ML23048A237
| ML23048A237 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/09/2023 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| M230209 | |
| Download: ML23048A237 (101) | |
Text
1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
MEETING
+ + + + +
- THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2023
+ + + + +
The Commission met in the Commissioners' Hearing Room, One White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, at 9:00 a.m.
EST, Christopher T. Hanson, Chair, presiding.
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON, Chair JEFF BARAN, Commissioner DAVID A. WRIGHT, Commissioner ANNIE CAPUTO, Commissioner BRADLEY R. CROWELL, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT:
BROOKE P. CLARK, Secretary of the Commission MARIAN ZOBLER, General Counsel
2 NRC STAFF:
DANIEL H. DORMAN, Executive Director for Operations ROBERT TAYLOR, Deputy Director for New Reactors, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation BERNIE THOMSON, Deputy Director, Division of New and Renewed Licenses, NRR OMID TABATABAI, Senior Project Manager, New Reactor Licensing Branch, Division of New and Renewed Licenses, NRR CANDACE DE MESSIERES, Chief, Technical Branch II, Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities, NRR
3 PROCEEDINGS 1
9:00 a.m.
2 CHAIR HANSON: All right. Good morning, everyone, and 3
welcome. I convene today's Commission meeting to discuss NRC's strategy to 4
license advanced reactors utilizing the established regulatory frameworks under 5
10 CFR Parts 50 and 52.
6 Advanced reactor licensing continues to be a topic of high 7
interest to our stakeholders, almost everyone, so I thank you all for being here 8
this morning to support this meeting, and I'm looking forward to a very good and 9
informative conversation. Of course, we've had some experience now with 10 these existing frameworks in Part 50 and 52, and I'm hoping we can also touch 11 on some of the things we've learned as we've come along and those processes 12 as well.
13 Before we get rolling, I'll ask my colleagues if they have any 14 comments they'd like to make?
15 Okay. Without that, we will get rolling this morning. We'll 16 hear from Caroline Ducros from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
17 Welcome Caroline, and greetings to all our colleagues up north.
18 MS. DUCROS: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners, 19 members of the public. My name is Dr. Caroline Ducros. I am the Director 20 General of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Directorate of Advanced 21 Reactor Technologies.
22 I'm here to offer the Canadian perspective on licensing 23 advanced reactors and SMRs and how CNSC implements technology-inclusive, 24 risk-informed, performance-based regulation. I'll give an overview of the CNSC, 25
4 Canada's SMR Landscape, Readiness, and Collaboration with the NRC.
1 Next slide, please. The CNSC is Canada's nuclear regulator.
2 Our mandate is to protect health, safety, security, and the environment, to 3
implement Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear 4
energy, and to share technical and regulatory information with the public.
5 As this slide illustrates, our vision to continue to be a world 6
class regulator involves four strategic priorities and outcomes, which include 7
enabling innovation, like SMRs, through continued modernization of our 8
performance-based regulatory framework, informed by experience with 9
Canada's operating CANDU fleet.
10 CNSC shares and leverages best practices in nuclear safety 11 and licensing, working with our partners like the NRC to enhance agility in our 12 respective processes.
13 Our work is guided by our values, prioritizing safety, striving 14 for excellence, acting with integrity, and building trust with indigenous nations 15 and communities and stakeholders. These values that are shared by many 16 like-minded regulators have contributed to Canada's strong working relationship 17 with NRC staff.
18 Next slide, please. I will talk a bit about Canada's SMR 19 Landscape. In the province of Ontario, we are reviewing an application for a 20 license to construct, submitted to us in October 2022 by Ontario Power 21 Generation, OPG, for the first grid-scale SMR using the GE Hitachi's BWRX-22 300 technology.
23 Also in Ontario, Global First Power, in a joint venture between 24 OPG and Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, has applied for a site-preparation 25
5 license for a high temperature, gas-cooled, micro modular reactor. The license 1
application review and environmental assessment are underway.
2 In Saskatchewan, SaskPower is exploring nuclear for the first 3
time, working with OPG and GE Hitachi to deploy the BWRX-300 at up to two 4
sites. Saskatchewan Research Counsel is also working with Westinghouse on 5
the eVinci micro reactor.
6 And in New Brunswick, NB Power is working with two vendors 7
and looking to site these technologies next to an operating CANDU reactor at 8
Point Lepreau. ARC is developing a sodium-cooled fast-reactor, and Moltex is 9
developing a molten salt and recycling technology for used CANDU fuel.
10 There is growing interest across Canada and multiple 11 technologies, which is why CNSC is optimizing SMR readiness.
12 Next slide, please. CNSC has been preparing for nuclear for 13 over a decade. The government of Canada recently invested $50.7 million 14 Canadian dollars over five years to the CNSC to focus on the four pillars that 15 are on this slide.
16 Capacity and capability is about our people, research, and 17 technical skills, attracting and growing top talent in nuclear safety.
18 Regulatory Predictability focuses on optimizing our framework 19 and providing further clarity to applicants as we continue to learn from first of a 20 kind projects.
21 Policy and Shared Responsibilities recognizes that, while 22 CNSC is Canada's nuclear regulator, there are other federal and provincial 23 counterparts with related responsibilities. For this reason, the CNSC leads a 24 whole-of-government approach to ensure SMR readiness across jurisdictions 25
6 and to build relationships.
1 In terms of international collaboration, as regulators, we can 2
optimize our readiness by sharing experiences and moving toward 3
harmonization where practical. Recognizing the independence of each 4
regulator, we work collaboratively to enhance safety and agility globally. This is 5
a culture change and challenge we will face. The MOC between the CNSC and 6
NRC provides an excellent model for us to demonstrate how this can be done 7
to the global community.
8 Next slide, please. The CNSC and NRC MOC, which was 9
signed in 2019, focuses on cross-border matters and global deployment. We 10 share research, training, and exchange staff. CNSC and NRC staff publish joint 11 products catering to a wide range of end users and may serve as guidance for 12 applicants or as the basis for acceptance by regulators worldwide.
13 In 2022, CNSC and NRC staff, with input from OPG, TVA, 14 and GEH, developed a charter for collaboration on technical and regulatory 15 aspects of the BWRX-300 reviews. There are three work plans underway:
16 safety strategy, fuel qualification, and vertical shaft advanced construction using 17 Steel Bricks.
18 Boiling water reactors are new to Canada, providing an 19 excellent opportunity to leverage topical reports and certification of previous 20 designs to complement CNSC's independent assessment.
21 Understanding each country's acceptance criteria for Safety 22 Classification, Event Categorization, and Defense in Depth is the foundation for 23 all collaboration.
24 Through our strategic plan, CNSC and NRC staff work 25
7 towards harmonization and demonstrate a model for collaboration that other 1
countries can adopt. Internationally, we have shared our experience and 2
lessons learned, and our work continues to generate interest.
3 Thank you.
4 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Dr. Ducros.
5 Next we'll hear from Mr. Marcus Nichol. He's the Senior 6
Director for New Reactors at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Mr. Nichol?
7 MR. NICHOL: Yeah. Thank you, Chair Hanson, 8
Commissioners, for the opportunity to speak to you today.
9 I'd like to convey an industry perspective of the state of 10 advanced reactors and the regulatory framework to ensure the safety and 11 security of that technology.
12 What we're seeing in the market is an increase in interest in 13 advanced reactors for near-term and long-term deployment, and that's driven 14 partly by policies to decarbonize the energy sector, but also in recognition of the 15 need for nuclear for reliability and affordability.
16 NEI completed a survey of our members last year that 17 indicated, collectively, they are interested in up to 90 gigawatts of new nuclear 18 advanced reactors by 2050. We've gone and updated that survey and, while 19 we haven't published the final results, it's increased by 10 percent. So, this 20 underlies the importance of the regulatory system in the deployment of these 21 advanced reactors.
22 The NRC, as everyone knows, has two licensing pathways 23 today, Part 50 and Part 52, and is in the process of creating a third process 24 called Part 53.
25
8 In relation to that third process, NEI and USNIC collectively 1
surveyed our members, both developers and potential licensees, and 17 of the 2
21 members responded that they're not interested in using Part 53 because it's 3
less flexible, predictable, and efficient than Parts 50 and 52.
4 So, that means that we need to have an increased focus on 5
improving Parts 50 and 52 since they're expected to be utilized for the long-6 term, and certainly, they're the only options in the short-term.
7 So, turning attention now to the Part 50, 52 Lessons Learned 8
Rulemaking that the staff has underway, we see and commend the staff for 9
making many improvements to both Parts 50 and 52 through this rulemaking.
10 Just some examples: they're removing the duration and 11 renewal requirements for design certifications. They're including change 12 processes for standard design approvals. They are eliminating the need for 13 Tier 2* information, and they're in the process of clarifying which large light 14 water reactor requirements are not applicable to advanced reactors.
15 But we think that there are other significant improvements that 16 should be made that are not being pursued by the NRC in the rulemaking.
17 Examples of these: we would encourage the NRC to include a process for 18 making changes to Tier 1 information at risk, before the NRC approves those 19 changes, in a way that both ensures the safety and avoids the need for 20 potential construction delays or huge licensing staffs to stand at the ready to 21 process those.
22 Another would be the ability to issue COLs, or Combined 23 Operating Licenses, referencing design certifications with known errors, with 24 the provisions that those would be corrected in time and so that this doesn't 25
9 delay the issuance of those Combined Operating License.
1 Another one would be the establishment of first principles for 2
Tier 1 and ITAAC information in order to right-size the content in those, 3
because those are areas that are very difficult to change.
4 And then, we also noticed that there may be some things that 5
are being included in Part 50 which we have some concerns about. And it's 6
potentially the appearance that there are expectations that the construction 7
permits would have equivalent level of design finalization as would be required 8
in a Part 52 Combined Operating License.
9 An example of that is the level of completeness of the PRA, or 10 Probabilistic Risk Assessment, and so that would blur the lines between the 11 distinctions of Part 50 and 52.
12 We believe that these additional improvements are needed to 13 increase the viability and ensure that there's distinctions between these two 14 processes. They both serve different needs in deployment models that our 15 companies are looking at doing.
16 You know, one of the things that we're seeing is a migration of 17 interest toward using the Part 50 process, not the Part 52 process, which was 18 established to be more efficient. And so, addressing these challenges would 19 help to make both of these viable.
20 There are other efforts beyond the Lessons Learned 21 Rulemaking that we think are very important to address.
22 So, one is to treat light water SMRs and non-light waters 23 equitably. So, there are some instances where we're seeing differences in how 24 they're being treated. So, for example, construction permit guidance is being 25
10 developed, one for non-LWRs and one for light waters, and we think there's a 1
technology-inclusive approach that could be done there.
2 Similarly, target review schedules are shorter for non-light 3
water reactors, and we think that the target review schedules should be similar 4
because they both have similar philosophies in terms of enhanced safety.
5 There are examples where the NRC is doing a great job in 6
treating things technology-inclusively, like the advanced reactor content of 7
applications and certainly in Part 53.
8 We also think that key technical policy issues need to be 9
addressed before submitting applications, and certainly, one of the most 10 important things is improving the efficiency of the licensing process. So, to this, 11 we recognize that that's important because there are new business models that 12 are being pursued. We also see that there's a potential, real potential, for large 13 volumes of applications in the future. And so, improving the efficiency is 14 something that can both ease the potential for future workforce challenges as 15 well as provide near-term benefits to applicants today.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Nichol. Next we'll hear 18 from Carrie Fosaaen. She's the Senior Director for Regulatory Affairs at 19 NuScale.
20 MS. FOSAAEN: Thank you for inviting me today.
21 I was asked to speak about pre-application, and as a recent 22 applicant under Part 52 for both a design certification and now a standard 23 design approval application, I've got the perspective, unique perspective, of 24 having done it once and then getting to see the lessons learned implemented in 25
11 real-time.
1 So, I wanted to start with just a brief summary, very high level, 2
of NuScale's experience. NuScale first engaged the NRC on our design 3
certification application around 2009. Before our submission of the design 4
certification, we engaged in hundreds of pre-application engagements, 5
submitted numerous white papers and several topical reports. We supported a 6
gap analysis effort where we compared our design to the existing regulatory 7
framework and ultimately supported the staff developing design-specific review 8
standards.
9 We underwent a readiness review prior to our initial 10 application submission at the end of 2016. Ultimately, that application was 11 docketed in 2017 and, through a significant effort on both sides, was approved 12 in late 2020. So, that represents the final safety evaluations.
