digital I&C, I haven't been following that 8
particularly.
9 MEMBER BROWN: That's fine. I'm just 10 trying to use that as an illustration of how -- a 11 difference of how you go about doing things. That's 12 all I was trying to understand. I never worked in the 13 commercial world before I came here 12 years ago. My 14 experience is rather limited. I listen to Harold and 15 a few people who have operated plants fairly carefully 16 to try to understand what the processes are.
17 MS. BRADFORD: The current operating 18 directors aren't licensed under Part 52. They're in 19 Part 50.
20 MEMBER BROWN: Right, I remember that.
21 MS. BRADFORD: They don't really have to 22 require standardization the way the Part 52 plants do.
23 MEMBER BROWN: That part I do understand.
24 Okay, I'll keep struggling. That's why I'm here 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 today.
1 MEMBER RAY: I don't mean to extend this, 2
other than I need to, in this sense. Again, the word 3
standardization is being used. It depends on what one 4
intends or means by standardization. What I think of 5
is one-step licensing of a certified design.
6 That process -- in other words, I don't 7
need to come back and get your agreement that I've --
8 the changes I've made are acceptable because it's a 9
one-step licensing process. Whereas, if I get a 10 construction permit, I need to then get an operating 11 license and tell you how I actually built the thing.
12 It's the absence of that second step in 13 the presence of what I think you're calling 14 standardization that is of greatest interest from my 15 standpoint. In other words, are we -- again, I'll go 16 back to the language used in the January meeting about 17 being at risk, changes at risk would be subject to 18 control.
19 The changes -- by changes at risk, I 20 assume you've made a change. You think it meets the 21 criteria for making a change without amendment, but 22 I'm at risk now for having made that change. How is 23 that risk resolved in the way that -- under Part 50, 24 it's resolved at the operating license stage. I've 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 made changes from the PSAR. It's in the FSAR. I'm 1
coming in and asking for an operating license. We've 2
done it over 100 times and people have gotten their 3
license. But now I don't have that second step 4
anymore. One of the things that, at least, I'm here 5
to try and figure out is what is that final step?
6 There aren't ITAAC that cover the issues.
7 In the wording here in January, it appears that the 8
licensee's -- in fact, it's called quality control 9
program will be used to resolve the uncertainty. I'm 10 just not clear, at all. The word uncertainty is used 11
-- or at risk, excuse me, is used, but I'm not sure 12 how the risk is resolved. With that, we probably 13 should go ahead and come back for more discussion 14 later.
15 MEMBER BROWN: No, I still want to --
16 based on your comment and Anna's comment -- let me --
17 MS. BRADFORD: No, go ahead.
18 MEMBER BROWN: I'm going to throw out --
19 this is a hypothetical. APR1400, as you said, has 20 been approved and your SDA has been sent out. They 21 don't have a construction permit. They don't have a 22 licensee, so there's no COLs, etc., to go along with 23 it. I'm trying to echo Harold's words here. If they 24 make changes to that design in the interim before a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 vendor, utility, licensee, whoever says I want to 1
build one of those, are they supposed to come in with 2
those, or do they just make those changes, as Harold 3
says, at their risk, and then when they get a person 4
who wants to use that plant design and submits their, 5
I guess, ESP, and then their COL, and gets a 6
construction permit, is that when those get addressed?
7 MS. BRADFORD: You could do either. KHNP 8
could decide --
9 MEMBER BROWN: So like he said, it can be 10
-- APR1400, KHNP could say okay, we're just not going 11 to do anything until we have somebody ready to build 12 the plant, and then we'll go argue whether we need 13 LARs under some change venue, whether it be -- is that 14 a 50.59 thing, then, or is it --
15 MS. BRADFORD: 50.59 like.
16 MEMBER BROWN: Where is 50.59 like 17 defined?
18 MS. BRADFORD: It's in each appendix for 19 each design cert.
20 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
21 MS. BRADFORD: Each design certification 22 is appendix of Part 52. You look in there and it lays 23 out the change process.
24 (Simultaneous Speaking) 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 MEMBER RAY: Let me just -- Charlie, let 1
me just read the words here --
2 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
3 MEMBER RAY: -- because it isn't -- before 4
construction. In the January 2019 document I'm 5
looking at here, it says a recommendation is to modify 6
the NRC interpretation to allow at-risk construction 7
pending approval of an LAR or the processing of a 8
50.59 like change. It's those approvals or whatever 9
acceptance of the processing of the 50.59 like change 10 that I think we want to get a better understanding of.
11 MS. BRADFORD: I can explain that. Now 12 that you read that sentence, I understand.
13 MEMBER BROWN: Where's the sentence from 14 again?
15 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
16 PARTICIPANT: It's the public meeting in 17 2019.
18 MEMBER BROWN: It's in that list of ten 19 pages of comments.
20 PARTICIPANT: Go ahead.
21 MS. BRADFORD: This is the difference 22 between Part 50 and Part 52. Under Part 52, the way 23 we've interpreted the language is that when you're 24 constructing the site -- when Southern is constructing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 the Vogtle units, if they realize they need to make a 1
change -- the design cert says something. They 2
realize they can't do it, or they don't want to do it, 3
or it's too expensive to do it, and they want to do it 4
a different way, they have to submit a LAR to us.
5 The way we interpret it right now is you 6
pretty much cannot do that change until we have 7
approved the LAR, unless you request a PAR. There's 8
a couple little wrinkles to it, but in general, you 9
can't actually make the change until we've approved 10 the LAR. That's different than operating reactors.
11 They can make the change.
12 What they're saying is can you please 13 allow us, when we're constructing, to go ahead and 14 make that change before the NRC has approved that LAR.
15 If, then, the NRC says hey, what you've proposed here, 16 we can't allow it; we're going to deny it, they'll 17 have to go back and put it back to the original 18 licensing basis. That's the at risk part.
19 MEMBER RAY: You're exactly right. What 20 it said in the comment that was the recommendation for 21 was NRC's position that as soon as a COL is issued, 22 there is an approved licensing basis, and the 23 licensee, therefore, needs to be in compliance at all 24 times, regardless of whether there's any impact to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 public health and safety. Clearly, that's something 1
that's capable -- and needs to be revised. On the 2
other hand, though, it is a certified design. The 3
difference between a certified design and a Part 50 4
process that may be preceded by an SDA is that there 5
isn't any subsequent review.
6 The blockage where you -- I don't have any 7
problem with letting people proceed at risk. The only 8
issue is is there going to be a leap ahead? Is there 9
going to be an accumulation of all the changes that 10 were made that has to, then, undergo review?
11 To me, then, you're just doing Part 50 by 12 another name because that's what we did at the OL 13 stage, and I've done it twice. You come in with your 14 FSAR and you say here are all the changes I made from 15 the PSAR. They look at them and say okay, operating 16 license issued. It seems like that's where this is 17 going, to me.
18 MS. BRADFORD: It's a good comment. We 19 can take that as a comment and think about that when 20 we're looking at the changes.
21 MEMBER BROWN: One clarification --
22 MEMBER CORRADINI: Can I ask a question?
23 CHAIR SUNSERI: Go ahead, Mike.
24 MEMBER CORRADINI: I guess I don't think 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 you've answered Harold and Charlie's question. Taking 1
the comment in doesn't clarify for me what I thought 2
Harold was asking. What does it resolve? Does it 3
resolve by an ITAAC? Is it resolved by -- how is it 4
resolved? I thought that was Harold's question.
5 MEMBER RAY: It is, Mike, but I thought we 6
should probably discuss it and elaborate on it later, 7
so that we don't lose -- I messed up the presentation 8
here already. That's right. That's still on the 9
table. I think she indicated it was a good question 10 and we should pursue it further.
11 MS. BRADFORD: The short answer is when it 12 is resolved depends on what the change is. In some 13 cases, if they did it under 50.59 like and they 14 determined they didn't have to come to the NRC, they 15 keep track of all those changes, and our inspectors 16 can go look at it.
17 Or it might be a change to something that 18 we do use the ITAAC to go look at. Or it might be a 19 change that they decided needs a LAR, and then we've 20 approved that LAR. It kind of depends, is the thing.
21 MEMBER RAY: Yes, but we haven't gotten 22 into the difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2*, for 23 example. One of the issues that I've shared with my 24 colleagues is in the past, there was always an 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 explanation of why these requirements existed. For 1
example, in the case of Tier 2*, it was that it 2
included things like codes, standards, and processes, 3
analysis processes. We should hold that for later, I 4
think.
5 When you get down to Tier 2* versus Tier 6
1 versus Tier 2, we're getting into the -- where we're 7
just, I think, making inputs, and you're not going to 8
want to answer us, just see what we have to say and 9
take it back to think about it. Why don't you go 10 ahead?
11 CHAIR SUNSERI: Let me interject right 12 here. I think it's clear that there's going to be a 13 lot more details that need to be fleshed out and 14 developed as you make these changes. Some of our 15 questions are hitting on some of those areas where I 16 would imagine, quite frankly, the details don't exist 17 and you're thinking about those.
18 We're not reviewing a final product.
19 We're reacting to some of the things we see based on 20 our experience. I would just suggest that you 21 consider our input and our questions as maybe even 22 cautions as things that have bit us before that you 23 should be thinking about as you pursue the new 24 rulemaking, not a direction that has to be this way or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 that way. Is that fair? All right, thank you.