13 In the meantime, we recognized we were going to pursue a 14 power uprate, so we actually began engaging the staff in pre-application for the 15 standard design application we recently submitted, and that started in 2019. In 16 order to support this application, over 75 engagements -- so, you recognize 17 that's a much more reduced scope.
18 We also went under a phased readiness review. So, again, 19 looking at the way the design certification went, we applied lessons learned, 20 and ultimately, we are currently waiting to see if the application will be accepted 21 for review.
22 So, based on that history, I'd like to highlight three areas that 23 stood out to me, one with pre-application meetings. The staff is only allowed to 24 give informal feedback in a pre-application engagement meeting, which the 25
12 vendors, you know, use to be able to make decisions for business and move 1
forward.
2 What we found is timing of those engagements is critical.
3 Engaging too early with the staff, which is actually the staff's preference, 4
resulted in a lot of uncertainty. You find that the staff may change, they get 5
promoted, they retire, they move on to other assignments, and that informal 6
feedback is sometimes unique to the staff member that you're engaging. So, 7
timing is critical, and when we sought to engage more recently, we did keep 8
that in mind, and that's why we did not engage more until the year before we 9
submitted.
10 The other aspect is, I know there's a lot of benefits to pre-app 11 and we certainly realize most of them, efficiency. Every one of those 12 engagements represents resources on both sides, you know, both the vendor 13 and the NRC, so being efficient in choosing what we engage on and what we 14 choose not to, knowing that it's informal, you know, we pick and choose those 15 topics very carefully.
16 And I would like to say, you know, we did see record time for 17 our design certification, but when you look at the full scope of the picture, we 18 started engagement in 2009. So, you could argue -- are you really making a 19 more efficient review if you're just moving it into pre-app? So, just want to be 20 mindful of how that's being executed in future applications.
21 Readiness reviews. We found a lot of benefit in the readiness 22 review, but that is a highly resource intensive activity. Very complimentary of 23 the staff. We proposed, for the standard design application we recently 24 submitted, a phased review, and it was a novel approach. It came with some 25
13 challenges, and I recognize we put the staff in some interesting positions 1
where, you know, by submitting chapters at different times, they didn't have the 2
full picture, but I have to commend that they were willing to work with us on 3
something innovative and try something new.
4 Again, with the level of resource and time, I think you'd find, 5
for an optional process, the benefit has to be there, and for the design 6
certification, we feel that the readiness review really led to our ability to be 7
docketed and reviewed in an efficient manner. And that's really the benefit of 8
doing a readiness review, especially if the applicant makes a good faith effort to 9
address the comments provided by the staff.
10 And finally, I would like to talk a little bit about the risk-11 informed review. Again, to compliment the staff, they have been seeking 12 opportunities to risk-inform the review, something I want to highlight that we're 13 very optimistic about in our design review that we're coming up on.
14 And the staff, in order to support that, did do a probabilistic 15 risk assessment of our design prior to submission, with the intent to really focus 16 the areas they were looking at. As we haven't actually begun the formal review, 17 I don't have conclusive results, but I want to highlight the efforts of the staff and 18 say that we're very optimistic about seeing a risk-informed review.
19 That's something I think can really contribute to the efficiency 20 of review, and with the number of applicants we've discussed potentially 21 submitting in the near-term, efficiency is going to be key to those reviews.
22 Thank you.
23 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Ms. Fosaaen. Next we'll hear 24 from Scott Hunnewell. He's Vice President for the New Nuclear Program at 25
14 Tennessee Valley Authority.
1 MR. HUNNEWELL: Thank you for the opportunity to speak 2
with you today.
3 Next slide. The TVA Clinch River advanced reactor licensing 4
strategy is to prepare and, upon TVA Board authorization, submit multiple 5
applications that conform to a 10 CFR Part 50 two-step regulatory pathway.
6 The Part 50 licensing pathway would allow for the effective 7
and systematic development of project licensing, design finalization, and 8
construction. TVA believes that the use of the part 50 pathway provides the 9
flexibility necessary to support potential design modifications required during 10 construction.
11 A construction permit application requires only preliminary 12 plant design and associated analysis. Preliminary plant design minimizes the 13 amount of engineering work required to support an NRC decision that will allow 14 construction to start.
15 TVA anticipates the design maturity to be approximately 30 16 percent complete for preparation of a construction permit application. An 17 application based on partially complete information is something that TVA's 18 licensing engineers are not accustomed to.
19 The operating license application contains the final safety 20 analysis report. The final safety analysis report contains the information that 21 describes the facility, presents the design bases and the limits on its operation, 22 and presents a safety analysis of the structures, systems, and components of 23 the facility.
24 Next slide, please. Next, I would like to highlight just a few 25
15 reasons why TVA believes the Part 50 licensing pathway will be the most 1
advantageous relative to our planning for the Clinch River site.
2 In 2021, TVA completed a technology assessment that 3
examined light water and non-light water small modular reactor designs. TVA's 4
conclusion was that light water designs are most ready for commercial 5
deployment and will support having a standard SMR option available by the 6
early 2030s as one of several technologies to help TVA meet its goal for net 7
zero carbon emissions by 2050. We believe the Part 50 licensing process can 8
readily accommodate the light water SMR designs due to their similarities with 9
previously approved designs.
10 TVA sees the potential for more timely and efficient licensing 11 of standardized SMR designs in the future. However, until an SMR is licensed 12 and constructed, the Part 52 process has the potential for time consuming and 13 costly delays in getting to a first deployment.
14 TVA anticipates that, for a first of a kind deployment, there will 15 be issues identified during construction that will require a change to the design.
16 The Part 50 process allows the licensee to address the majority of any issues 17 discovered during construction without prior NRC approval, which helps 18 maintain the schedule and the budget.
19 TVA's assessment of licensing options for first SMR also 20 identified potential risks associated with the Part 50 licensing pathway. These 21 risks include that, to the best of my knowledge, it has been over four decades 22 since a Part 50 was last used to license a new power reactor design.
23 The guidance updates for Part 52 removed Part 50 24 information. The difference in the Part 50 process is that NRC reviewers will 25
16 see a preliminary design rather than a final design needed under Part 52.
1 TVA's conclusion is that for the light water SMR technology, a 2
Part 50 licensing approach provides many advantages and that the potential 3
risks and any associated regulatory uncertainty can be mitigated.
4 Next slide. A regulatory engagement plan establishes rules of 5
engagement between the applicant and NRC. The primary goal of the 6
regulatory engagement plan is to reduce regulatory uncertainty by establishing 7
such agreements as early in the regulatory process as possible.
8 Implementation of a comprehensive regulatory engagement 9
plan can provide project stability and predictability in the full scope of activity, 10 supporting the licensing process.
11 Early engagement between TVA and the NRC staff will be 12 used to establish a mutual understanding of the application scope and to 13 identify key areas of regulatory risk in the draft application.
14 TVA anticipates that pre-application meetings, site visits, and 15 interactions that are well focused and have the appropriate technical experts 16 will provide meaningful discussions to reduce regulatory risk associated with 17 first-of-a-kind features, topics, and issues that are expected to be technically 18 complex, unique, novel, or challenging from a policy perspective.
19 TVA will rely on topical reports submitted by General Electric 20 Hitachi to improve the efficiency of the Part 50 licensing pathway, providing to 21 the staff proposed methodologies, first-of-a-kind design features, and unique 22 operational requirements early in the licensing process.
23 In conclusion, the Part 50 regulatory pathway is the preferred 24 approach in licensing and constructing a first-of-a-kind advanced reactor 25
17 design. TVA believes that benefits afforded through Part 50 by the flexibility to 1
make changes during construction of a first-of-a-kind advanced reactor design 2
outweigh any regulatory risks.
3 TVA will work with the NRC staff, as we prepare the first 4
construction permit application under Part 50 in over 40 years, to ensure that all 5
parties involved understand that the construction permit application is based on 6
a partially completed design. Thank you for your time.
7 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Hunnewell, and now we'll 8
hear from Jamie Coleman, she's the Director of Regulatory Affairs for Southern 9
Nuclear Company.
10 MS. COLEMAN: Thank you, Chair Hanson and 11 Commissioners. I'm honored to have the opportunity to share Southern 12 Nuclear's experiences with you today on the Part 52 licensing process during 13 construction of Vogtle 3 and 4.
14 When I was preparing for this discussion, the biggest 15 challenge was trying to condense 10 years of construction testing and startup 16 activities into a few minutes, but I'll do my best. Next slide, please.
17 I'll first start with some observations regarding the advantages 18 of Part 52. Part 52 met the aim of the original rule, which was to previous 19 procedures for standardization of nuclear power-plants in early resolution of 20 safety and environmental issues in the licensing proceedings.
21 Certifying the design on the front end enabled improved 22 predictability on the back end through the ITAAC verification and closure 23 process. Once SNC had submitted the final ITAAC closure notification, timely 24 issuance of the Part 52 103(g) finding was possible because of the confidence 25
18 that the plant was constructed as designed which was proven through the 1
ITAAC process.
2 In addition, having dedicated regulatory resources in both 3
NRC Headquarters and NRC Region II was crucial in providing a central focal 4
point throughout the course of the project.
5 Consistency in leadership and technical staff created a depth 6
of knowledge that significantly contributed to getting the project to where it is 7
now. In our view, NRC's use of dedicated regulatory resources for new 8
construction projects constitutes a best practice and should be continued for 9
potential advanced reactor licensing and construction if possible.
10 Next slide, please. I'll now share some observations 11 regarding opportunities to improve Part 52 licensing process based on our 12 experiences.
13 There is our scope identification during design certification 14 phase, increased use of licensee self-approval processes, use of risk-informed 15 processes, and changes to implementation milestones.
16 The scope, complexity, and challenges of a first-of-a-kind 17 project of this magnitude requires flexibility on the part of the licensee and the 18 regulator to deal with changes as they arise.
19 I'll start with the first two bullets because they go hand in hand.
20 It's important to appropriately identify ITAAC Tier 1, Tier 2*, and Tier 2 scope 21 during the design certification.
22 It is also important for the licensee to have avenues to make 23 changes quickly through self-approval processes where appropriate. Either 24 one or preferably both of these improvements would increase efficiency without 25
19 compromising reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health 1
and safety.
2 Through the ten years from issuance from the combined license 3
to issuance of the 103(g) finding, SNC reduced the number of ITAAC, reduced 4
the scope of Tier 2* information, and processed hundreds of departures from 5
the updated final safety analysis report, or FSAR.
6 Today SNC has processed approximately 220 licensing actions 7
in the forms of license amendments, exemptions, or alternatives, which is far 8
more than operating fleets typically over a ten-year period.
9 Looking at SECY-22-0052, one of the NRC's stated goals is to 10 reduce the need for request for exemptions from existing regulations and 11 license amendments. Establishing a more refined scope on the front end and 12 self-approval processes for changes would support achieving this goal.
13 Moving to the next bullet, Part 52 has not kept pace with the rest 14 of industry's progress towards a more risk-informed approach in several areas.
15 When a Part 52 licensee makes changes, they rely primarily on a burdensome, 16 deterministic justification.
17 Where a risk-informed analysis demonstrates little or no risk, 18 there should be a corresponding reduction in the necessary justification for the 19 change.
20 When potential compliance issues are identified, NRC should 21 employ a more risk-informed construction reactor oversight process and use of 22 the very low safety significance issue resolution process. The same benefits 23 NRC has cited for risk-informing Part 50 processes should also apply to Part 24
- 52.
25
20 Finally, a more recently realized area for improvement is in 1
implementation milestones. The effective date for many regulations is tied to 2
the date of the 103(g) finding, which is largely administrative and legal in 3
nature.
4 In reality, not much physically changed on plant site when the 5
103 finding was issued, thus, no change to the risk profile of the plant. In SECY 6
22-0052 it specifically discusses changing implementation milestones for two 7
areas, physical security requirements and fitness for duty requirements.
8 This is a good start but reportability and technical specifications 9
also become applicable at 103(g). In the period between the 103(g) finding but 10 prior to initial criticality, our experience has been that the application of these 11 requirements has diverted staff and site focus.
12 Requirements should be phased in to minimize the unnecessary 13 burden during startup testing when the site is working to ensure the plant will 14 run safely and reliably.
15 Looking at the project holistically, our principal recommendation 16 is to provide both the licensee and the regulator greater flexibility to deal with 17 changes throughout the construction process, and thereby enable our collective 18 resources to focus on issues based on their safety and risk significance.
19 I appreciate the opportunity to share Southern Nuclear's 20 perspective with you and look forward to your questions.
21 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Ms. Coleman. Thank you all for 22 your presentations. We'll begin questions this morning with Commissioner 23 Wright.
24 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, Chair. Good morning.
25
21 So thank you for your presentations and I've really been looking forward to this 1
meeting. In the past, we've had several meetings on Part 53.
2 As you all know, we were charged by Congress to look at a risk-3 informed technology-inclusive pathway for advanced reactors and so hopefully 4
when that process is over, we're going to have something that's going to be 5
both useful and usable by the stakeholders that use it and our Staff.
6 That said, though, as you all have mentioned, most of the 7
applicants in front of us right now are those considering coming before us are 8
using Part 50 or Part 52. NuScale, Kairos, TerraPower, X-energy, just to name 9
a few.
10 So, it's important that we not be a barrier in this whole process to 11 these new technologies. So, we're going to need to demonstrate that we're 12 capable of licensing the new technologies and designs using our existing 13 regulations.
14 So, to show that we can actually make safe use of nuclear 15 technology possible, which is actually NRR's slogan. So, Part 53 can be 16 informed by lessons learned if we indeed need it in the end, which I think you 17 were referring to in your comments, Marc.
18 To me being a modern risk-informed regulator is more than just a 19 motto or a slogan. It's going to have to be a behavior, it requires action and it's 20 going to require our staff to answer the call to action which I believe they can 21 do.
22 So, with that I'm going to ask my first question and I'll start with 23 you, Carrie, since I name-dropped your company earlier in remarks. And given 24 all the experience that NuScale has had with being the first SMR reactor 25
22 designed and certified.
1 Congratulations on that by the way. I want to delve a bit into the 2
lessons learned letter that NuScale wrote a couple years ago. I think we can all 3
agree there were several lessons, many of which the Staff presented in a report 4
March of last year.
5 It brings to mind the SRM that we had on the IAB, the 6
inadvertent actuation block valve issue, which was a big deal back then where 7
the Commission directed the Staff to apply risk-informed principles from the 8
usual prescriptive deterministic criteria such as single failure criteria.
9 So, I'm interested in an external perspective, your perspective, 10 on where we might be as an agency right now, on how well the Staff has been 11 implementing this direction, and if you or anyone else on the panel has noticed 12 any improvements or differences since the Staff issued the lessons learned 13 report?
14 MS. FOSAAEN: Yes, thank you. I would like to say I have seen 15 some improvements, as I mentioned, in my opening remarks. The Staff is 16 looking to implement risk-informed initiatives.
17 I would say in my observation that the SECY hasnt promulgated 18 all levels of the Staff so we do see benefits at some levels of the organization 19 but not all the way down to the bottom working level. So, that's my perspective.
20 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Anyone else? Marc?
21 MR. NICHOL: Thanks, I'd add to that. In response to the 22 NuScale lessons learned letter and I know NEI had sent a lessons learned as 23 well, we do see the NRC is starting to implement many improvements in the 24 licensing process.
25
23 And they've had meetings to explain other improvements that are 1
in the works that will not yet have manifested themselves. But we also note that 2
there were some significant, we thought, improvements the NRC could make 3
that are not being adopted that we would encourage the NRC to think about.
4 One is aggressive yet reasonable schedule targets. Today the 5
NRC's review schedule is somewhere between three to four years. That's from 6
the beginning of the safety review to the end of the safety review.
7 There's also pre-review processes, the acceptance review and 8
the pre-application process, there's post-review processes, hearings, 9
certifications, other things.
10 So, when you add all that up you're getting close to five years 11 and that's a long time for an Applicant to be in the NRC process. So, we would 12 encourage to try to get down as close to one year as possible for the safety 13 review.
14 There is the definition of credible, which is really important. That 15 term credible for accidents is used over and over and over again and a lack of 16 understanding of what the NRC means by credible makes it difficult for industry 17 to try to meet that definition.
18 The SRM-SECY-19-0036, we've asked on occasions, how are 19 you implementing that, and we've not heard any response. We've not seen any 20 indication that that is actually being implemented. There's others but please 21 continue.
22 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Anybody else? Speaking of the 23 IAB valve, one of the recommendations from the report I believe the Staff 24 should reconsider is a clearly defined process-resolved disagreements.
25
24 I understand there were considerable resources expended when they 1
had technical disagreements that maybe could have been resolved sooner had 2
you had a process in place to seek alternative safety perspectives.
3 And we've got a number of those things now in other areas for 4
internal and external stakeholders, differing professional opinion program being 5
one of them. There's even a documented agreement in the MOU between us 6
and the CNSC that gets to that.
7 So, what would be your thoughts on that type of a process being 8
implemented?
9 MS. FOSAAEN: I would be very supportive of it. I am aware 10 that for our standard design application, we are working with the Staff currently 11 to implement an independent reviewer. I haven't seen documented what that 12 process looks like, it's only been verbalized.
13 But I think that's something that's been encouraged and the Staff 14 understands. One thing we've come to agreement on is the need to escalate 15 quickly. So, having that third-party independent reviewer would help facilitate 16 that disagreement period.
17 Because I think on both sides you've got reasonable people with 18 different opinions, much like you can expect. So, it's possible and very likely 19 you'd have different opinions of the ultimate outcome but I'd be highly 20 supportive of it.
21 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Good, thank you. We've got about 22 three minutes left, so I'll see if I can try to get two questions in here.
23 Jamie, welcome. Having the first plant to use Part 52, I'm kind of 24 interested in the additional insights you may have on efficiencies with current 25
25 our regulatory process here with Part 50 and 52.
1 Hypothetically, if you were to build Vogtle 5 and 6, talk to me a 2
little bit about whether you would take the same path under Part 52 or would 3
you consider Part 50, and maybe why?
4 MS. COLEMAN: Thank you for your question. I expected this 5
one.
6 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Did you?
7 MS. COLEMAN: I would want to know the answer to this. I can't 8
speak for what direction Southern Nuclear would choose because there's a lot 9
of variables and I think some that were highlighted today is the percentage of 10 design that's completed and is it a first of a kind or have there been others 11 ahead of it?
12 My personal opinion if we were going to build additional AP-13 1000s that Part 52 would certainly be a viable option because we have 14 exercised it. And one of the things that is still yet to be unseen is that Part 52 15 was made for a reference plant and then standardization following it.
16 And we've seen changes and we've seen efficiencies in Unit 4 17 but most of those have come from changes that we made on 3 that we did for 4 18 as well and it made sense to do so. So, we haven't really fully seen the benefits 19 of having a reference plant and other plants to follow.
20 But I think 52 would certainly be viable.
21 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you for that. My final 22 question is going to be for anybody at the table here. What do you see as the 23 biggest regulatory hurdle to licensing technologies under Parts 50 and 52? Is it 24 being addressed? And if not, any thoughts on how to address it?
25
26 MR. NICHOL: I'm happy to answer that. I think there's many 1
things to address and the NRC is addressing many, many of them. But the 2
biggest one I think should be addressed right now is the efficiency of the 3
processes, especially the review process.
4 I talked about the five years and trying to get that down to 5
something shorter. Not only does it help industry and time to market but it 6
helps the NRC in terms of the resources that you have to apply.
7 And so when we talk about a more efficient process we're not 8
talking about cutting back on safety. We want the same rigor in the review and 9
the same safety outcomes. What we're looking at is how can you do it more 10 efficiently, approve safe designs more efficiently?
11 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Right, it's saving resources on both 12 sides. Thank you so much.
13 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Wright.
14 Commissioner Caputo?
15 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Good morning, thank you all for 16 being here. Given the challenges with Part 53, this meeting is incredibly timely 17 and I think it certainly has crystallized my focus on the proposed changes for 50 18 and 52 through this rulemaking.
19 Mr. Hunnewell, you discussed in your remarks the fact that TVA 20 is choosing Part 50 for Clinch River because of the greater degree of flexibility it 21 provides, especially for changes during construction and particularly for designs 22 that are first of a kind.
23 One of the proposed requirements, requirements proposed by 24 the Staff, would be to include the requirement for a probabilistic risk 25
27 assessment for a design and the results of that assessment as part of a 1
construction permit application.
2 So, Mr. Nichol and Mr. Hunnewell both, how does that limit that 3
flexibility during construction? Because as we heard from Ms. Coleman, 220 4
licensing actions during construction, if a PRA has to be revised with any 5
number of those actions and those revisions to PRAs were reviewed at the 6
same time, that's going to add a fair amount of review time and complication.
7 What are your thoughts on that situation?
8 MR. HUNNEWELL: I would say that requiring a PRA for the 9
construction permit application would negate the benefits from a Part 50 10 application. Because with a 30 percent design, you don't have enough analysis 11 to prepare a PRA.
12 So, that design would have to be matured significantly before 13 you could prepare a PRA and then you could possibly have those impacts of 14 changes during construction. I don't think that's practical in a Part 50, 30 15 percent design application process.
16 MR. NICHOL: I'll add to that. There are two primary benefits 17 that were built into Part 52, one was finality at the approval before construction, 18 the other was -- and then the distinction with Part 50 is that you can submit the 19 design with less design completion.
20 As so as Scott just pointed out, requiring a PRA essentially 21 requires the exact same design completion as a Part 52 combined operating 22 license. So, you have all of the same burden of proof but you have none of the 23 benefits of finality.
24 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: And so I'm guessing that while that 25
28 might be less of an issue for a more established design like the AP-1000, that's 1
going to be a particular challenge for novel advanced technologies?
2 MR. NICHOL: It is. One of the reasons why people are looking 3
at Part 50 is because it can be a faster process to get to market because you're 4
submitting your design with less design completion and you're completing that 5
design in parallel with construction.
6 And so if you require that PRA, then you've negated the benefit 7
of time to market.
8 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you. Mr. Nichol, I'm going 9
to stay with you for another question getting at applicability.
10 One of the challenges I think for novel designs in proceeding 11 through this rulemaking framework is these frameworks were envisioned for 12 light water reactors so there are clearly going to be segments of our regulations 13 that aren't really applicable for advanced technologies.
14 The question is how do we give clarity for applicants on what's 15 applicable and what isn't applicable so that it can file complete high-quality 16 applications?
17 There's a white paper on the subject, but how do you envision or 18 what do you see in terms of progress with getting clarity and some measure of 19 certainty and reliability to support drafting of applications?
20 MR. NICHOL: This rulemaking is critical, to get that clarity on 21 which of the large light water reactor requirements apply to advanced reactors.
22 The papers you mentioned, we had a lot of discussion with the Staff, they 23 ultimately came back and said this can only be done in a rulemaking.
24 And so they are incorporating this into the rulemaking so it'll be 25
29 very important to look at the details, to what extent are they going to disposition 1
all of those large light water reactor requirements.
2 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Now, the differences between 3
designs may alter which regulations are applicable. How do sort through that in 4
a rulemaking?
5 MR. NICHOL: There's a couple of ways to look at it. You could 6
look at some that are clearly not applicable to anything except large light water 7
reactors. There are others where you could come up with some performance-8 based criteria that you would then judge the design against.
9 So, if you have the criteria you could look at the design and say, 10 well, I meet the criteria and therefore it doesn't apply to me or I do not meet the 11 requirement and therefore it does apply to me.
12 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you for that. Carrie, thank you for 13 being here. I have to say your discussion on risk-informing definitely piqued my 14 interest. One of the things that jumped out at me from your lessons learned 15 letter was a threshold for a design basis source term event.
16 So, I understand that we're about to receive -- this is something 17 the Staff has wrestled with in Part 53 that I expect we will continue to wrestle 18 with in this rulemaking as well but one of the items has to do with including 19 quantitative health objectives in Part 53.
20 However, what we saw in NuScale's lessons learned is the 21 numbers seem to go even lower than the QHOs of once every two million 22 years, including consideration of an event that happens three times every ten 23 billion years.
24 I'm kind of struggling with how we got there because -- and this 25
30 is where I have to put a number like that in context. Astronomers estimate the 1
earth is only 4.6 billion years old.
2 So, when we start getting into numbers like this I struggle, and 3
yet, in your remarks you talked about being optimistic about a risk-informed 4
review. So, between your lessons learned letter to us and the remarks that 5
you've made today, what has changed in terms of our ability to be risk-informed 6
and what progress or challenges do you still see in terms of how we are looking 7
at what constitutes a credible event?