1 MEMBER BROWN: Can I amplify -- not 2
amplify it, but -- one of my difficulties and the 3
reason I ask some of these questions is it seems like 4
these 50.59 like -- the PDA and FDA, the various 5
little nuances are almost like little pieces stuck 6
around in places. There's nothing that says if I'm an 7
operating plant, I'm a linear thinker.
8 Bang, bang, bang, bang, here's what you do 9
once you're operating. Forget all the other shafafa.
10 For instance, I guess I'm aware operating plant's 11 under Part 50. A Part 50 plant can -- like on the 12 mass stuff, the INC, they wanted to change the 13 protection systems. They can go do that. If they 14 don't submit an LAR, they will do it after the fact.
15 They get dinged because somebody sees them 16 doing something, then they come in for the approval or 17 what have you, but they can do the at risk thing under 18 Part 50, I presume, and they just take that chance 19 that somebody's not going to like it. But all these 20 other little nuances of how you do things, the 21 processes for this type of circuit, they're not laid 22 out. They're just kind of little -- go find some --
23 they're scattered throughout the entire Code of 24 Federal Regulations. It's very, very difficult to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 find a path for the circumstances that people keep 1
talking about. Every time I sit in another meeting, 2
somebody throws out another thing. It's just 3
difficult.
4 CHAIR SUNSERI: Charlie, I would submit --
5 and maybe Harold will correct me -- but what Anna 6
described for Part 52 is the same thing that the 7
operating plants go through. We can do the 50.59 8
change. We can change tech specs. There's a process 9
for that.
10 We can submit a license amendment request.
11 The operating plants have a whole variety of ways that 12 they make changes, as well. It can be -- that's why 13 we have regulatory affairs people. They help keep us 14 straight on which process to use.
15 MEMBER BROWN: My only issue is it's just 16 scattered. That's all. There's not someplace that 17 defines it and lays it out for each thing that may 18 occur. I'll stop right now and we'll go ahead and 19 finish the presentation.
20 MEMBER RAY: You don't make changes to an 21 operating plant and just hope nobody detects it. You 22 comply with the requirements. What she and I were 23 talking about is the fact that you can't do that to a 24 plant under construction, and you should be able to.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 I don't disagree with that. But when you do it, then, 1
the question is when does that difference get 2
reviewed? Having it reviewed by the field inspectors 3
is different than having it reviewed here, by staff.
4 We're really diverting us a lot from the 5
path that I think you guys want to finish up on. Then 6
we'll come back to a lot of this stuff. They are 7
implementing the requirements as if it was an 8
operating plant, and it's not. That's why it said, in 9
what I read, there isn't any risk to public health and 10 safety when you make a change to a plant under 11 construction, as long as it ultimately gets approved.
12 That's the question.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Next steps. Briefly 14 covering next steps, the staff will consider your 15 feedback from this meeting as it continues to develop 16 the regulatory basis. The staff will develop and 17 issue the regulatory basis for public comment.
18 In order to be more efficient, the staff 19 will address these public comments when it drafts the 20 proposed rule. The staff will hold additional 21 stakeholder
- meetings, as
- needed, during the 22 development of the regulatory basis. Rulemaking 23 schedule. The staff plans to issue the regulatory 24 basis for comment in late August of next year. The 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 proposed rule will be issued for public comment 1
approximately two years after this in June 2022, and 2
then the final rule will be issued in July 2024. With 3
that, we'd like to hear comments --
4 (Simultaneous Speaking) 5 MEMBER BLEY: You should know -- maybe you 6
already do, most people do -- you're not getting 7
comments from the ACRS today.
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
9 MEMBER BLEY: You're getting comments from 10 individuals.
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, and we appreciate 12 anything you have to say.
13 MEMBER BLEY: It's a little hard to draw 14 a real connection to safety from many of the things 15 you're after. They're more process improvements, it 16 seems to me. But one always needs to ask the question 17 are we having an impact on safety by doing this?
18 MEMBER RAY: If we don't have any --
19 MEMBER BLEY: This level, we don't have a 20 way to say yet.
21 MEMBER RAY: I think it goes to the 22 question, Dennis, that I'm hoping we'll discuss 23 further, which is what is the process for signing off 24 on these changes? That's a discussion we ought to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 build up a little more in an extended way. If you can 1
make changes and they're never subject to review --
2 MEMBER BLEY: That's a safety question.
3 MEMBER RAY: -- that can be --
4 MEMBER BLEY: There are imbedded safety 5
questions.
6 MEMBER RAY: It could be a safety 7
question, right. There's one other thing that 8
Harold's been talking from. One of the viewpoints of 9
coming up with Part 52 was a one-step licensing 10 process. One of the other things that drove it was 11 the question of standardization because we had plants 12 right next to each other that were quite different 13 from each other.
14 You had to think about safety issues and 15 operational issues at every different unit. It was 16 the idea that if we had some standardization, that 17 wouldn't be a problem. That hasn't been -- this 18 didn't work the way I think some people involved in 19 its development thought it would. We don't have a 20 fleet of standardized plants. We don't have anything 21 close to that now. Maybe that standardization issue, 22 having to argue it each time, isn't very significant.
23 It would have been a nice thing to have standardized 24 plants. When you're developing first-of-a-kind 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 designs or substantial changes from previous designs 1
and you don't have a customer, you don't get the depth 2
of -- saying review is a little dangerous, but you 3
really don't get the depth of challenging that you get 4
when you have somebody wanting to build one.
5 When we had the last modification to the 6
AP1000, you had a customer, finally, and there were 7
all sorts of things that came up that when somebody's 8
going to build one, nobody had really thought about.
9 I don't want that in here. I don't want that in here.
10 You had to make some big changes. I think Harold's 11 right, at this point. It's hard to see that Part 52 12 is anything other than an alternative process to have 13 one-step licensing.
14 MEMBER REMPE: Along your comment, one of 15 the things I saw that we were provided to review was 16 the staff's considering clarifying what they mean by 17 an essentially complete design. I didn't see anything 18 in your slides about that.
19 Before we get into our comments, could you 20
-- I know you're about ready to think about a break 21 here, but could you let us know, so we can thing, 22 during the break, what are your thoughts on that?
23 What are you going to do?
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I can go for that.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 Essentially, what it means is that the definition of 1
what an essentially complete design and what we are 2
actually asking applicants to submit for design 3
information seems to be different.
4 If you look at the SOCs from the 2007 5
rule, I think it was -- or maybe it was the first 6
iteration of Part 52, which is, I think, '89 -- there 7
was a definition or discussion in the SOCs about 8
essentially complete.
9 But yet, in practice, we seem to be asking 10 for information that, perhaps, may not be as important 11 as needed to make a safety finding, essentially 12 because -- and the reason to justify that information 13 was basically saying you need to have a complete 14 design. Somebody might say hey, I've got a completely 15 non-safety-related system, but it's part of my design 16 certification.
17 The staff has asked hey, I've got to 18 review this thing. I've got to come to some kind of 19 engineering conclusion on this, but I don't have any 20 information, so I have to ask for that information.
21 We need to try to fix that a little bit, trying to 22 make the boundaries a little bit better for that.
23 That's sort of what that's about. Does that make 24 sense?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 MEMBER RAY: But again, I think you're 1
going to the -- what I'd illustrate to be a 2
preliminary safety analysis, which has less complete 3
information than a final safety analysis has. We've 4
used that for years and years and years, but it's part 5
of a two-step process, not a one-step process.
6 That creates a dilemma, then, if you're 7
going to just do the PSAR and never do the OL FSAR, 8
what are the implications of that? I know you're not 9
suggesting that's what you're going to do. Don't tell 10 me that I misunderstand.
11 I'm just saying you go into a direction in 12 which you get closer and closer to what we used to do 13 in a PSAR, leaving an undefined batch of information 14 that used to be addressed in a Part 50 FSAR, and you 15 wonder how's it going to be addressed? It's very hard 16 for the staff, the ACRS, to come to a conclusion and 17 say these are the five things I based my conclusion 18 on, and nothing else.
19 Everything else can be whatever it is; we 20 don't care. That's hard to do. I think that's where 21 the essentially complete design idea came from was you 22 can't just reach a conclusion based on these few 23 things that we think are essential to adequate 24 protection and not know anything about anything else.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 I'm done with my preaching.
1 CHAIR SUNSERI: At this point, I'd like to 2
3 MR. COLACCINO: If I could, I'd like to --
4 Jim did a good job, I think. I wanted to address the 5
question directly. Essentially complete design is a 6
phrase in the regulations that I think all of us are 7
wanting a little bit of clarity on. We did write a 8
paper earlier this year, SECY-19-0034, where we tried 9
to tackle design certification content.
10 Some of the information you saw in the 11 transformational slide, if I can call it that, was 12 really captured in that paper. Essentially complete 13 design, what we were trying to resolve there is that 14 what we think it means -- at least, I'll say 15 personally, now, what I think it means is that we 16 would like to resolve all our safety issues with the 17 appropriate scope and level of detail that comes in 18 with the application.
19 Obviously, you can't -- trying to decide 20 where that line is is challenging. That goes to your 21 comment about you need, I'll use the word context, in 22 looking at the application to ensure that not only all 23 the safety issues are resolved, but that you have more 24 than a preliminary design, you have a design -- let's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 just take the design certification phase, where you 1
can -- we then have confidence that we have finality 2
on that design. Yes, we agree 100 percent. Anyway, 3
that's what we were trying to -- I wanted to answer 4
your question directly. That's what we were looking 5
to go --- here you go.