8 MS. FOSAAEN: That's a great question. I guess I'd start with 9
I'm always an optimist so I can start with that. But I mentioned the effort the 10 Staff went through prior to our submission. It was their idea looking at what 11 we've done with them, let's look at your PRA so we can focus our review.
12 That wasn't something we had in the design certification so my 13 optimism is spawned by some of the behaviors I'm seeing in the engagement 14 between the design start and now. I do think there are still going to be 15 challenges.
16 The definition of credible, as we alluded to in our letter, not 17 having that clarity leaves a lot of space for interpretation. I think the SRM you 18 issued on our IAB, our inadvertent actuation block, was a great first step.
19 I'd like to see that more infused into the processes. I think that's 20 one thing that there's room for improvement, to continue to embrace that 21 philosophy. And that would be the challenge, how do you define something?
22 Because there are so many different technologies but I would 23 question does it really matter what the technology is if safety can be established 24 at a certain threshold?
25
31 Because as you alluded to, we're talking about probabilities that 1
are very hard to grasp and I think that's part of the challenge.
2 It's how credible, and incredible in a different sense, but how 3
much can you trust the numbers when they're that low? And that's something 4
we run into with the Staff, is that's so low how can I believe you?
5 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So, Mr. Nichol, given how we're 6
considering a range of technologies that are going to be coming our way, how 7
do we create within that definition of credible event - how do we create clarity, 8
certainty, and reliability that we know what the definition is and that it will be 9
constant and that it will be reliably applied to a range of technologies and 10 subsequent applications?
11 MR. NICHOL: I think the answer is in creating a performance-12 based metric to compare it to. And the performance-based criteria should be 13 directly related to public health, protection of public health and safety. And so 14 that comes down to doses.
15 And so looking at a consequence-based approach first and then 16 looking at, well, what types of risk insights do we need to apply to that? I would 17 not say it needs to be a quantified PRA number because then that goes into 18 some of the concerns we have with Part 52.
19 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So, however consequence-based 20 differ from the Staff's approach of using the quantitative health objectives 21 approach in Part 53?
22 MR. NICHOL: I could point to the rulemakings - SMR 23 emergency planning zone and the SMR security rulemakings that are more 24 consequence-based that focus on the consequences and the dose with 25
32 appropriate risk insights, not using probabilistic risk assessment metrics.
1 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Ok. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
2 Chairman.
3 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Caputo.
4 Commissioner Crowell?
5 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you 6
all for your presentations today. As the newest Commissioner, this has been 7
illuminating for me in a variety of ways.
8 I'm still struggling with the construct that NRC has created 9
between traditional reactors and advanced or new reactors when the more I 10 learn about this, I really think it should be a discussion of light water versus 11 non-light water technologies and how we approach the issues.
12 That being said, I'm going to try to get to all of you with some 13 questions, starting with Ms. Coleman.
14 Based on your experience with the AP-1000s at Vogtle 3 and 4, 15 if Southern or even another entity were to look to move forward with an AP-16 1000 design, how much confidence do you have that the process would be 17 quicker based on the experience that the NRC Staff has gained from Vogtle 3 18 and 4?
19 MS. COLEMAN: Thanks for your question.
20 There have been actions taken based on the lessons learned at 21 Vogtle and I'm not sure that anybody has exercised those fully yet around the 22 license amendments and self-approvals and some of the things that I spoke 23 about in my remarks.
24 So, some of the lessons learned are already out there and 25
33 they're already being worked on and moving forward there are things that are 1
new that I talked about, with the implementation milestones, that we're just 2
realizing now.
3 So, for others kind of behind, we have to continue to bring these 4
topics forward as we learn more, as we grow, making changes along the way 5
and not only for future but for the organizations who are in the different design 6
phases.
7 So, some of the lessons learned didn't get applied back to Vogtle 8
because we already had our license but the pursuit of getting better, learning 9
more, is going to always be there.
10 So, we've got to have a process for incorporating those lessons 11 learned as they come and making them available for current applicants and 12 future applicants.
13 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you. Mr. Hunnewell, I 14 believe in your presentation you said that Part 50 is best for first-of-a-kind 15 advanced reactor designs?
16 MR. HUNNEWELL: That's correct.
17 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And did you mean that to apply 18 to both light water and non-light water advanced reactor designs?
19 MR. HUNNEWELL: As we assessed it for our application, we 20 determined Part 50 was best and we're looking at Gen 3 reactors, so we didn't 21 directly go look at the Gen 4s in terms of Part 50 versus 52.
22 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: So, in layman's terms, you see 23 Part 50 as best for light water advanced reactors?
24 MR. HUNNEWELL: That's correct.
25
34 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you. Ms. Fosaaen, thank 1
you for being here today. I want to make one comment about your presentation 2
so it doesn't get lost about early engagement opportunities and knowledge 3
management. This has been a topic for a lot of us, Commissioner Caputo 4
particularly.
5 It's a concern that we're having that the pre-engagement process 6
is undermined by the lack of good knowledge management. And I just want to 7
make that point here today so that we can hopefully get better on it internally 8
and make use of those pre-engagement opportunities. That being said, how 9
familiar are you with the draft of the Part 53 regulation?
10 MS. FOSAAEN: As we are currently engaged in Part 50, I'm 11 only vaguely aware. We do follow it to look for opportunities to leverage 12 concepts if they were to be implemented. But I'm not intimately aware of all of 13 the details.
14 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: I ask just because I want to make 15 my next question fair and if you don't feel like you don't have the depth of 16 knowledge, feel free to defer.
17 If you had to start from scratch for NuScale and Part 53 was in 18 place, would you look to use Part 53 or would you stick with the 50-52 19 framework?
20 MS. FOSAAEN: As it currently stands, we would stick with Part 21
- 52.
22 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: That's notable, thank you. Mr.
23 Nichol, for your stakeholders, particularly the ones looking at advanced light 24 water designs, are you hearing they're likely to use Parts 50 and 52 or are they 25
35 looking forward to Part 53?
1 MR. NICHOL: I'll preface by saying I don't think the issue is with 2
the distinction between light water SMRs and non LWRs. I think that distinction 3
is actually causing challenges today. But for whether it's light water SMRs or 4
non LWRs, most are looking at using the Part 50 process.
5 Now, I'll preface it by saying when Part 52 was developed, it was 6
intended to be the best, newest process. In fact, there was some discussion on 7
should we even continue to allow Part 50 for new reactors because Part 52 was 8
supposed to be so much better.
9 The trade-off that was made is that in Part 52 you could get 10 finality of NRC decisions before beginning construction and the trade-off was 11 that you would have a little bit longer time to market because you couldn't do 12 parallel design with construction.
13 But now what we're seeing with the challenges of Part 52 is that 14 it's very difficult and very resource-intensive to make changes during 15 construction. That was never the intent of Part 52. And so a lot of lessons 16 learned are going to address that.
17 There are other lessons learned we think are needed to be able 18 to fully address that so that statements about Part 50 is the only way to license 19 a first of a kind. Those shouldn't be true statements, in my mind.
20 In fact, if that is the facts of the current state of the requirements, 21 then I think we should not convince ourselves that Nth of a kind are going to 22 have it easier.
23 Nth of a kind will still have changes in the design during 24 construction and so if we don't address these problems to enable first of a kind 25
36 in Part 52, I don't think we'll ever find Part 52 to be much more viable for other 1
Nth of a kinds.
2 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: So, even though Parts 50 and 52 3
really grew up based on light water technologies, you still see those two 4
applicable to non-light water technologies without having to use more 5
exemptions than make sense?
6 MR. NICHOL: So, Part 50-52 is difficult even for light water 7
SMRs and the reason is I say I don't distinguish between LWRs and non LWRs 8
is because if you look at them from a safety performance basis, they're both 9
incorporating features that enhance safety: higher margins, elimination of 10 accident sequences, better mitigation.
11 They're both coming out with the conclusion that you might be 12 able to do site boundary emergency planning zones, you could probably not 13 have to rely on safety-related emergency diesel generators.
14 So from a performance base, they look almost identical. Now, 15 how they get there is very different, so there are technology differences and we 16 think those should be addressed in guidance.
17 So, yes, there are challenges even for light water SMRs using 50 18 and 52 technical requirements and that's what Part 53 is intended to address.
19 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you. Many of your 20 member companies operate in states currently or plan to operate in states with 21 carbon reduction goals. There's also national carbon reduction goals. Do you 22 think that the current Part 50 and Part 52 or the proposed Part 53 can be timely 23 enough to meet those production goals?
24 MR. NICHOL: I think we need robust changes beyond what the 25
37 NRC is looking at but, yes, with significant improvements in the efficiency and 1
timeliness of licensing decision-making, yes, they can support the market 2
needs.
3 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Dr. Ducros, I think we have a lot 4
to learn from the Canadian experience here and one of the places I think we 5
have a lot to learn is in the public engagement space and how broad and robust 6
of a public engagement undertaking the Canadian model includes.
7 To the extent you're familiar with how we do that here in the 8
U.S., could you give us any highlights of places we could improve our public 9
engagement that's built on your experience? And you can say anything and it's 10 going to be appreciated, so be free to be candid.
11 MS. DUCROS: Thanks, that's a difficult question for me to 12 answer in terms of how you can improve; the contexts are quite different.
13 What I could say is what we have found in our lessons learned is 14 that there is an onus on the proponent or the applicant to make sure that they 15 have reached out very well to the community, and in our context, indigenous 16 communities and nations to ensure there is some level of public buy-in.
17 From the Federal Government perspective, we try to get up there 18 early but I heard earlier too early is sometimes not necessarily beneficial. You 19 have to have enough to speak about.
20 We're still learning, we're using as many platforms and 21 mechanisms as we have. With COVID, we found the virtual platform to be 22 really beneficial in terms of we get way more people out. But there are some 23 meetings that definitely need to be had in person if that's possible.
24 And I would say with indigenous communities, face to face is 25
38 almost always the preferred option. And what we're noticing with the license 1
review that we're going through right now with Ontario Power Generation and 2
the BWRX is we're building in workshopping of different technical topics.
3 So, I can't say whether or not this is different from the U.S.
4 context but these are the things we've noticed work well.
5 As much transparency as possible ends up with a better result 6
when we appear before the Commission because there should be no surprises 7
and basically, that's the key.
8 And also, that engagement has to be two-way. We have to have 9
a real open heart and open mind to what is being put before us and the 10 concerns of the public and indigenous communities and nations, and to treat 11 those fairly.
12 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you. I take your point and 13 I hope we all do given the complexity of these topics, as we've discussed today.
14 With the historic distrust in many areas of commercial nuclear, I tend to think 15 more is always better in this regard.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Crowell. Dr.
18 Ducros, I'd like to stick with you if I can for just a second. I think I'm going to try 19 and extract some themes, if I can, of the conversation that's happened so far 20 among the presentations.
21 One of the things I heard, and we on the Commission have been 22 having this discussion but the spectrum of predictability versus flexibility and 23 that one of the advantages of a 50 or 52 approach for new reactors is that it is 24 kind of an established process.
25
39 But I'd be really interested to hear how the CNSC is approaching 1
that issue about regulatory predictability versus flexibility in evaluating new 2
technologies.
3 MS. DUCROS: Thank you. What I would say is going back at 4
least a decade, we went through all our regulatory framework documents and 5
those are the documents that elaborate what the requirements are in the 6
regulations under the Nuclear Safety Control Act to make sure that they were 7
very CANDU-focused.
8 So, to go back and make sure they're technology-neutral and 9
what this means is there could be a level of a graded approach when someone 10 comes in, but how do you provide the clarity of what do we mean by a graded 11 approach, what do we mean by risk-informed?
12 And we're trying to elaborate that going back to some of the 13 regulatory documents to provide a little bit more clarity on that. The flexibility 14 versus predictability is an interesting one.
15 Because regulatory documents only come up for renewal every 16 five years, one of the things we're really attempting to do is work very closely 17 with potential applicants to provide some sort of clarity.
18 And what we can put on our website might be a one-pager, a 19 fact sheet, describing what our expectation is. So, we do have a mixture of 20 prescribed and performance-based regulations and sometimes it is prescribed.
21 But if an alternative can be proposed to us that's very well 22 justified that would result in a neutral safety or better, then that is an acceptable 23 alternative to us.
24 CHAIR HANSON: Interesting, thank you, I really appreciate that.
25
40 Graded approach, mix of prescribed and performance-based, very helpful, 1
thank you.
2 Mr. Nichol, one of the other things that I had picked up was 3
about what does it mean to be risk-informed and sometimes the way we 4
approach that has been in a PRA where in some cases we may be equating 5
being risk-informed with the use of a PRA.