6 MS. BRADFORD: One more comment. I think 7
from the industry's point of view, the essentially 8
complete design question, I'll say, also just directly 9
relates to level of detail. Industry would say FSARs 10 that they submitted to us 40 years ago were this big.
11 Now, FSARs they submit to us are this big. Why is 12 that?
13 Why is staff asking for more and more 14 information? That's kind of the heart of the question 15 is what is it, exactly, do we need to make our safety 16 determinations? Can we make that clearer for 17 ourselves and for the industry? It's a hard question.
18 If you have thoughts on that, we'd love to hear them.
19 MEMBER RAY: It is because the growth has 20 occurred as a result of experience, not anything else.
21 You've got to somehow back out that experience and say 22 we were wrong in asking for this information. Anyway, 23 we should --
24 CHAIR SUNSERI: On this topic or a new 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 topic? We're going to take a break before we enter 1
any new topics.
2 MEMBER BROWN: Just one that's on this 3
topic.
4 CHAIR SUNSERI: Okay.
5 MEMBER BROWN: My brain's not that 6
advanced.
7 CHAIR SUNSERI: Okay.
8 MEMBER BROWN: You commented that the 9
AP1000 -- I think it was you behind my back, Anna --
10 during their construction process, which they are 11 still in, they submitted over 100 LARs.
12 MS. BRADFORD: Yes.
13 MEMBER BROWN: I guess we approved the 14 design certification when, six years --
15 MS. BRADFORD: 2011-12, something like 16 that.
17 MEMBER BROWN: Seven years or eight years 18 ago. How long did it take to -- all those approved, 19 at this point?
20 MS. BRADFORD: Yes. We typically approve 21 LARs in less than 180 days.
22 MEMBER BROWN: That's six months.
23 MS. BRADFORD: We can do it. Are you 24 saying that's short, or are you saying that's too 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 long?
1 MEMBER BROWN: That's too long. How in 2
the world can you build a plant if it takes 180 days 3
4 MS. BRADFORD: What you're hitting on is 5
exactly what we're trying to address with the changes 6
during construction.
7 MEMBER BROWN: Let me amplify that. For 8
35 years, I worked in the naval nuclear program. I 9
was involved in every construction project from the 10 CGN-35, the Nimitz class 688s, the SSBNs, the 11 Tridents, the Virginia class, the Seawolf, in every 12 one of them.
13 I can guarantee you that our response when 14 we had problems, if something wasn't right in 15 accordance with the design, those got answered, in 16 general, in days or weeks because the yard is -- down 17 there, you're spending $100,000 a day watching guys 18 suck air, not doing any work.
19 Six months, just in my personal opinion --
20 that's what I've observed based on a lot of comments 21 and general discussion. That process takes way too 22 long. The responsiveness is key to keeping the cost 23 down for the people, as well as -- you obviously have 24 to maintain safety, but how much mouse milk is paper 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 going back and forth? That's my term.
1 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
2 MS. BRADFORD: We haven't really gotten 3
into it. We do have what's called the PAR process.
4 MEMBER RAY: Exactly.
5 MS. BRADFORD: You can submit a PAR at the 6
same time you --
7 MEMBER BROWN: That's a preliminary 8
amendment request? What's the --
9 MS. BRADFORD: Yes, a PAR basically lets 10 you proceed with the change at risk before we've 11 approved the LAR. The whole point of that is to not 12 interfere with construction. That's the whole reason 13 we put that process in place. We did not want them to 14 have to wait six months because obviously, no 15 construction site would want to have to do that.
16 There is a process where they can get a no 17 objection letter from us saying fine, you can go ahead 18 and proceed with that at risk while we're reviewing 19 your LAR. There is a process for that. What you're 20 saying in terms of restriction during construction, I 21 agree with you. That is feedback we've gotten from 22 the units under construction, as well as other parts 23 of industry. It's one thing we want to try to address 24 in this rule.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 MEMBER BROWN: I didn't hear that.
1 MS. BRADFORD: We didn't go over --
2 (Simultaneous Speaking) 3 CHAIR SUNSERI: Okay.
4 MEMBER BROWN: I understand. It's part of 5
the detail that we haven't gotten to, and this was an 6
overview of what you're all --
7 (Simultaneous Speaking) 8 MEMBER RAY: Charlie, the at risk words in 9
the recommendation here that I read earlier, in the 10 thing I waved to you, that's exactly what she's 11 talking about.
12 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. I'm just trying to 13 understand. When I read it, I'm just trying to make 14 sure I understood it --
15 MEMBER RAY: I'm just saying we did talk 16 about it.
17 MEMBER BROWN: -- in your context.
18 MEMBER RAY: We did talk about it.
19 MEMBER BROWN: I quit. I'll turn off my 20 Michael.
21 CHAIR SUNSERI: You were very sneaky in 22 slipping in a different topic, other than essentially 23 complete. We are going to take a break and come back 24 at a quarter to, ten-minute break, short one. Then 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 that will allow for a smooth flow of the rest of the 1
dialogue to completion. Thank you. We will recess 2
until quarter to.
3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 4
off the record at 9:34 a.m. and resumed at 9:48 a.m.)
5 CHAIR SUNSERI: Let's try this again. We 6
are reconvening the session now. Before we go around 7
the table or get started in the room, I'd like to go 8
to the members that are on the phone or on Skype and 9
see if you guys have any input or questions at this 10 stage.
11 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Yes, this is Pete, 12 Matt, can you hear me?
13 CHAIR SUNSERI: Clearly.
14 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: I have a question on 15 Slide 13. Could you perhaps show a little -- go into 16 a little more detail of what's intended on that first 17 sub-bullet regarding DC renewals?
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I think I can speak to 19 this a little bit. Basically, we're trying to see 20 what the value is in the DC renewal process. We have 21 a DC that's currently under review. We're trying to 22 see -- based on our activities to date, we're trying 23 to see what, if any, safety -- importance to safety 24 decisions we've been making for that review that would 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 validate the amount of effort that we have spent on 1
that review to date. Go ahead.
2 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Yes, I've got a 3
similar concern because we are in the process of doing 4
an ACRS review of that renewal. In the spirit of 5
transformation, it's not something that we'd really 6
prioritize and do, but our ACRS staff has advised us 7
that no, it's a regulatory requirement review DC 8
renewals. While you're in the process, could you take 9
a look at that requirement?
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, that's precisely 11 what we're doing.
12 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Thank you.
13 CHAIR SUNSERI: Okay, I think Mike had to 14 step away. How about David or Walt? Any comments 15 from you guys?
16 MEMBER KIRCHNER: This is Walt. Hello?
17 CHAIR SUNSERI: Yes, we hear you.
18 MEMBER KIRCHNER: I want to go back to the 19 essentially complete discussion.
I think a
20 fundamental issue that I see -- and I would associate 21 myself with Harold's early comments on this --
22 basically, when you go back to -- this was -- these 23 goals were put in place for 52. In particular, I'm 24 looking at 52.41 scope. There are two sections. The 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 first one is where we find essentially complete, which 1
isn't defined in those definitions. Basically, we're 2
talking about designs which are evolutionary changes 3
from LWRs with
- design, licensing, operating 4
experience.
5 That's part -- I think it's B-1. Then B-2 6
opens the door to something that I feel is going to be 7
very problematical. I think we're seeing it already.
8 That is Section 2, under scope there, says designs 9
that differs significantly or use simplified, inherent 10 passive or other innovative means to accomplish safety 11 functions.
12 It stops short of what is implied in 13 Section B-1. B-1 essentially implies a level of 14 maturity and experience that is not going to be 15 present with an advanced reactor trying to use 52 16 process. One suggestion is that the second item, B-2, 17 needs something that's parallel, if you will, to what 18 is implied in B-1.
19 The parallel that I could see would be 20 that it's been demonstrated in a prototype plant. If 21 you go, then, and look at the definitions for 22 prototype plants at the beginning of Section 52, you 23 will find that a prototype plant is defined as a 24 nuclear power plant that has new safety features 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 similar to first of a kind or standard plant design in 1
all features and size. I underscore that last phrase, 2
all features and size. It seems to me that there's a 3
fundamental problem.
4 Obviously, this is personal opinion, but 5
my sense is that the applicants with advanced designs, 6
particularly when there is not a prototype plant, 7
should be redirected through the Part 50 process, not 8
the 52 process or the 52 COL process, which is another 9
option. It just -- it wasn't written for that 10 purpose.
11 Now we're trying to make it embrace a 12 broader purpose than was envisioned, I believe, when 13 these regulations were first promulgated. Just a 14 second point is that the 50.59 process also has 15 basically been used for plants where we had -- first 16 of all, the plants have an FSAR, which you don't have 17 the equivalent of for an advanced design that's 18 seeking a DC.
19 I really question the appropriateness of 20 the 50.59 process being used for a
design 21 certification that's trying to squeeze through the 52 22 process. I don't think that was the original 23 intention. I don't think it's a good fit for the 24 issues that are safety related that the agency is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 charged with dealing with. And then just one quick 1
last comment. You know, on this essentially complete, 2
if anything -- I'm not the PRA expert, but one thing 3
that we've learned is that it's often other systems 4
and integrated systems performance that, at times, may 5
be more dominant or significant contributors.
6 If we get a design that just focuses --
7 and I'll make up an example -- on the reactor or on a 8
plain advanced passive inherent safety features, but 9
we don't know how the rest of the systems integrate 10 with that system, it's an incomplete picture, in my 11 mind, to use the certification -- whether it's a 12 standard design or a DC. It seems to be a poor fit.