6 But as we go about building the regulatory infrastructure, if you 7
will, and I agree with the need for efficient licensing reviews of these new 8
reactors, do you have or does NEI have thoughts on additional areas?
9 And given that we've got limited resources, not only in the 10 monetary sense but just in the brain power sense, of areas for guidance 11 development that we could or should focus on and whether NEI is looking at 12 those areas where you are developing potential guidance documents to put in 13 front of the Staff that help achieve the overall safety goals while still achieving 14 the balance in the areas we need to achieve?
15 MR. NICHOL: Thank you for the question. I think the NRC is 16 doing a good job in addressing most of the major key technical policy issues 17 and risk-informing those. I mentioned the SMR emergency planning zone, 18 SMR security, population siting.
19 There are many like that that Staff is already embarking on. And 20 I'll note that a lot of those are being risk-informed without the prescriptive use of 21 PRA numbers to be able to justify it.
22 So, certainly the PRA will be informative and useful when the 23 designs try to meet those performance standards. But the performance 24 standards are not being written in terms of quantitative PRA results.
25
41 I think where we go from here, the next frontier of risk-informing 1
is going to be in the construction and operation space, specifically looking at 2
what are the construction oversight programs, what does it look like, what does 3
the reactor operating oversight program look like?
4 The ones that we have for the large light reactors, just like the 5
other policy and technical issues I mentioned, are not the best fit for these 6
advanced technologies. So, we need to do that same type of thinking for those 7
areas.
8 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, that's really helpful. Mr.
9 Hunnewell, I'll ask you the same question. You had brought up I think there 10 was a discussion about the difficulty of using a PRA in Part 50 for a 11 construction permit.
12 I'll ask you the same question about additional guidance that can 13 potentially help risk-inform but also mitigate any licensing risks in Part 50?
14 MR. HUNNEWELL: There are probably a couple of things as I 15 think through the Part 50 application. When I think about risk and risk during 16 construction until such time as you have nuclear fuel on site, the risk is really 17 with the applicant, right?
18 It's a financial risk until the NRC has the opportunity to review 19 that final application. So, there may be an opportunity to look at that. What are 20 those things that really need to be reviewed during that construction permit?
21 Because it is a partial design but which of those, perhaps 22 because of such significant safety significance, the NRC would want to see 23 more developed so that the final design would not be deviate much from that 24 and it would be understood, if that makes sense.
25
42 CHAIR HANSON: I think so, thank you very much.
1 Ms. Coleman, I'd like to finish up with you. I thought the 2
discussion you noted in your presentation, recent guidance updates focused on 3
Part 52 and that's a potential licensing risk.
4 Sorry, this is the wrong question. We were talking about risk-5 informed processes during construction. Do you have thoughts on how a 50.69 6
process or a 50.69-like process, if available, may have addressed design 7
changes during construction?
8 MS. COLEMAN: Certainly. I gave a pretty big number of 9
licensing actions that we have had and part of that I think is because there was 10 so much detail in the ITAAC and there was so much scope and specifics -
11 numbers - and things that we just had very, very little margin to work through.
12 So, if you have a 50.69-type process that you could apply, it 13 would give you I think more options to address issues.
14 Because maybe during a certain timeframe we didn't have time 15 to get a license amendment or something like that, you're kind of forced to go a 16 certain direction when maybe there's other options that are less impactful for 17 resources and time.
18 And you don't have those available to you because you have to 19 go and have pre-approval, which takes time to get. And I would say the number 20 of days for the 220-ish licensing actions is variable, some of them a year, some 21 of them half of year, it just kind of depends.
22 But certainly, there were things that were not safety-significant 23 that we were required to submit for pre-approval.
24 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you. Is there any thought or comment 25
43 you would want to make about use of PRA? Usually, we approve a licensee 1
for use of 50.69 because they've done a PRA on their current plant and 2
operations. 52 might lend itself to that because of the completeness of design, 3
but would you like to comment on that?
4 MS. COLEMAN: You're asking about 50.69 and I went 50.59.
5 Sorry.
6 CHAIR HANSON: It's okay, as of yesterday at 4 oclock I was a 7
little confused about that myself.
8 MS. COLEMAN: I apologize, 50.69, yes, we certainly could use 9
PRA in those applications. Like I said, we're learning as we go, we're finding 10 we've had some supply chain issues during this process due to the pandemic 11 and things.
12 50.69 even lends to the equipment that you bring in and safety 13 significant and non-safety-significant. So, we can certainly apply PRA and 14 50.69. I do think we need to go further than just that piece but certainly, that 15 would help.
16 CHAIR HANSON: I won't ascribe it to confusion but the 17 relationship between 50.69 and 50.59 in that process is actually kind of an 18 interesting one that might be worth looking at.
19 A formal review and evaluation process versus something that is 20 a little more, I don't want to call it less formal but less prescriptive in a way. So, 21 thank you very much. Commissioner Baran?
22 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks. Thank you all for being 23 here and for your presentations, I think it's been a good discussion. I'm trying 24 to figure out what it leaves me to ask about. Maybe, Jamie, I'll stick with you for 25
44 a minute.
1 Our inspectors have been interacting with site personnel at the 2
Vogtle construction site for a while now. I'm interested in any reflections you 3
have on how those interactions have been over the years, maybe more the 4
people piece rather than the process piece we've been focusing on?
5 MS. COLEMAN: One of the advantages that I talked about early 6
was interaction through the inspectors certainly on site and both the NRC at 7
Region II and NRR.
8 I think we have had really good communications, having that 9
presence on site is well-known, well-established, there's a very open 10 communication chain, a very transparent communication chain.
11 It gives the NRC I think an early advanced look at things that are 12 happening as they're happening issues. So, it has worked very well having 13 inspectors on site, the relationships they have through Region II, and just the 14 relationship that we have all around. So, it's worked very well.
15 COMMISSIONER BARAN: That's great to hear. We've talked a 16 lot about flexibility and just the day-to-day changes one faces with a large 17 construction project. How has that gone?
18 Because obviously our folks have to be doing specific 19 inspections at certain times, it depends on when your folks are completing 20 something or doing work. How has that coordination been? Have you seen a 21 change over time on that?
22 MS. COLEMAN: No, I think that has been good and continues to 23 be good. One of the best practices I think we've had is a lot of public meetings, 24 a weekly standing public meeting, and so there's no lack of opportunities to 25
45 share information in both directions through normal inspections, through ITAAC 1
inspections, and just through the normal day-to-day inspections the residents 2
are in charge of.
3 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Great. Thanks. Scott, I was going 4
to ask a little bit more about the plans for the Clinch River site. Can you talk a 5
little bit more about how TVA has approached both your technology 6
assessment that you referred to and just your overall technology selection 7
process?
8 MR. HUNNEWELL: Sure, what we started in probably early 21 9
was assessing several of the different technologies that were out there and we 10 had numerous categories that we assessed those in. And what we did was we 11 gave each reactor design a score of 1 through 4, 1 being the most ready and 4 12 being the least ready.
13 And we went through and did it numerically and then color-coded 14 it, green through red, and very quickly the BWRX-300 was the leader of the 15 pack, meaning we thought it was the most deployable in the near term. Since 16 that time, we have decided to prepare an annual technology report for internal 17 use.
18 We expect the first one to be published by the end of March and 19 that's where we continue to evaluate the different technologies and we do that 20 through some non-disclosure agreements with the different vendors or publicly 21 available information for us to go through and evaluate their readiness so that 22 as we continue to look at what the future may hold we can continue to evaluate 23 is a Gen 3 reactor the appropriate decision for a future deployment or is there a 24 Gen 4 reactor that would best suit our needs?
25
46 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thats interesting. I had a great trip 1
to Darlington in Ontario a few months back and we had a similar conversation.
2 I asked Ontario Power Generation a similar question and they had a similar 3
response.
4 And I know you all have a relationship with them. Can you talk a 5
little bit about what role TVA is playing or will be playing going forward for the 6
Darlington project?
7 MR. HUNNEWELL: Sure. We do have an agreement for 8
collaboration with OPG and in that I traveled up there in mid-December to meet 9
with them and several members of my team and they traveled down to 10 Tennessee.
11 And the BWRX-300 that they're looking to deploy is a GEH 12 BWR, boiling water reactor.
13 So, we operate three GE boiling water reactors at Browns Ferry 14 so we've got experience in that area, so that's an area that we can help them 15 because they're operating the CANDU reactors and just entirely different, 16 especially when it comes to refueling.
17 That is when we sat in on the meetings and we started getting 18 into the refueling discussions, it was absolutely foreign to them what you do in a 19 BWR compared to what they currently do.
20 So, there's a lot of information that we're able to share with them 21 to help enlighten them on what to anticipate, how to staff. And likewise, what 22 we expect in return, what we are garnering from them, is insights into the 23 construction.
24 Once they actually break ground, we'll probably be about two 25
47 years behind them so we'll be able to get lessons learned. They're sending one 1
of their individuals to a BWR cert class at Browns Ferry.
2 We expect to embed at least one or two people up on their 3
project to help monitor and share information back and forth.
4 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Great, and TVA of course has an 5
early site permit for the Clinch River site. How are you all planning to leverage 6
that with the construction permit application?
7 MR. HUNNEWELL: By reference. We expect to entirely 8
reference it. The early site permit was technology-neutral for up to 800 9
megawatts electric so that bounds the technology.
10 There will be some things in the early site permit that weren't 11 addressed because it was technology-neutral that will have to be pulled in but 12 we do expect to capitalize on that early site permit.
13 COMMISSIONER BARAN: And Marc, you discussed and 14 maybe really a predicate for this whole conversation is there's obviously a lot of 15 interest right now in the new reactors in the U.S.
16 What's your current sense, I know you all at NEI have been 17 doing surveys and other things, to the extent you can talk about it, of the timing 18 and number of coming early site permit and limited work authorization 19 applications?
20 MR. NICHOL: Yes. What we're seeing is that the number is 21 increasing and they're all moving closer in time. So, I don't have specific 22 numbers and how many applications you'll get in any given year.
23 However, we do have a map that we share that shows 20 projects 24 between the U.S. and Canada that are either being considered or planned for 25
48 deployment by 2030.
1 And so that's at least 20 that are on the books out there publicly 2
that would all be applications between now and let's just say 2026 in order to be 3
timely by 2030. But as I said, we see that number increasing and moving closer 4
in time.
5 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Are you seeing a lot of interest in 6
early site permits in particular?
7 MR. NICHOL: We are, the updated survey that I mentioned to 8
you, we asked for the first time a question, are people looking at using early site 9
permits, and I think it was eight companies that said yes.
10 And so this really gets to time to market. An early site permit is a 11 way to get the siting questions resolved and then move on towards the 12 technology decisions and help accelerate future licensing processes.
13 COMMISSIONER BARAN: That's very helpful. We focused a 14 lot today on the processes which are obviously critical but there's also really the 15 Agency's capacity and capability, as Jamie in her discussion kind of alluded to 16 in a way.
17 For example, if we're looking at a large number of early site 18 permits in the next few years, we may need to beef up our environmental 19 capability here because that already is at times kind of taxed and stretched with 20 the work we're already doing.
21 So, as I've said to folks when I interact with them, the better 22 information we can get, the better we can plan for that ramp-up and be ready. I 23 want to avoid a situation where we're in some kind of triage mode.
24 I want to make sure the Agency can deal with the full demand as 25
49 it comes in for reviews of whatever type of application we're talking about. I'll 1
stop there, thank you all, I appreciate it.
2 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Baran. Thanks 3
again to our panelists this morning for the really good presentations and the 4
good discussion we've had. We will reconvene probably just a little after 10:30.
5 Thank you all again.
6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 7
10:21 a.m. and resumed at 10:28 a.m.)
8 CHAIR HANSON: Okay, good morning, thank you, we've got the 9
second panel of our meeting on Reactor Regulation under Parts 50 and 52.
10 We've got, as I said, our Staff panel, and I'll hand it over to Dan Dorman, our 11 Executive Director for Operations.
12 Dan?
13 MR. DORMAN: Thank you, Chair, good morning, Chair and 14 Commissioners. Staff appreciates the opportunity to provide an overview this 15 morning of NRC's strategy to license advanced reactors utilizing the established 16 regulatory frameworks under Parts 50 and 52.
17 Today the NRC is ready to license new and advanced reactors 18 and other new technologies under Parts 50 and 52 as a result of substantial 19 progress we've made in our efforts to prepare for licensing new and advanced 20 reactors over the last decade.