13 That's my input. Thank you.
14 CHAIR SUNSERI: Thanks, Walt. Just for 15 the record, Dr. Corradini did send me some input.
16 That is in reference to the comments that Charlie was 17 making with the license amendment request taking 180 18 days. I know that's an approximation. His belief is 19 that's an area that improvement would be warranted to 20 shorten that time frame to be more timely with respect 21 to the applicants' needs. That's another input for 22 you.
23 MEMBER RAY: I got that, too. I hope he 24 gets back and we're still here because I'm not sure he 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 understood that the intent is to allow work to proceed 1
and that the issuance of the LAR approval simply takes 2
place in due course, and it doesn't --
3 CHAIR SUNSERI: Yes, but I think the point 4
5 MEMBER RAY: -- hold up construction.
6 CHAIR SUNSERI: The point being, though, 7
that you're at risk for six months. It would be nice 8
to have the risk uncertainty removed.
9 MEMBER RAY: For sure.
10 CHAIR SUNSERI:
- Now, back to the 11 discussion. Our last topic was along this notion of 12 what the design means to be complete. Do we want to 13 continue with that or pick up a new topic?
14 MEMBER BLEY: I want to stay with that for 15 a minute. Walt said it a little differently than I 16 was going to, and Harold's point that we used to, with 17 the two-step process, you had the PSAR, and then the 18 FSAR that got reviewed.
19 Essentially complete's really technically 20 hard to define. I want to talk two kinds of systems, 21 the pumps and pipes and valve systems, and then the 22 digital I&C real quickly. What we've all seen from 23 single failure kinds of reviews and from PRAs is the 24 real problems -- the places where things go wrong are 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 in the details of the design. If you have a 1
simplified piping diagram that shows that the 2
functions all ought to work right, but you have cross 3
connects that aren't in there, and you have instrument 4
tops that aren't in there and things like that, when 5
you do the detailed analysis, those things crop up and 6
the interfaces, where one system interfaces with 7
another.
8 That's where the risk lies. If you don't 9
get a good hard look at those, if those aren't there, 10 you don't have an essentially complete design from a 11 safety point of view. Digital I&Cs also come up with 12 a nice set of high-level concepts that if you meet 13 those, you get a lot of confidence. I've been 14 involved in that.
15 You do, but that only translates into a 16 safe design when it's detailed and complete, when you 17 have taken that final design and played it against all 18 of those high level criteria and are convinced it's 19 working. If that's not part of the licensing review 20 process, then we don't have oversight, at least, on 21 that. Those are real hard to do without the details.
22 MEMBER BROWN: Can I amplify your 23 comments?
24 MEMBER BLEY: You can do anything you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 like.
1 MEMBER BROWN: The framework we've been 2
trying to use, just for an example -- this is just one 3
area. The digital I&C seems to be a controversial 4
area in a compliant from licensees across the board.
5 The framework approach we've taken, where 6
we get at least an architecture that shows what it 7
looks like, then we've attempted -- I think we 8
succeeded in the later design certifications, a little 9
bit less than the ones 12 years ago, when we were 10 still trying to figure out what we were doing -- is 11 that there are touchpoints within that architecture 12 which, if they comply with the terms specified as part 13 of the DCA, the design certification, and the DCD, the 14 document that calls them out, which then gets, I 15 guess, subsumed within the rule when you finally get 16 your appendix, whatever appendix is approved for that 17 design, if they remain within that framework and they 18 don't change those specific touchpoints, you might 19 consider a little bit more freedom of operation within 20 that world when you've got a framework that tells you 21 hey, you meet these principles, you're okay, and 22 you've got them defined, in terms of the general 23 architectural concepts within the licensing basis that 24 you can be pretty flexible on that. You don't have to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 be quite as contentious. Can that apply to other 1
areas? I don't know. Does that work somewhere in the 2
piping systems or fluid systems? I don't know. All 3
I did was work on the stuff I had some more detailed 4
knowledge of.
5 I don't know whether that's productive to 6
look at that from an NRC standpoint, as an approach to 7
how do we deal with longer-term concepts of how the 8
plants are designed and will that allow us to be more 9
responsive and more flexible, in terms of how we do 10 business. It's just a thought process. That's all.
11 CHAIR SUNSERI: If I could summarize your 12 point, there, you're saying that from a safety 13 preservation versus the constructability timeliness 14 and all that stuff, the 50.59 like process, if it had 15 an appropriate set of criteria in there that allowed 16 the process to handle these kind of changes that 17 didn't have a profound impact on the safety 18 determination, that's the key.
19 That's the key is what are those criteria?
20 How are they going to be broken down to allow, what 21 I'll say a resident inspector or on-site inspector to 22 pass the judgment versus the vast knowledge of the 23 staff here to pass the knowledge or to pass the 24 judgment on it, right?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 MEMBER BROWN: Right. One of the reasons 1
I tried to do that when I first got here, the first 2
plant we looked at, fundamentally the DCD said we're 3
going to meet IEEE spec requirement, every reg guide 4
requirement. In the guide, the architecture was four 5
lines with a couple of boxes in it which said we'll 6
trip the plant when it's not okay.
7 Fundamentally, what that broke down to is 8
you go look at each of those IEEE standards, 9
international -- IEC, whatever they were, as well as 10 the reg guides, there's probably 100 or more specific 11 little detailed requirements.
12 I equated it probably a little bit too 13 much so, but enough for the example of trying to 14 evaluate a design by looking at how the cam shaft is 15 designed or how the brake pedal was designed or how 16 the carburetor injection valve operated.
17 Once you've approved all those little 18 pieces, you know what the car looks like, when you 19 don't really know what the car looks like. We 20 translated it up to a higher level. Can you do that 21 in relation to the fluid systems and/or other -- the 22 other systems in the plant which provide that? That's 23 how I reviewed when I first -- I didn't have any idea 24 how I could ever provide the committee with a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 recommendation on hey, do I think this stuff is okay?
1 It wasn't because I was brilliant; it's just because 2
that's the way I had done stuff in the past, in the 3
Navy program. We had a lot of details, but we still 4
had an overarching architecture within which we 5
operated, which gave us some confidence. Anyway, 6
that's just a little background.
7 MEMBER RAY: Matt, can I --
8 CHAIR SUNSERI: Yes, let me --
9 MEMBER RAY: -- pick up here?
10 CHAIR SUNSERI: -- right, just one second.
11 I know Dennis has some time restraints today. I'm not 12 sure what those are, but you have any input?
13 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
14 MEMBER BLEY: I wanted to hear something 15 about Tier 1, Tier 2 --
16 PARTICIPANT: That's exactly --
17 (Simultaneous Speaking) 18 MEMBER BLEY: -- Tier 2* and where they're 19 headed with that, what they're thinking about.
20 CHAIR SUNSERI: Okay.
21 MEMBER RAY: Thank you. I appreciate that 22 Dennis's time constraints need to be considered here, 23 but SECY-17-0075 did a very thorough review of why 24 Tier 2* exists and considered explicitly whether to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 abandon it or keep it. It refers back to 23 years 1
ago, in '96, when Tier 2* was established, at the 2
industry request, to get things out of Tier 1, but not 3
make them -- not subject to review when change was 4
needed.
5 It isn't explicit, of course, in the 6
current rulemaking, what will be the outcome, but I 7
would just urge that the reasons why it was decided in 8
SECY-17-0075 to keep Tier 2* need to be explicitly 9
addressed when we decide those reasons are no longer 10 applicable.
11 I think the point's been made here 12 already; one of the reasons was that -- now quoting 13 from 96-0077 -- Tier 2* was intended to preclude 14 changes in, quote, codes, standards, and design 15 processes without NRC approval. That's just one 16 reason.
17 I don't know how it's actually been 18 implemented recently, other than to say that in the 19 SECY-17 that I referred to, it says -- I'll just read 20 this. Staff review finds that most 50.59 like reviews 21 and Tier 2* information changes, when performed by the 22 staff, would trigger the need for prior NRC approval.
23 That's what it says. Therefore, the Tier 2*
24 designation might have been unnecessary because, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 presumably, the license holder would have come to the 1
same conclusion without designating as Tier 2*. But 2
then it goes on to say but maybe the licensee would 3
have come to a different conclusion and, even though 4
it should have gotten prior NRC approval, it would not 5
have.
6 Because having done many, many 50.59 7
evaluations, which is almost the same thing, they are, 8
in many ways, subjective, in terms of what their 9
outcome is. Best judgment is used, I think, in all 10 cases, but the upshot is that there's a strong, 11 lengthy analysis of Tier 2* and its reason for 12 existing and whether it should be abandoned.
13 The conclusion is reached that it should 14 not. That was just two years ago, and it said it was 15 based on AP1000 experience. If a plan now would be 16 that now we don't need Tier 2*, it's going to -- in my 17 judgment, the committee will want to see how has your 18 analysis changed, and why?
19 That's just input for you. I don't expect 20 you to answer me now because you haven't decided what 21 to do. There's a strong explanation, I think -- like 22 I say, it's a long SECY explaining why we need to keep 23 Tier 2*. I don't feel strongly one way or the other 24 about it. I do feel that the ability to proceed at 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 risk is important. But the thing that I am still 1
searching for and I want to give Dennis a chance to 2
speak up here us what is the milestone equivalent to 3
the OL review in Part 50?
4 I've already conceded that ITAAC are 5
established for the reason that there are things that 6
need to be checked off before the operating license 7
can be made effective or fuel loading can occur, but 8
there's a lot of hand-wringing and agonizing over 9
ITAAC, also. There's a strong desire to avoid review.
10 Yet, we're -- I'm talking about at the OL 11 implementation point. But what's going to happen?
12 Matt referred to the on-site resident folks reviewing 13 the 50.59 like process as it takes place. Is it going 14 to be suggested that that's sufficient or that it'll 15 be reviewed in the FSAR that's submitted at some time 16 after the plant goes into operation?
17 Those are things that I think need to be 18 addressed in the same forthright way that SECY-17 19 addressed why Tier 2* should be kept.
20 MS. BRADFORD: Let me just make sure --
21 what I'm hearing you say is that we need to make sure 22 that the correct regulatory footprint is maintained on 23 changes, especially those that are important to 24 safety, yes?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 MEMBER RAY: Perhaps, but I'm even more 1
interested, as I keep saying, in how do you -- as we 2
allow more and more deviation from the certified 3
design and we're getting to the operating license 4
stage, we check off the ITAAC.
5 Is that it, or is there something else 6
that's going to happen as a result of the increased --
7 the illumination, let's say, of Tier 2* and getting 8
closer, as I used the analogy earlier, to a Part 50 OL 9
review.
10 Is there anything going to happen, other 11 than those that are established at the COL stage, by 12 means of the ITAAC and the DAC, to ensure that 13 everything is satisfactory before the plant goes into 14 service? That's the thing that I think needs to be 15 addressed. I think it's talked about pretty well in 16 the defense of Tier 2* retention just two years ago.
17 MS. BRADFORD: Okay, thank you, good 18 comment.
19 CHAIR SUNSERI: Dennis.
20 MEMBER BLEY: I guess I'd follow that up.
21 I agree with Harold on that. That's never been 22 specified. The closest it came was back when there 23 were a lot of DAC in an application, design acceptance 24 criteria. We kind of argued that -- we did argue and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 wrote at least one letter, maybe a couple on this, 1
that said -- it's almost like the emperor has no 2
clothes.
3 The design, if it's really incomplete, and 4
it might be for reasons that technology's changing 5
fast, whatever those reasons, once you get to the 6
final design, and when you're building the plan, the 7
spot checking of these DAC with their parallel things 8
in ITAAC now, and then in that final design, by an 9
inspector, wasn't really the same thing we get when we 10 do a review looking for those -- the details.
11 It kind of reached the point on those that 12 the staff had agreed that what they really mean by the 13 inspection is that on the DAC, the staff here, in the 14 area of expertise, would review it carefully and 15 cooperate with the inspectors, and there was an SRM 16 from the commission that said, in the first few cases 17 of those, you ought to come back to the ACRS and we'll 18 see how the process is working.
19 We never got that far. We almost did a 20 couple times. It's the same point Harold raises.
21 What's like an operating license review after the 22 design's all done and you're building a plant?
23 Somehow, that's got to be covered. I have one other 24 thing you haven't talked about. I'm sorry I didn't 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 bring examples. As we've gone through design certs, 1
we've hit places where we've said what will happen --
2 how will this track on once the plant's operating?
3 There's been a little bit of oh, it'll be covered by 4
Part 50.
5 Oh, we'll work that out later. You didn't 6
talk about those kind of things, where there's gaps 7
between what's done with operating plants and what's 8
done through the Part 52 process, all the way up until 9
the plant's operating. Somewhere, that needs to get 10 clarified. I don't know if it has anything to do with 11 this, but it was talked about at the time as 12 reconciling some differences between 50 and 52 or 13 having pointers that get you out of this.
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That sounds like the 15 alignment side of the rule. And the idea, again, is 16 to -- when you have two plants out there essentially 17 just -- if somebody chose one or the other post 18 issuance of license that it would be treated the same 19 way. The same regulatory outcome would come for the 20 various systems that they have. That's the goal of 21 what we're trying to do when we say alignment.
22 MEMBER BLEY: Okay, that's good because 23 now -- I'm sure it will work, but if you do it for one 24 plant or two, it's okay to kind of do it ad hoc, but 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 having a process laid out through what you're doing, 1
it makes a lot more sense in the long run, I think.
2 MS. BRADFORD: The other thing I would add 3
to that is once they are an operating reactor, they 4
will move over to the reactor oversight program, just 5
like the operating reactor. They will be subject to 6
all those same programs and requirements and all that.
7 We have been planning for that.
8 MEMBER BLEY: That's about all I wanted to 9
put in there, Matt.
10 CHAIR SUNSERI: All right, great. Vesna, 11 you have something?
12 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes. My main reason 13 why I came to this meeting today was because I'm the 14 PRA expert. I was very interested in 50.59. I 15 thought it would be very beneficial to apply this 16 earlier than later, especially because most benefits 17 will be realized through the procurement in the 18 construction phase.
19 Plants are, of course, very interested in 20 that. That means sitting here, we're talking maturity 21 of design, maturity of PRA is even more -- because not 22 only does PRA depend on design, but also depends on 23 the MITONs and things that develop through standards, 24 things like that. We are definitely not going to have 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 a mature PRA if we -- if this is what we are expecting 1
to use the 50.59. The question is, which I couldn't 2
really answer because first, what I asked -- okay, 3
this is what I really asked myself. I don't know how 4
to answer the question.
5 My first question is let's say the systems 6
are now divided by the current domestic rules, you 7
don't have a scientific base. They're based on 8
experience. There is some common sense smart 9
engineering judgment rules which are currently used in 10 industry to divide the safe activities with non-safe.
11 We now introduce a new element. We have 12 these new rules. I don't really see any reason why is 13 one better than the other, independent of maturity of 14 the PRA. That is because regulation was throughout 15 the risk informed approach, but actually is not risk 16 informed, is based on the domestic rules.
17 I cannot really judge one versus another.
18 I know in the area of in-service inspections, the 19 domestic rules were totally unapplicable. The only 20 thing I cannot really have, because I don't know 21 what's the right answer, and I can see what Dennis 22 say. We can learn so many things through the PRA. We 23 can find outliers; we can fix them. If you look in 24 the current PRAs, we will find outlier like for large 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 locus and we will say put that WS thing inside 1
containment. Now, everybody does that. Would we ask 2
for them to fix such a big outlier? The question is 3
how safe is safe enough? Nobody knows answer to that 4
question.
5 If somebody comes with a plant which has 6
a ten to minus nine risk, why do we have to impose all 7
of these requirements on that? Maybe we should just 8
identify, first, what is new, does what is new work, 9
what is important, and how they maintain important 10 things.
11 That's why I thought maybe -- when Harold 12 said maybe we can put some simple rules to maintain.
13 But the thing which I was thinking we definitely can 14 do -- I mean you (Laughter) -- which I was thinking 15 you definitely can do -- because the NRC, sometimes 16 they identify questions, they discuss them, and then 17 they just close the eye and leave them like that.
18 That's the no way, in my opinion, to 19 address for the advanced reactors. When you see --
20 there was so many discussions what risk measures 21 should be used relative or absolute. Not any 22 conclusion was ever made. How does -- we have a very 23 loose connection between CDF -- first, we never even 24 defined what's large from these because that also 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 hangs in there. We have a very loose connection 1
between quantitative goals and CDF and others. Now, 2
when the plants come which may not have a CDF, it will 3
be very interesting to address this quantitative half 4
goal because we are definitely not imposing higher 5
risk than 0.1 percent on public with anything which 6
comes with those.
7 If our goal is not to impose higher risk 8
than car accidents, chemical industry, then we can 9
define more general measures. I was thinking that 10 commission should have the question of unanswered 11 things hanging in the air.
12 Maybe not all of them can be answered, but 13 at least we really should know what they are and how 14 much they will buy us in streamlining a regulation for 15 advanced reactors. That's all what I can say. It's 16 not really -- I don't really know how all of this can 17 be addressed. It's definitely a complicated issue.
18 MS. BRADFORD: Just process wise, I would 19 say we are going to do a separate rulemaking for 20 advanced reactors. We're calling it Part 53. What 21 it's really called, I don't know. Maybe it's going to 22 address some of that. I don't know. It's even at an 23 earlier stage than this rulemaking. I would recommend 24 that you stay involved with that rulemaking, also, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 because I think it will address those types of things 1
for advanced reactors, specifically.
2 CHAIR SUNSERI: Thanks, Vesna. You have 3
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, I was just going to 5
say the PRA angle on this rule is we at least want to 6
have the Part 50 folks that use that process to have 7
the same requirements for quality and upgrade on their 8
PRAs that the Part 52 has.
9 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: I know that, but 10 that's --- you know, like with that part, many times 11 it says Category 1 based on the PRA standard is enough 12 for design certification, but nobody actually use the 13 PRA. I know the EPR did, right, went to peer review, 14 but it's too early to peer review PRA in design 15 certification phase.
16 If Category 1 is really low category, you 17 can go in much less details than any PRA which is 18 review goes. Most of the PRAs are coming in Category 19
- 2. This is like the quality requirements the PRA 20 should be how we define them. What's a quality 21 requirement? PRAs are so complex and everything, if 22 the operator flips the rings in Beijing, all the 23 numbers change in importance and everything. It's a 24 sensitive thing. Obviously, it's too complex. It's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 too complex, so maybe the rules for the quality could 1
be simplified. That's definitely one of those things 2
which grows and grows, the volumes, in some way that 3
makes easier for it to support important thinking in 4
the process.