21 However, our efforts continue as we push forward to improve our 22 regulations, guidance, and processes in preparation to license these reactors 23 and in accordance with our principles of good regulation.
24 Next slide, please. In this presentation today we will be 25
50 providing you insights as to where we are now, what we are doing to continue 1
to improve our regulations and processes and what we hope to achieve.
2 During this panel, Rob Taylor, the Deputy Office Director for New 3
Reactors in the Office Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or NRR, will talk about our 4
experience with and enhancements to the Part 50 and 52 frameworks in 5
licensing new and advanced reactors.
6 After Rob, Bernie Thomson, the Deputy Director in NRR's 7
Division of New and Renewed Licenses will be discussing licensing and 8
process improvements reflecting lessons learned from recent new reactor 9
application reviews.
10 Following Bernie, Omid Tabatabai, Senior Project Manager in 11 the Division of New and Renewed Licenses will provide an overview of the Part 12 50 and 52 rulemaking.
13 And finally, Candace de Messieres, a Branch Chief in the 14 Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-power Production and Utilization 15 Facilities will discuss development and use of modern and risk-informed 16 approaches to license advanced reactors and also successes and challenges in 17 reviews of advanced reactors applications under Parts 50 and 52.
18 Next slide, please. This concludes my opening remarks, and I'll 19 turn the presentation over to Rob.
20 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Dan, and good morning, Chair and 21 Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with our 22 experience with and enhancements to the Part 50 and 52 frameworks in 23 licensing new and advanced reactors.
24 Next slide, please. The Staff is demonstrating through its 25
51 ongoing safety and environmental reviews that the NRC is ready to license new 1
and advanced reactors and other new technologies using Parts 50 and 52.
2 In conducting these reviews, the Staff is focused on the NRC's 3
mission to protect public health and safety and the environment. We realize 4
that we can achieve that mission best through focusing our reviews on the most 5
risk and safety-significant aspects of these new technologies.
6 This risk-informed safety focus is yielding benefits for the NRC, 7
applicants, and the public through more timely and efficient reviews. I want to 8
take a few minutes and talk about recent successes that demonstrate our ability 9
to apply these approaches to current and future reviews.
10 In 2020, the NRC completed the first review of a small modular 11 reactor when we issued the final safety evaluation report and environmental 12 assessment for the NuScale design. The NRC Staff completed that review 13 within an established schedule, resolving many highly challenging and novel 14 issues for this first-of-a-kind design.
15 We undertook a thorough lessons learned effort, recognizing this 16 novel review would provide significant insights in how the NRC and applicants 17 can better execute on future reviews.
18 We will discuss how we're applying lessons learned from that 19 review to current and future reviews during Bernie's presentation.
20 In addition to the completed NuScale review, the NRC recently 21 issued the final environmental impact statement and anticipates issuing the final 22 safety evaluation report this month for the SHINE medical isotope facility 23 operating license.
24 We are also making substantial progress on the Kairos Hermes 25
52 test reactor construction permit and plan to issue the advanced safety 1
evaluation report with no open items this month.
2 Both of those reviews have afforded us opportunities to apply the 3
enhancements we have been developing to conduct risk-informed safety 4
reviews and to better leverage data.
5 For each of those reviews, we have conducted our thorough 6
safety and environmental reviews ahead of established schedules and budgets.
7 In fact, for the Kairos review through open and constructive 8
engagement during pre-application and the licensing review, the NRC was able 9
to establish an aggressive 21-month review schedule that we anticipate 10 beating.
11 We also recently accepted the Abilene Christian University 12 research reactor construction permit application and have established an 18-13 month review schedule.
14 Finally, in preparation for future submittals, 15 vendors are 15 engaging us in pre-application activities such as the reviews of topical reports 16 and white papers.
17 The NRC is leveraging data and performance tracking 18 capabilities to assessing our ability to complete these reviews in a safe, timely, 19 and efficient manner.
20 Over the last two years, the NRC has completed 63 pre-21 application review activities, executing these approximately 90 percent of the 22 time on schedules and within budgets.
23 This early engagement and timely resolution of issues will 24 facilitate more efficient reviews of future licenses and permits. Next slide, 25
53 please.
1 I spent the first slide talking about the outcomes that we're 2
seeing. Now I would like to shift our focus and talk more about the efforts we're 3
implementing that Dan previously mentioned and how it is yielding the results I 4
just discussed.
5 We are building on our previous accomplishments and assessing 6
any lessons learned. We recently issued the NuScale lessons learned report 7
which provided an overview of how the Staff is taking lessons from our previous 8
experience to enhance current and upcoming reviews.
9 The Staff is working with the ongoing Vogtle lessons learned 10 initiative to capture any insights for future Part 52 licensing and construction.
11 Lastly, the Staff will continue to identify and institutionalize best 12 practices as we gain more experience with the Kairos Hermes construction 13 permit, the Abilene Christian University construction permit, and the NuScale 14 U.S. 460 standard design approval applications.
15 The Staff is preparing proposed updates to our regulations 16 targeted on ensuring the right safety focus for new and advanced reactors.
17 For example, Candace will touch on the advanced reactor 18 nuclear reactor generic environmental impact statement and Omid will be 19 discussing the rulemaking to align the licensing processes and lessons learned 20 from new reactor licensing, often referred to as the Part 50-52 rulemaking.
21 Other rulemaking efforts focus on alternative physical security 22 requirements for advanced reactors and emergency preparedness for small 23 modular reactors and other new technologies that will provide risk-informed, 24 performance-based approaches for demonstrating safety and security for new 25
54 designs.
1 We also work closely with potential applicants to assess the 2
appropriate applicability of the Part 50 and 52 regulations to their novel designs.
3 This is an essential early review area that provides clarity and reliability for 4
licensees and the NRC.
5 We recognize that updating our guidance can also play a crucial 6
role in ensuring clear and reliable safety reviews.
7 We have invested significantly in enhancements to our guidance 8
that are intended to provide new and advanced technologies, clearer and more 9
efficient approaches to satisfying NRC regulations.
10 Bernie and Candace will provide additional details as to how 11 we're preparing guidance that demonstrate new risk-informed approaches to 12 making our regulatory decisions and how we are ensuring the right level of 13 effort in our licensing reviews.
14 In addition to enhancing our regulations and guidance, we have 15 made substantial improvements to our regulatory processes including how we 16 prepare and issue requests for additional information, conduct audits, and 17 perform and document our safety and environmental reviews in re-envisioning 18 our engagement with our partners such as the Advisory Committee on Reactor 19 Safeguards, or ACRS.
20 Lastly, we've embraced data and analytics to provide ongoing 21 assessment of our performance and to track project execution.
22 We've implemented better project tracking tools that allow us to 23 monitor progress with more precision and accuracy in discrete review areas to 24 assess whether they are progressing as envisioned and engage early when 25
55 challenges arise.
1 This is leading to better project execution and transparency as 2
we prepare and present project status through tools such as public dashboards 3
which are being piloted for current reviews. Bernie will provide additional 4
details on our efforts to leverage data for performance monitoring 5
accountability.
6 Next slide, please. This brings us to what we expect success to 7
look like. Our efforts are grounded on our perceptions of good regulation in 8
which the Staff is independent, open, efficient, clear, and reliable in their 9
execution of the licensing of new and advanced reactors.
10 To accomplish this, we are ensuring we have a talented and 11 qualified workforce with relevant education, skills, and experience. We will 12 have regulations and guidance that provide clear expectations of what is 13 needed to receive a license.
14 We will conduct risk-informed reviews focusing on the most 15 safety-significant areas. We will be efficient and reliable in executing our safety 16 and security mission through timely and cost-effective decisions.
17 Finally, we will continue to be open and appropriately consider 18 the interest of stakeholders in meeting the Agency's important safety and 19 security mission.
20 Next slide, please. Now I'm happy to turn the presentation over 21 to Bernie Thomson.
22 MS. THOMSON: Thank you Rob. Good morning, Chair 23 Hanson, and Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to provide an 24 overview of improvements we've made to conduct efficient and reliable reviews 25
56 through enhancements to our regulatory processes of organizational changes, 1
better data analysis, and execution. Next slide, please.
2 Rob mentioned that we undertook a lessons learned effort 3
following the NuScale review and we are applying those lessons to ongoing and 4
future reviews. As we prepare for the licensing of new and advanced reactors, 5
we've leveraged the lessons learned from the NuScale review, successes and 6
challenges from the Clinch River early site permit, the Korea Hydro and Nuclear 7
Power APR 1400 design certification and ongoing activities for Vogtle's Unit 3 8
and 4.
9 We've made changes in our regulatory processes based on the 10 lessons learned. We've reviewed how we prepared and issued requests for 11 additional information or RAIs, conduct audits, prepare safety and 12 environmental reports, and track and elevate issues quickly.
13 During the NuScale review, Staff identified how we could 14 improve the overall process when preparing and issuing RAIs. RAIs remain a 15 valuable and essential tool to ensure our regulatory decisions are open and 16 transparent and that the necessary information is on the docket to support our 17 safety and environmental findings.
18 Recognizing that we are not always clear and consistent in our 19 preparation of RAIs, we launched a team to overhaul the process.
20 This team identified key attributes that every RAI should include, 21 such as clear regulatory basis, an explanation of the safety significance, and 22 what information is needed to make a safety finding using risk-informed 23 methodologies.
24 RAIs not having these attributes contribute to additional time 25
57 between the NRC and licensees discussing the needed information and how to 1
respond. The Staff implemented these revised processes in the middle of the 2
NuScale review and immediately noticed improved communications and 3
efficiency in engagements.
4 We've carried this forward in future reviews and are realizing the 5
benefits there are as well. Staff expanded an enhanced use of audits which 6
allowed us to engage directly with the Applicants and clearly and efficiently 7
understand safety and environmental aspects of the application.
8 Specifically, we've enhanced our audit processes to more clearly 9
in the audit plan regarding the scope of the audit and desired outcomes and the 10 documentation of the audit findings. At the end of the audit, additional 11 information needed for docketing can come through more focused RAIs.
12 The Staff also recognized the importance for streamlining safety 13 evaluations and environmental reports to focus efforts on key details needed to 14 support conclusions satisfying the Commission's regulations.
15 We've done this without compromising our safety and 16 environmental mission. Finally, the Staff implemented enhanced processes to 17 identify and elevate challenging issues early.
18 During the NuScale review, the Staff and Applicant worked 19 constructively to address 29 highly challenging issues.
20 For future reviews, the NRC is focused on the early identification, 21 communications, and the elevation of such issues. This brings the issue to 22 management attention promptly and focuses our resources on timely resolution.
23 Next slide, please. In addition to enhancing our regulatory 24 processes, we've made changes to how we organize and prepare ourselves to 25
58 conduct an efficient review. Two key changes that were made are the 1
implementation of core and interdisciplinary review teams and streamlining 2
phases of our reviews.
3 Historically, new reactor reviews used the matrix organization.
4 Staff within divisions were assigned their portion of the review and provided 5
their safety and environmental input.
6 This approach did not always provide reviewers with a holistic 7
safety perspective and detracted from a fully informed review. To address this 8
limitation, we implemented core and interdisciplinary review teams with 9
dedicated subject-matter experts.
10 This allows for collaborative work across key technical 11 disciplines to holistically address safety aspects of the design and allow the 12 Staff to focus on the more risk and safety-significant aspects of the design.
13 Kairos is the first advanced reactor review where we fully 14 implemented this concept and we have seen substantial benefits in the safety 15 focus and efficiency in the review. We are implementing this for the Abilene 16 Christian University and NuScale reviews and plan to carry it forward in other 17 reviews.
18 Additionally, after the NuScale review we examined how we 19 organized the phases of our review. Historically, we used the six-phase review 20 model which we have now consolidated to a four-phase model.
21 In looking at the six-phase model we identified inefficiencies in 22 the areas such as ACRS engagement and documenting safety evaluations. For 23 safety evaluations, we consolidated phases to produce fewer interim 24 documents which consumed resources and time.
25
59 By working with the ACRS, we identified ways we could enhance 1
our focus on the most important safety aspects of the design and consolidate 2
the two ACRS reviews into one phase. We implemented this in the latter 3
stages of the NuScale review but the NuScale review more recently with the 4
SHINE review with success.
5 We will soon present the Kairos review to the ACRS and we 6
expect similar benefits. Next slide, please. We focused substantial efforts on 7
our use of data to improve our planning and execution for new and advanced 8
reactors.