5 CHAIR SUNSERI: Harold, do you have any 6
more input?
7 MEMBER RAY: Yes, I guess -- let me --
8 I've said all I'm going to say about Tier 2*. Let me 9
offer another perspective. Let me say I did serve as 10 the AP1000 subcommittee chairman. I went through a 11 lot with not just plant Vogtle, but also other plants, 12 at the time.
13 I think that it would be a good idea if 14 somebody, whether it's the NRC or not, could offer the 15 idea that the initial first-of-a-kind plant 16 constructed under Part 50 with a CP and OL, is then a 17 perfect basis for a very smooth one-step process on 18 follow-on plants.
19 Personally, I don't want to see design 20 certification
- changed, not because I'm a
21 standardization person, but because I don't want to 22 see it changed to the point that we don't really have 23 a one-step process anymore for follow-on plants. I 24 think it's a mistake, personally, to apply design 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 certification to first of a kind, for the reasons that 1
we talked about. If I were in a position of a design 2
vendor without a licensee customer at the time, and I 3
wanted a product that I could market, I'd go for SDA.
4 Then you can use that either in Part 52 or in Part 50 5
for the first plant.
6 These options, I don't think, are being 7
adequately described in response to the outcry of 8
difficulty that plant Vogtle has experienced. Instead 9
of saying well, the lesson learned here is do the 10 first one as a Part 50, and then certify the design or 11 get an SDA, whichever way you want to go -- licensees, 12 by the way -- we had a design center for AP1000 during 13 the time before certification, in which there were 14 multiple perspective operating license holders -- they 15 have different views.
16 They have different ideas about how much 17 money they want to invest for benefits that accrue to 18 their constituents down the road. They don't really 19 like a complete plant design, essentially complete 20 plant design, that they have to comply with or get 21 amended, in many respects, because there are things 22 they either want to minimize the capital investment or 23 they want to make more investment to make maintenance 24 easier, all kinds of reasons why that's the case.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 Standardization, to me, doesn't have the enormous 1
appeal, but the one-step process does, provided it's 2
not first of a kind. That kind of summarizes my 3
experience and views on it. I just wish that idea was 4
promoted more widely.
5 I think SDA is a very good opportunity or 6
option that a design vendor has when he doesn't have 7
a customer and he's got a design concept that needs 8
some sanction in order to market it. Get an SDA.
9 Yes, it's not, then, an automatic one-step licensing 10 process that you go into the way you do with a design 11 cert, but it is something that the NRC's not going to 12 change their mind, in my judgment, on what they've 13 approved in your SDA.
14 It's something that is of value and will 15 expedite the first application of the plant. I think 16 there are options to what we're seeing take place or 17 what has taken place, in which I have an essentially 18 complete design without a customer, and then either 19 adhere to that or go through some painful change 20 process on this first-of-a-kind application. That 21 thought needs, somehow, to get into what the agency is 22 talking about here.
23 MEMBER REMPE: Harold, let me push it 24 further. Why do they need a Part 53? Why not just 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 say -- or make a very simple paragraph for Part 53, go 1
get an SDA?
2 MEMBER RAY: I can't opine on Part 53. I 3
just haven't spent enough time to do it. It may be 4
the solution I'm talking about. I don't know, Joy.
5 MEMBER REMPE: Let me ask the staff this.
6 What's the difference between what you're thinking of 7
on Part 53 versus an SDA?
8 MS. BRADFORD: One thing I would say, I 9
agree with what you said, in terms of flexibilities 10 within the licensing process. But everything you said 11 can be done right now.
12 There were applicants a few years ago, I 13 think maybe (Simultaneous Speaking) Power, who were 14 going to apply for a construction permit, build the 15 first one, get it the way they wanted it, and then 16 apply for a design cert, and then have the design 17 cert, and then subsequent COLs could refer to that 18 design cert.
19 They thought that was the best way to go.
20 There's other applicants that want to do SDAs, also, 21 for the reasons that you said. There's some that --
22 (Simultaneous Speaking) 23 MEMBER RAY: Excuse me; let me interrupt.
24 When you say applicant, I think you mean a design 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 vendor, as opposed to an operating license holder.
1 MS. BRADFORD: If it's a CP --
2 MEMBER RAY: They're two different groups 3
of people.
4 MS. BRADFORD: If it's a CP, it's an 5
applicant. If it's a design certification, it's a 6
vendor. It does depend which one you're talking 7
about.
8 MEMBER RAY: Okay, you mean a CP as -- you 9
mean a license applicant.
10 MS. BRADFORD: Yes. All those options are 11 on the table. Like you said, a lot of times, it's 12 their business case that will drive them to take one 13 or the other. We don't tell them which one to do.
14 There's advanced reactors now that are going to use 15 Part 50, or they say they might use Part 50. There's 16 some that want to use Part 52.
17 MEMBER RAY: Forgive me, if I read this 18 SECY on this rulemaking, I'd say oh, my gosh, this is 19 going to get really simplified. It's going to make it 20 so -- yes, I can get a design cert for first of a kind 21 and it's not going to be a problem.
22 MS. BRADFORD: I will say NuScale's first 23 of a kind and they're getting a design cert. They're 24 in the process right now.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
1 MEMBER RAY: We've been through that, and 2
we've going through it, so we --
3 (Simultaneous Speaking) 4 MS. BRADFORD: Right, and I'd offer --
5 CHAIR SUNSERI: I don't think we want to 6
bring in any specific --
7 (Simultaneous Speaking) 8 MS. BRADFORD: No, I'm just saying as an 9
example, that's a very different design, and they are 10 going for the design certification. That's what 11 they've decided to do.
12 MEMBER REMPE: I would also offer that 13 maybe their experience may lead to them having to have 14 a standard design for the first of a kind that's 15 built. Maybe that knowledge should be factored in.
16 MS. BRADFORD: Say that again.
17 MEMBER RAY: SDA, in other words.
18 MEMBER REMPE: They may want an SDA before 19 they actually do it.
20 MS. BRADFORD: Like KHNP did, right? Like 21 I said, when we issued --
22 (Simultaneous Speaking) 23 MEMBER REMPE: It may be different from 24 what's the certified design. It may be.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 CHAIR SUNSERI: In my mind, there's not 1
much technical difference between an SDA and a design 2
certification. The main difference, in my view, is 3
that the design certification has finality, which I 4
think would have a lot of value to a designer because 5
otherwise, if you're just going with the SDA approach 6
that doesn't have the
- finality, then you're 7
essentially doing what we've been arguing against as 8
proceeding with design at risk because then, you're 9
going to be negotiating throughout the construction 10 phase, maybe like a Part 50 --
11 (Simultaneous Speaking) 12 MEMBER RAY: Part 50 has a lot of design 13 at risk --
14 (Simultaneous Speaking) 15 CHAIR SUNSERI: Yes, but if you're -- I 16 would think -- I don't know if it's just me. I'm not 17 in this business, but I can wrap my head around it.
18 If I was a designer and I was trying to sell one of 19 these things, I'd want to sell one with some finality 20 to it, not open ended. That's been the industry issue 21 all along, I thought.
22 MEMBER RAY: Sure, but if it's the same 23 investment required -- that underlies what we're 24 talking about here. As we make changes to what's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 required for a design cert and make it closer to 1
what's required for an SDA, you're right. But that's 2
part of the issue here is should we do that and, if we 3
don't do it, because we can't, is there an 4
alternative? You would agree, I think, that the SDA 5
is an alternative, and if it's a lower-cost 6
alternative, it might meet the vendor's goals and 7
needs.
8 CHAIR SUNSERI: Yes. I don't know how --
9 I probably don't need to respond on this or not. The 10 difference in cost between an SDA and a design 11 certification -- I'll just reflect the cost in man 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> versus dollars or anything like that -- it 13 sounds like there's an interest there that if I'm 14 going with an SDA, I'm not going to give the same --
15 they have virtually the same scope, right?
16 PARTICIPANT: No.
17 MS. BRADFORD: They don't have to.
18 PARTICIPANT: No.
19 MS. BRADFORD: The SDA can focus on -- it 20 can just be a major portion of the design they can ask 21 for an SDA, or it can be for the whole design, like 22 the APR1400.
23 CHAIR SUNSERI: So it can be a limited 24 scope, which then increases -- all right. I withdraw 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 my comment.
1 MEMBER RAY: In other words, if you have 2
a concept that you can't sell because people are 3
doubtful that the NRC would approve the concept, you 4
can bring it in as an SDA and get it addressed. If 5
it's approved as an SDA, you've defined the scope.
6 The issues within that scope, presumably, they don't 7
have certainty, but they have gotten agency approval.
8 MEMBER BROWN: Where is an SDA defined?
9 Is it under Part 52?
10 MS. BRADFORD: It's in Part 52.
11 MEMBER RAY: Part 52.
12 MEMBER BROWN: Is Part 52 a design 13 certification process?
14 MS. BRADFORD: It's several different 15 processes for new reactors.
16 MEMBER RAY: Charlie, listen to me.
17 MEMBER BROWN: I am.
18 MEMBER RAY: It's a section of the 19 regulations. You can get an SDA and use it in Part 20 50, or you can use it in a Part 52 COL application, 21 either way.
22 MEMBER BROWN: But it comes under the Part 23 52 rule.
24 MEMBER RAY: That's just the way the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 regulations are organized.
1 CHAIR SUNSERI: I just remember when we 2
were doing the last applicant that we had a table that 3
showed what was the design certification requirements 4
versus the SDA requirements. We matched them up, and 5
they were virtually the same, with the exception, now, 6
I clarified, is that they were applying for a full 7
scope versus a limited scope. I get it now, thanks.
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: If they're applying 9
for limited scope, where does full scope get reviewed?
10 MEMBER RAY: In a Part 50 application, it 11 would get reviewed at the CP and OL stage. In a Part 12 52 application, with an SDA, it gets reviewed at the 13 COL stage.
14 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Basically, a review 15 process of course is the same, it's just -- maybe 16 same, or maybe it's more in one case. It's just 17 divided differently. Is that the issue?
18 MEMBER RAY: No, the design cert, we're 19 talking, Vesna, about essentially complete design. An 20 SDA does not have to be an essentially complete 21 design.
22 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: I understand, but I'm 23 just addressing the caller thing, then is applicant --
24 full design has to be reviewed somewhere, right?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 Sorry, I'm not -- I'm new in NCRS, too. So regulation 1
is not my strong point. The full design, complete 2
design, has to be reviewed before the plant goes --
3 the fuel load and things like that. If it's not 4
reviewed in SBA, it has to be reviewed in the next 5
stage, COL stage. The thought, of course, or burden 6
or time is the same, right?
7 MEMBER RAY: But it's paid for by 8
different people. That's --
9 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: That's what I was 10 saying. It's just paid by the different people --
11 (Simultaneous Speaking) 12 MEMBER RAY: But that's a big difference.
13 If you're a
vendor seeking customers, your 14 investment's at risk. If you have a customer and the 15 customer is building a plant, it's very different.
16 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay, I understand.
17 I was just thinking if we were -- we don't really care 18 we saving money for vendor or we are saving money for 19 caller as the regulator, if we have to save money to 20 industry. We don't care about division. I understand 21 benefits of this --
22 (Simultaneous Speaking) 23 PARTICIPANT: We're not trying to save 24 money. We're trying to explain why there are options.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: No, I don't mean to 1
say we want the process to be faster, more efficient, 2
and I support that, that we want this process -- okay, 3
what I just want to say is there some way that we can 4
just streamline review, so review is not so 5
burdensome?
6 MEMBER RAY: That is an issue. I would 7
suggest, for example, if you want to get into 8
streamlining review, that's a discussion that is going 9
to take place, obviously, but an example of it is the 10 Tier 2* discussion I had. Look at the SECY that 11 describes why we have Tier 2* and say we don't need 12 that. We don't need that.
13 The important thing, I think, is that 14 design cert should be preserved as a -- as somebody 15 who argued for it 25 years ago, it should be preserved 16 as something of value and not eroded, but it's very, 17 very hard to apply it to a first-of-a-kind plant. I 18 don't agree, by the way, that you shouldn't be able to 19 proceed at risk in a design cert. I think that's a 20 change that ought to take place. It already has with 21 the -- what do you call it, POR?
22 MS. BRADFORD: The PAR.
23 MEMBER RAY: PAR.
24 MS. BRADFORD: Yes.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 MEMBER RAY: Right now, today, all Tier 2 1
information, you can change it under a 50.59 like 2
review process. You don't need commission approval to 3
change it. It's only Tier 2* and Tier 1 information.
4 Tier 1 requires a rule change; Tier 2* requires an 5
amendment. If you want to reduce the amount of Tier 6
2*, fine. I'm not in a position to argue that. My 7
only point is address the issues that were addressed 8
two years ago, when they decided to keep Tier 2*.
9 MS. BRADFORD: We heard your comments.
10 CHAIR SUNSERI: I just want to, for the 11 record, interject that we got -- the previous 12 conversation about SDAs and DCEs got a little 13 commercial for a moment. I just want to make sure 14 that we, as members of the ACRS, individuals and when 15 we get together, we're focused on safety.
16 I
think the take-away from that 17 conversation, for me, was we just need to be careful, 18 as we make changes, that we don't do them for the 19 benefit of the commercial reason, but there is a real 20 improvement of the regulation, as it drives towards a 21 safe plant, in the end of the day.
22 MS. BRADFORD: I hope we said in our 23 presentation that we would not want to decrease safety 24 in any of these --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 (Simultaneous Speaking) 1 CHAIR SUNSERI: You did. I just wanted to 2
-- I was just reflecting on our --
3 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
4 CHAIR SUNSERI: -- conversation around 5
that topic.
6 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: The discussion, from 7
my point, safety's, of course, our main goal is how we 8
made sure that safety is there.
9 MEMBER REMPE: I have a kind of question 10 related to some of that discussion. I know you have 11 to accommodate many of the applicant requests in some 12 of your response, but I'm wondering if they are 13 properly informed, and do they have a good avenue for 14 guidance for some of the different paths that might be 15 more beneficial for them to think about?
16 Because I think sometimes, these folks may 17 not be adequately informed. Then they may pick a 18 direction that -- hindsight's 20/20, if they thought 19 about it. Is there a good guidance document that 20 would say you could do this, but these are the 21 pitfalls?
22 You could do that, and you might come up 23 with something that's -- I can think of some examples 24 where jeepers, had they taken a different path, it 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 might have been easier for them to have done 1
something. Of course, there's nuances on how they get 2
their financial backing that's beyond my 3
understanding.
4 MS. BRADFORD: I guess two thoughts I have 5
in response to that. One is we always have 6
pre-application interactions with vendors and with 7
applicants. Sometimes, the question they ask is which 8
regulatory path -- they're thinking about which 9
regulatory path they should be on, and they want to 10 talk to us about that. What do I need for this one?
11 What do I need for that one? What information do I 12 have to have at this stage for an SDA versus a DC?
13 We are often having those conversations.
14 Then in terms of a document, I think I referred 15 earlier, I think it's called regulatory roadmap, where 16 we laid out these options like SDA. Topical reports 17 is another avenue where you can get some approval from 18 the NRC on a particular part of your application.
19 That's where we tried to lay out the 20 flexibilities because we did challenge our self, maybe 21 four years ago, when advance reactors, meaning 22 non-light water reactors, were becoming a hot topic.
23 Do we have enough flexibilities in our regulatory 24 framework? We went back and looked.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 When we looked at everything that can be 1
exercised within the current regulatory framework, we 2
felt like yes, there is appropriate flexibility there 3
for the different types of reactors and vendors and 4
applicants that we think we might see. That's the 5
document where we tried to lay that out, the 6
regulatory roadmap.
7 MEMBER REMPE: Is that the one that 8
Jennifer Yule (phonetic) was involved with? I may 9
have seen it --
10 MS. BRADFORD: We can send it to you --
11 (Simultaneous Speaking) 12 MEMBER REMPE: -- and I've forgotten.
13 Yes, I'm not sure that I've seen something that really 14 gets into the details. Maybe I've not seen the same 15 document.
16 MS. BRADFORD: Like you said, or someone 17 said, it's not going to talk about, probably, the 18 financial impacts of each choice. It's not going to 19
-- but it does talk about what does, I think, each 20 option entail and what do you get as the end product.
21 We can send that to you --
22 (Simultaneous Speaking) 23 MEMBER REMPE: I'd be curious. I think 24 I've seen something, but I never saw anything that's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 really -- again, a financial path is hard to deal 1
with, but just that you could do this and it might 2
make it easier to make changes to a design later 3
because in SDA it's easier to make changes than a 4
certified design. It does impact finances --
5 MS. BRADFORD: We can send that to you and 6
you can see if it answers that question.
7 MEMBER REMPE: Okay, thank you.
8 MS. BRADFORD: Sure.
9 CHAIR SUNSERI: All right, anything else?
10 MEMBER REMPE: I'd offer the Skype --
11 CHAIR SUNSERI: I'm testing here.
12 MEMBER RAY: I'm sorry. Okay, let me 13 just, then, reiterate that I highly value the concept 14 of design certification, but to me, it was predicated 15 on essentially complete design. To the extent that we 16 can't achieve that, for whatever reason, I believe 17 there are alternatives.
18 But if we're going to modify design cert 19 so that it's something less than it has been, then I 20 think we need to address the issue of what is at the 21 end to review the difference between what we review 22 and approved, whatever it was earlier, and what is 23 finally going into service. How are we going to do 24 that? That summarizes my input.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91 CHAIR SUNSERI: Thank you. I'm going to 1
turn to the guys that are on the phone and on Skype.
2 It's Pete and David and Walt. Do you have any other 3
comments for consideration?
4 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: This is Pete. No, 5
it's an interesting discussion, and I have no further 6
comments.
7 CHAIR SUNSERI: All right, thank you. I'm 8
just looking here. I don't know -- David, do you have 9
anything?
10 MEMBER PETTI: I have no more comments.
11 CHAIR SUNSERI: Walt?
12 MEMBER RAY: He wasn't here, was he?
13 CHAIR SUNSERI: He unmuted.
14 MEMBER RAY: He wasn't going to be able to 15 stay the whole time he told me.
16 MEMBER REMPE: He's here.
17 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Thank you. I just want 18 to associate myself with Harold's last comment about 19 preserving -- it's almost like raising the bar to have 20 it DC, rather than lowering it. But I saw that Anna 21 pointed out, there are other options for the advanced 22 reactors to pursue. So I just associate myself with 23 Harold's remarks. Thank you.