9 During the NuScale review, the Staff used legacy project 10 management tools which were cumbersome and inefficient for status tracking.
11 These systems were unable to provide ongoing assessment of 12 project progress and resource expenditures to evaluate against deviations from 13 expectations. Recognizing these limitations, Staff initiated an effort to enhance 14 project management and execution tools.
15 For the SHINE and subsequent review, the Staff is using the 16 enhanced capability of the reactor program system, a project management tool 17 to plan, budget, and monitor execution.
18 The Staff now can more effectively allocate resources based on 19 the most risk and safety-significant aspects of the design and then monitor 20 performance in those areas.
21 The tools provide insight into whether we are performing the risk-22 informed reviews we designed. Additionally, we built dashboards and reports 23 that allow for quick assessment of project execution and achievement of key 24 milestones to ensure accountability of schedule and budget.
25
60 These tools will allow us to acknowledge and implement 1
changes in review schedules and budgets in response to unanticipated 2
situations such as an Applicant's design change during a review while 3
maintaining a safety focus.
4 These tools contribute to our openness with the Applicants and 5
the public. The Kairos review is the first application using a public-facing 6
dashboard for the application and for the public to track and review progress.
7 We have developed and published a simpler dashboard for the 8
Abilene Christian University review and are developing one for the NuScale 9
standard design review application. Next slide, please.
10 Thank you and I will now turn it over to my colleague, Omid.
11 MR. TABATABAI: Thank you, Bernie. Good morning, Chair 12 Hanson and Commissioners.
13 I'll be providing an overview of ongoing rulemaking efforts to 14 align the regulatory requirements between 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52, particularly 15 how this rulemaking would enhance the licensing reviews of new and advanced 16 reactors.
17 Next slide, please. In September of 2015, the Commission 18 approved the Staff's recommendation in SECY-15-0002 to initiate a rulemaking 19 to align nuclear power plants licensing requirements under Parts 50 and 52.
20 In May of 2022, in response to the Commission's direction, the 21 Staff submitted a proposed rulemaking package under SECY-22-0052 for the 22 Commission's review and approval.
23 The rulemaking's objective is twofold, first, to align Parts 50 and 24 52 licensing requirements and second, to incorporate lessons learned from the 25
61 recent new reactor licensing reviews.
1 As Bernie stated in her presentation, incorporating lessons 2
learned from past licensing reviews would reduce unnecessary burden on 3
Applicants, licensees, and the Staff without adversely impacting Staffs ability to 4
make a safety determination.
5 The proposed rule applies to any new or advanced reactor 6
technology. As such, this rulemaking will enable the Staff to review license 7
applications for any reactor design against a consistent set of technical 8
standards regardless of the licensing process that the Applicant has chosen to 9
submit to the NRC.
10 Some examples of proposed changes include eliminating the 11 duration of the design certifications, eliminating standardization as a criterion for 12 justifying the change request by licensees and Applicants, processing change 13 requests while a plant is under construction, and referencing manufacturing 14 licenses and standard design approvals while they are under the NRC review.
15 Next slide, please. Since the mid-1980s, the NRC Staff had 16 focused its efforts on developing and updating requirements in Part 52 without 17 consistently incorporating similar requirements in Part 50.
18 In the regulatory basis document for this rulemaking published in 19 January of 2021, the Staff identified 11 regulatory areas for alignment. These 20 alignment areas include consistent application of Commission policy statements 21 to different licensing processes as well as select safety, security, and 22 environmental-related regulations.
23 In identifying these alignment areas, the Staff took a holistic look 24 at Parts 50 and 52 to identify opportunities for enhancement through the 25
62 regulations and engaged with the Staff across the Agency and sought input 1
based on licensing experience.
2 In this rulemaking, the Staff has proposed over 120 changes to 3
the requirements in 67 sections of Parts 50 and 52. The proposed changes 4
require conforming changes to 9 other parts in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 5
Regulations, 3 chapters of the Standard Review Plan and 11 Regulatory 6
Guides.
7 The NRC has continued to demonstrate openness during the 8
development of the proposed rule by conducting multiple public meetings with 9
stakeholders. In developing the proposed rule, the Staff received 8 letters with 10 a total of approximately 100 individual public comments.
11 For instance, one public comment requested the Staff to develop 12 a generic change process for standard design approvals, or SDAs, such that 13 SDA holders can make generic changes to the approved SDAs.
14 To address this comment, the Staff drafted a new change 15 process for approved SDAs and additionally drafted a new process for the 16 Applicants who wish to take departures from referenced SDA in their 17 applications.
18 Next slide, please. As I mentioned before, the proposed 19 changes in this rulemaking apply to any new or advanced reactor design.
20 To enhance the clarity of how the existing regulations apply to 21 new and advanced reactors, the Staff recognized the value of a public comment 22 requesting the Staff to clarify the applicability of the regulations to non-light 23 water reactors.
24 In response, the Staff drafted applicability statements in several 25
63 regulations to clarify the requirements such that only applications whose 1
designs meet the entry conditions for the reference regulations would be 2
required to meet the regulations.
3 For example, a combined license Applicant must provide a 4
description of the reactor vessel material surveillance program required by 5
Appendix H to Part 50. The Staff's proposed change clarifies that the 6
requirements associated with the reactor vessel surveillance program only 7
apply to light water reactors.
8 The next presenter, Candace, will provide additional information 9
regarding Staff's current activities to identify on a generic basis which 10 regulations in Parts 50 and 52 are applicable to non-light water reactors.
11 In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that aligning the regulatory 12 requirements between Parts 50 and 52 and incorporating lessons learned from 13 the past reviews will better enable the Staff to conduct a clear, reliable, and 14 efficient review of new reactor license applications regardless of technology or 15 the licensing process that an Applicant chooses to pursue.
16 Next slide, please. Thank you, and I now turn the presentation 17 over to Candace.
18 MS. DE MESSIERES: Thank you, Omid, and good morning, 19 Chair and Commissioners. I am pleased to be here today to highlight NRC's 20 progress using modern risk-informed approaches to review advanced reactor 21 applications under Part 50 and 52.
22 Next slide, please. While foundational work to improve the 23 licensing of advanced reactors has been underway for the last decade, goals 24 detailed in NRC's 2016 vision and strategy for safely achieving effective and 25
64 efficient non-light water reactor mission readiness provided an actionable line of 1
sight for regulatory readiness preparations.
2 I am pleased to say that the NRC Staff is on track in executing 3
the vision and strategy through the completion of implementation action plans.
4 The Staff's significant progress in areas such as computer codes 5
and review tools, flexible review processes, Staff knowledge, skills, and 6
capabilities, policy and technical issues, consensus codes and standards, and 7
communication are resulting in enhanced regulatory clarity and reliability for 8
Applicants while advancing NEIMA objectives.
9 Next slide, please. Here I will highlight key regulatory guidance 10 completed in part under the implementation action plans but is enabling near-11 term advanced reactor applications.
12 Regulatory Guide 1.233 endorses the licensing modernization 13 project, or LMP. The LMP methodology is risk-informed, performance-based, 14 and technology-inclusive and focuses on key areas of the design and licensing 15 of advanced reactors.
16 While LMP was one approach considered during the 17 development of Part 53 Framework A, it is being leveraged today to support 18 pre-application activities of near-term Applicants such as TerraPower and X-19 energy.
20 Regulatory Guide 1.232 provides guidance regarding the 21 development of principal design criteria or PDC. Like the light water based 22 general criteria contained in Part 50 Appendix A, the PDC established the 23 necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, and performance 24 requirements for structures, systems, and components that are important to 25
65 safety.
1 Guidance regarding the content of application for non-light water 2
Applicants using the LMP approach will be issued in draft form as nine interim 3
Staff guidance documents and one draft Regulatory Guide for public comment 4
as part of the advanced reactor content of application project, or ARCAP.
5 ARCAP encompasses the industry-led technology-inclusive 6
content of application project and when issued, will be available for use by 7
near-term Applicants.
8 The ARCAP guidance will help ensure complete submittals while 9
avoiding unnecessary burden on the Applicant and right-sizing the application 10 commensurate with the complexity of the design.
11 Additional recent guidance supporting advanced reactor 12 applications include updates and supplements in NUREG-1537 addressing 13 non-power reactor molten salt construction permits and interim Staff guidance 14 for light water reactor construction permits.
15 The NRC recognizes the benefits of having a flexible regulatory 16 framework, allowing potential Applicants to select a best-fit path towards 17 regulatory reviews and decisions.
18 In this regard, I'll briefly expand on Omid's reference to the 19 Staff's white paper on applicability of NRC regulations for non-light water 20 reactors.
21 The NRC Staff is gaining notable experience applying this 22 guidance in technology-specific contexts through white papers and topical 23 report reviews from designs from vendors such as Kairos, TerraPower, 24 Westinghouse, and X-energy.
25
66 The Commission was recently briefed on advanced reactor fuels.
1 I won't go into detail, but I'll just mention here that the recently issued NUREG-2 2246 on fuel qualification is providing a risk-informed, technology-inclusive 3
framework for assessing fuel performance and developing adequate evaluation 4
and validation parameters.
5 Notably, NEIMA highlighted the need for guidance in this area.
6 The NRC is also working to ensure consensus standards can be leveraged by 7
advanced reactor developers through endorsements in areas such as non-light 8
water reactor probabilistic risk assessment and high-temperature materials.
9 Next slide, please. I will now discuss a few notable 10 accomplishments and reflections from ongoing non-light water licensing reviews 11 starting with the Kairos Hermes construction permit review.
12 Reflections to date reveal that primary factors facilitating the 13 aggressive review schedule were the high quality of the application and 14 Applicant responsiveness to NRC Staff information needs. Substantial pre-15 application engagement contributed to the high quality.
16 For example, Kairos submitted 11 topical reports on key topics 17 for a first-of-a-kind reactor in areas such as fuel qualification, materials 18 qualification, mechanistic source term, reactor coolant, and principal design 19 criteria.
20 Submission of topical reports during pre-application fostered 21 early meaningful engagement with the ACRS. The Hermes project team 22 arranged to send early drafts of safety evaluation chapters and coordinated 23 design overview briefings to the ACRS.
24 Bernie and Rob mentioned the use of audits. For the Hermes 25
67 review, the extensive use of audits resulted in numerous timely application 1
updates and an optimized use of RAIs.
2 Finally, I cannot emphasize enough the role of highly skilled 3
experts in a dedicated core team review team structure to review success.
4 You've heard we are innovating in both safety and environmental review areas.
5 I'll add that the comprehensive draft environmental impact statement, or draft 6
EIS, for this application was issued ahead of schedule without compromising 7
thoroughness.
8 Like the safety review, this was enabled in part through 9
successful pre-application preparations and focused audits.
10 Additionally, certain innovative approaches that were developed 11 as part of the Staff's advanced nuclear reactor generic environmental impact 12 statement, or ANRGEIS effort, such as streamlined EIS format were used.
13 Notably, the ANRGEIS features enhanced innovations such as 14 use of technology-inclusive performance-based plant parameter envelope 15 approach and generic evaluation of over 80 percent of environmental issues.
16 If implemented, the ANRGEIS will help further streamline the 17 environmental review process. I will now briefly touch on very early insights 18 from the recently accepted Abilene Christian University molten salt research 19 reactor construction permit review.
20 Again, pre-application engagement ensured the early 21 identification of technical issues needing resolution prior to application 22 acceptance as well as key technical information that is used to risk-inform the 23 review.
24 Pre-application audits served as a forum to discuss attributes of 25
68 a high-quality application that again are needed to establish aggressive review 1
schedules. Next slide, please.
2 While we are effectively and efficiently reviewing non-light water 3
advanced reactors today, we are also managing and overcoming challenges.
4 Non-light water reactors come in a wide variety of designs, from molten salt to 5
high-temperature gas-cooled, to liquid metal and microreactors.
6 This diversity can pose training and other resource challenges.
7 To manage this, the NRC provides technical Staff with internal and external 8
training and development, supports cross-training between core teams, and 9
promotes cross-office collaboration.
10 As needed, contract support is also pursued. To address 11 uncertainty in application submittal schedules and design changes, the NRC 12 continues to encourage the development of regulatory engagement plans and 13 pre-application engagements including early submission of topical reports and 14 white papers.
15 Lastly, while NRC has the tools and experience to implement 16 novel regulatory infrastructure for first-of-a-kind applications, any new approach 17 inherently comes with unique technical challenges.