24 CHAIR SUNSERI: Anyone else? Now, we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 will, as part of the agenda, we'll turn to the public.
1 For the members in the room, is there anyone that 2
would like to make a comment on the record? While 3
we're checking for that, if we could open a phone line 4
for the public line. Nobody in the room is offering 5
any comments. On the public line, if there's anybody 6
on the public line that would choose to make a 7
comment, this is your opportunity. State your name 8
and provide your comment. Quyhn, are we sure the line 9
is open?
10 MR. NGUYEN: I'll check.
11 CHAIR SUNSERI: Anyone on the public line, 12 make your comment, provide your name. All right, 13 we'll close the public line. As far as next steps go, 14 at least it's our intention to stay in coordination 15 with the staff, through Quyhn, our staff member, so 16 Quyhn has already, obviously, reached out and 17 established a rapport with the group.
18 We expect that to happen. We understand 19 that the timeline is fairly far out in front of us and 20 that we're, I guess I'll say, back in process after 21 this meeting, where we'll follow our normal protocol.
22 I do want to say, though, we appreciate 23 the staff's accommodating us in this meeting today and 24 giving us the opportunity to provide early input, due 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 to the unique nature of the importance of this 1
rulemaking and the fact that we have some experience 2
that may be leaving our committee, so we wanted to 3
share that with you. We do very much appreciate the 4
opportunity to do that. One last check, anything 5
else?
6 MEMBER REMPE: I also wanted to add my 7
thanks. Again, I was involved with -- when they 8
inquired if we could, so I do appreciate you doing 9
this. If there's opportunities in the future where 10 you think it might be good to go a little bit out of 11 process, I think it would be beneficial for us and 12 help facilitate the process, so please consider it.
13 CHAIR SUNSERI: All right, now we are 14 adjourned, thank you.
15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 16 off the record at 10:47 a.m.)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
ACRS Subcommittee Meeting:
Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing Rulemaking 1
September 20, 2019 ADAMS Accession No. ML19247B731
2 NRC Staff Presenters Jim ODriscoll, NMSS Rulemaking Project Manager Carolyn Lauron, NRO Senior Project Manager
3 Purpose
- To receive the ACRS Subcommittees perspectives from its review of ESP, DC and COL applications, and the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 52 process
4 Purpose of the Rulemaking
- Implement Commission direction in SRM-SECY-15-0002, Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies, Rules and Guidance for Future New Reactor Applications to:
- Align the reactor licensing processes
- Improve clarity
- Reduce unnecessary burden on applicants and staff
5 Background
- Staff is engaging in rulemaking to:
- Address recommendations on alignment of 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52; Enclosure 1 of the SECY
- Address Part 52 lessons learned that have unnecessarily challenged staff, applicants, and licensees; Enclosure 2 of the SECY
- Consider transformational changes
6 Recent Activity
- Started scoping and outreach October 1, 2018
- Held public meeting January 15, 2019
- Alignment on scope July 11, 2019
- Issuance of Commission Information Paper SECY 19-0084 August 27, 2019
7 Outreach
- Staff requested input on the scope of the regulatory basis from:
- The general public
- Industry organizations
- Nongovernmental organizations
- NRC staff
- Staff collected approximately 250 items for consideration
8 Screening Criteria
- Items were first considered if they met at least one of the following criteria:
- Addresses alignment of Parts 50 and 52
- Addresses lessons learned from licensing activities
- Is a potential transformational change
- Reduces unnecessary burden and does not impact other requirements
9 Screening Criteria (contd)
- Items were screened out if they met at least one of the following criteria:
- The item would provide neither a significant safety benefit nor burden reduction to staff or industry while maintaining the agencys safety mission
- The item could be addressed by the administrative rulemaking for corrections
- The item could be addressed through the development of guidance outside of rulemaking
10 10 Scoping Results
- Four alignment items
- 52 lessons learned items
- Four of which are transformational
- 8 additional items are corrections, to be addressed in the semiannual administrative rulemaking for corrections to the CFR.
11 11 Alignment Items
- The staff is considering revising the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 for new power reactor applications to more closely align with requirements in 10 CFR Part 52 in four areas:
a.
Apply the Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents to new 10 CFR Part 50 license applications b.
Develop, submit, maintain, and upgrade a plant-specific PRA, submit appropriate information describing that analysis as part of the CP and OL submittals, and maintain and upgrade the PRA throughout the duration of the operating license c.
Address the TMI requirements of 10 CFR 50.34(f) with the same exceptions given for 10 CFR Part 52 applications d.
Provide a description and analyses of fire protection design features and describe fire protection plans
12 12 Lessons Learned Items
- As described in Information SECY 19-0084, the staff is considering revising the regulations to address lessons learned from new reactor licensing in several topical areas:
- PRA requirements
- Operator licensing
- Security
- Emergency planning
- 10 CFR Part 52 licensing process
- Environmental review
- Applicability of other processes to the Part 52 Process
- Miscellaneous
13 13 Transformational Items
- As described in Information SECY 19-0084, some changes are considered transformational in nature:
- Modify DC renewal requirements and expiration date
- Align the change process for DCs with the 10 CFR 50.59 process
- Add definitions of Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 2* information to Part 52
- Consider reducing requirements for standardization for certified designs
14 14 Next Steps
- Staff will consider your feedback from this meeting
- Develop and issue the regulatory basis for public comment
- No draft and final regulatory basis will be issued
- Comments received on the regulatory basis will be considered during the proposed rule stage
- Hold additional stakeholder meetings as needed
15 15 Rulemaking Schedule Issue final rule Issue final rule
- July 2024 Issue proposed rule for comment Issue proposed rule for comment
- June 2022 Issue regulatory basis for comment Issue regulatory basis for comment
- August 2020
QUESTIONS?
16
17 BACK UP SLIDES
18 18 References Document Title ADAMS Accession Number/ FR Citation SECY-19-0084, Status of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing (RIN 3150-AI66)
ML19161A169 SECY-19-0034, Improving Design Certification Content ML19080A034 Summary of January 15, 2019 Public Meeting to Discuss the Proposed Rulemaking to Align the Regulations in Parts 50 and 52 to Address Updates to the Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned for Future New Reactor Applications, ML19023A046 SECY-15-0002, Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies, Rules and Guidance for Future New Reactor Applications ML13277A420 SRM-SECY-15-002, Staff Requirements-SECY-15-002-Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies, Rules and Guidance for Future New Reactor Applications ML15266A023 Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants 50 FR 32138 SECY-89-013, Design Requirements Related to the Evolutionary Advanced Light Water Reactors, dated January 19, 1989 ML003707947 SECY-90-016, Evolutionary Light Water Reactor (LWR) Certification Issues and Their Relationship to Current Regulatory Requirements, dated January 12, 1990 ML003707849 SECY-93-087, Policy, Technical, and Licensing Issues Pertaining to Evolutionary and Advanced Light-Water Reactor (ALWR)
Designs, dated April 2, 1993 ML003708021 Bipartisan Policy Center Report Recommendations on the New Reactor Licensing Process ML13059A240
19 19 Administrative Corrections 10 CFR Description
§ 2.627 The references to § 2.617 in § 2.629(b) and § 52.83(b) should be to § 2.627.
Part 52 Appendices Both the ABWR and System 80+ design certification final rules (Part 52, Appendices A and B, respectively) initially correctly referred to ANSI/AISC N-690. Both the AP600 and AP1000 design cert final rules (Appendices C and D, respectively) incorrectly stated ANSI/AISC-690 (omitting the N). 64 Fed. Reg. 72,002, 72,018; 71 Fed. Reg. 4,464, 4,481.
Unfortunately, the NRC changed the ABWR and System 80+ references to match the AP600 and AP1000 references in the 2007 Part 52 rulemaking. Correct the reference in Appendices A-D by adding the "N" back into ANSI/AISC N-690 Part 52 Appendix D Section VI.B.6 Part 52, Appendix D,Section VI.B.6 reads except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.f... but the reference is incorrect. It should be except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.g... (rather than VIII.B.5.f).
Part 52 Appendix E Section VI.B.6 Part 52, Appendix E,Section VI.B.6 reads except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.f... but the reference is incorrect. It should be except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.g... (rather than VIII.B.5.f).
Part 50 Appendix J Under Option B, Subsection IV. Recordkeeping, refers to §§ 50.72 (b)(1)(ii) and § 50.72 (b)(2)(i). There is no § 50.72 (b)(1)(ii), only § 50.72 (b)(1). 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J references 10 CFR Part 52 and 10 CFR 50.54(o) imposes Appendix J as a requirement.
§ 21.3, "Basic component" Revise definition by deleting text in brackets as follows:
"(2) When applied to standard design certifications [under subpart C of part 52 of this chapter] and standard design approvals under part 52 of this chapter,"
§ 52.43(b)
Correct the following text in 10 CFR 52.43(b) which was not updated when SDAs were renamed to state: Subpart E of this part governs the NRC staff review and approval of a final standard design.
§ 52.79(c)(2)
Correct as follows: all terms and conditions that have been included in the final standard design approval will be satisfied.
20 20 Acronyms ABWR Advanced Boiling Water Reactor ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System CFR Code of Federal Regulations COL Combined License CP Construction Permit DC Design Certification DCD Design Certification Document NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OL Operating License PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment RB Regulatory Basis SOC Statement of Considerations SRP Standard Review Plan SRM Staff Requirements Memorandum TMI Three Mile Island