18 In this regard, we encourage Staff to be flexible and leverage 19 their knowledge and experience implementing related guidance and 20 approaches in new contexts.
21 Next slide, please. Thank you for your attention, and I'll now turn 22 the presentation back over to Dan.
23 MR. DORMAN: Thank you, Candace.
24 As you've heard, the staff has made tremendous progress 25
69 towards improving our regulations, guidance, and processes and is ready to 1
license new and advanced reactors and other new technologies under Parts 50 2
and 52.
3 I would like to thank all the panelists today, the Staff who 4
supported the preparations for this Commission meeting, and the Staff who are 5
working to prepare for the future of licensing new and advanced reactors using 6
the current regulatory framework.
7 And the Staff implementing our lessons learned in the ongoing 8
pre-application and licensing activities. Thank you, Chair Hanson and 9
Commissioners, for the opportunity to present today and we now welcome your 10 questions.
11 CHAIR HANSON: Thanks, Dan, and thanks to the rest of our 12 panelists. We'll begin again with Commissioner Wright.
13 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, Chair, and good 14 morning, good presentations, a lot of fruitful discussions so far and I hope it 15 continues on this panel.
16 As I mentioned in my opening remarks and I know you agree on 17 it, I do believe it's important that we're not a barrier to these new technologies if 18 they do meet our reasonable assurance threshold.
19 So, with that, I'm going to go ahead and start. Rob, I've got a 20 question for you. On your Slide 5 you talked about the need to focus on our 21 licensing reviews for those portions of the design with the highest risk and 22 safety significance.
23 I know that's been an Agency goal for a long time and it's one 24 that obviously I support and I know the others do as well. It's how we should be 25
70 thinking about our reviews.
1 I've also been told that past efforts have shown that it's 2
sometimes harder to do than it looks. And what I mean by that is while we have 3
PRA and other tools to show us which aspects of a design might be of lower 4
safety significance, it can be difficult to tell our reviewers not to spend time in 5
those areas, especially if they start finding problems or maybe the application 6
doesn't contain the level of detail that maybe they expect traditionally.
7 So, with that in mind, can you maybe provide an example of how 8
this philosophy actually played out maybe in one of the recent reviews?
9 MR. TAYLOR: Sure, Commissioner, I agree, we haven't done 10 the job we've desired to do on risk-informing our reviews.
11 So, actually, if I could focus on the lessons learned, what we're 12 going to do here for the NuScale review, since the NuScale representative 13 brought it up. We initiated that audit to do a review of their PRA right at the 14 beginning of the review. So, we have great insights to the core damage 15 frequency sequences for that facility and the large release frequency 16 sequences related to that. We're taking that information, which would be 17 information we would review in Chapter 19 of the application, and at the 18 beginning of the review we're going to use it to define which areas of the review 19 require more in-depth aspects and which require less.
20 And we're going to allocate resources in those areas based on 21 that risk-informing. So, that's taking the risk-informed information and 22 incorporating it into the review focus.
23 When we identify highly challenging issues early, which we didn't 24 do well in the NuScale review, it was a little bit into the review before we started 25
71 to document the highly challenging issues, we going to identify those on the 1
front end.
2 And then we're going to take the risk insights and ask how are 3
we going to resolve those in the most efficient manner possible and address it?
4 And we may find some are very low risk significance so you can 5
accept less detail in that area because there's no challenge to public health and 6
safety based on the combination of the risk insights and the deterministic.
7 So, we're incorporating the risk aspect right into the review right 8
at the front, defining the scope in-depth that we're going to go into and various 9
areas of the review, and allocating the resources based on that.
10 So, we're going to hold true as issues are identified to asking 11 what's the risk significance of that issue and then tailoring our resolution of it 12 based on that risk insight.
13 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Am I understanding you to say that 14 maybe you haven't -- because I guess what I was looking for you to do was to 15 give me some example of where you identified something that was lower safety 16 significance and you therefore decided to focus your resources elsewhere.
17 You're kind of saying it a little bit differently?
18 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. So, I'll give you one from the NuScale 19 review. There was a late design change in the NuScale review related to a 20 boron dilution situation.
21 So, the Staff in looking at that issue, recognizing that the 22 modeling was a challenge for that complex assessment, that the tools weren't 23 perfect for that, went and leveraged risk insights to ask ourselves what was the 24 potential consequences of that situation and what was the likelihood of that 25
72 situation.
1 And that really shaped how much information did the Staff need 2
to make its finding on that late issue. We were able to disposition that issue 3
without an adverse effect on our schedule for completing the FSER.
4 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So, as a follow-up, and Bernie, you 5
might want to chime in on this one as well, the industry has been calling for 6
short review schedules and less resource-intensive stuff, as long as safety is in 7
the box.
8 Have your lessons learned from previous completed reviews 9
identified areas that could be leveraged by the Staff to accommodate their 10 requests like that? And maybe if you have an example that would be nice too.
11 MS. THOMSON: So, the Staff continues to leverage lessons 12 learned from past experiences, engaging in agile approaches we learned. We 13 adjust, we adapt moving forward.
14 I discussed many of the internal changes that we were able to 15 leverage from past reviews in the current NuScale and Hermes going forward.
16 The pre-application engagement to optimize an application 17 review we can use to help get better clarity on applications coming in.
18 Ideally, having early pre-engagement or pre-application 19 engagements clearly in communications clarify the issues or identifies which 20 issues we need to focus on as we go forward.
21 So, Staff continues to use these opportunities to adapt as we 22 learn more, as we progress in the reviews, and apply them in a timely manner 23 so that it can impact the schedule, the budget, but ultimately we get quality 24 product so when it comes in we are managing our resources accordingly.
25
73 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Let me probe there a second. In 1
the first panel the lady from NuScale referred to the fact that sometimes early 2
engagement can be a problem potentially. And recognizing that, because 3
you're nodding your heads, how are we finding that sweet spot?
4 MR. TAYLOR: I'll take a shot at that. Pre-application being 5
voluntary has a span of the level of effort that gets put into it. So, on one 6
spectrum is making presentations to the Staff.
7 That's good, that's helpful, but it's almost always not in sufficient 8
detail to make decisions on resolution of issues in pre-application. It informs 9
the Staff.
10 I agree, starting pre-application seven years before you're going 11 to submit to us is probably not the most efficient because there's almost 12 guaranteed Staff turnover during that.
13 But if you get to white papers and topical reports, the Staff 14 makes conclusions based on that, that can provide clarity and reliability and 15 efficiency to the review at the end.
16 So, what we've seen in recent pre-application and for the next 17 set of Applicants, as Candace kind of mentioned even with Kairos, is we're 18 making decisions based on white papers and topical reports that become to the 19 maximum extent possible settled issues when the application comes in.
20 We don't re-open the book other than to confirm that any 21 limitations and conditions on the topical report were satisfied. So, they take 22 pieces off the table.
23 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thats a benefit of a core team?
24 MR. TAYLOR: And the core team is phenomenal.
25
74 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: It's the turnover that we heard 1
about, bringing somebody new in who may have to go back to the baseline and 2
start all over again.
3 MR. TAYLOR: But if we've documented those conclusions they 4
have that knowledge management for sure.
5 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. So, there's a lot of 6
work going on to improve Part 50 and 52 and we know that most folks, if not all 7
of them, are going to come in under 50 and 52. We've also heard from some 8
external stakeholders, not all, but given all of that, maybe we may not need Part 9
- 53.
10 And in NEIMA, Congress challenged us to create a pathway for 11 advanced technologies to get regulatory certainty and get to market and to 12 make it technology-inclusive, performance-based, risk-informed.
13 Can you talk to me a little bit about Part 52 and how this 14 rulemaking is different than Part 53 and whether or not we still need Part 53, or 15 do we need both?
16 MR. TAYLOR: I'll go ahead and take that on. The 50-52 17 rulemaking is taking the existing regulations and trying to enhance those.
18 Those are right, wrong, or indifferent prescriptive regulations.
19 You have requirements for fuel, you have requirements for 20 piping, you have requirements for containment.
21 We're trying to make those as efficient as possible for the 22 licensing process using all the lessons learned that we've got and trying to 23 enhance the tech-inclusivity that they have.
24 So, the goal of that rulemaking is to take those lessons learned 25
75 and make the process more efficient for those who want to use Part 50 and 52.
1 But we can't fundamentally change the construct of 50 and 52 without a 2
substantial overhaul and that wasn't the direction we initiated on.
3 So, Part 53 being I think one of the most important pieces is that 4
risk-informed, performance-based aspect of it. You're not going to find very 5
prescriptive regulations at each one of those steps.
6 You're not going to find a prescriptive fuel regulation or a 7
prescriptive containment regulation because we have to be open to a variety.
8 So, we try to set higher performance standards and provide more flexibility.
9 I think Part 53 is valuable to do because I think it's a place where 10 we want to get to as an Agency. But I think 50 and 52 should remain viable 11 options for those who want to use it.
12 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Ok. Thank you so much.
13 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Wright.
14 Commissioner Caputo?
15 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Good morning, thank you all for 16 being here and thank you all for the work that you've done to prepare today. I 17 know it's quite an effort to be here and I do thank you for putting forward your 18 expertise for us to learn from you.
19 Rob, I'm going to start with you, one of the things that we talked 20 about on the previous panel was the challenge of defining credible event and 21 having clarity with that definition.
22 And one of the lessons learned coming out of NuScale is a 23 reference to a design basis source term event of 3 in 10 billion years.
24 So, can you give me a little more information on just how you are 25
76 looking at risk-informing the definition and creating clarity, certainty, and 1
reliability around that given the range of designs we anticipate seeing in the 2
future?
3 MR. TAYLOR: I'll acknowledge during the NuScale design 4
certification application we knew what the PRA was. We didn't take and put the 5
tools in place to bring it into the rest of the review to inform, in all cases, our 6
decision-making.
7 Now with the core teams, with the emphasis on the PRA at the 8
front end and integrating it into our review, we'll take and look at those 9
scenarios like you just mentioned, the frequency consequence of those, and 10 say, what do we really need in this case to make our safety finding?
11 So, if we find very unlikely, very low-consequence events that 12 the PRA tells us aren't worth it and have no impact on public health and safety, 13 then we can scale those reviews appropriately relative to that. So I hope that 14 answers your question.
15 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: A start, but it also raises another 16 question which is the challenge of bringing the PRA that far forward, particularly 17 in the context of a construction permit.
18 So, I'll ask a different question. One of the things that the 19 proposed rulemaking would do is codify several Commission policy statements.
20 I'd like to understand better what problem is being solved here because we 21 definitely heard from TVA and Mr. Nichol about the challenges of trying to use 22 PRA in a construction permit situation.
23 So, has the Staff had difficulties in applying these Commission 24 policy statements that we aren't aware of?
25
77 MR. TAYLOR: We've done one construction permit in the last 1
four years for SHINE.
2 What the PRA aspect is trying to get to, and maybe I'll clarify 3
something I heard on the prior panel, we recognize that at the construction 4
permit phase, the maturity of the design isn't there for a full-scope PRA.
5 We won't have that level of detail. So, the idea is to get insights 6
from the PRA that can be developed commensurate with the maturity of the 7
design at that point to make sure you identify issues early and you factor them 8
into your review to provide more reliability and clarity in the decisions.
9 So, if you only have 30 percent of the design done at that point, 10 the PRA should be commensurate with the level of the design that's being 11 completed.
12 We're not going to hold Applicants at the construction permit 13 stage to having a full and comprehensive PRA because we know that's not 14 possible.
15 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So, how do you give clarity to that?
16 MR. TAYLOR: The PRA can lend insights into what the design 17 basis accidents should be and what the beyond design basis accidents may be 18 needing consideration as part of that, as well as well what safety structures and 19 components might need to be safety-related.
20 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: I understand the benefit, the 21 question I have is how do you give certainty to how much risk information you're 22 going to require in a construction permit? There's a balance between some risk 23 information that's going to inform some aspects of the application and a full-24 blown PRA.
25
78 How does Staff know how much and where to draw that line if 1
the design is 30 percent complete versus 50 percent complete? How are the 2
Staff going to draw that line?
3 MR. TAYLOR: I understand. Candace will help me on this one I 4
think. I think we have a guidance document under development that will help 5
inform this activity. If I'm remembering correct, we're planning to issue it here in 6
a few months.
7 MR. TABATABAI: I can start, Rob. Thank you for that question.
8 Actually, the NRC Staff is being proactive and the Office of NRR they have put 9
together a team who's looking at exactly the same questions.
10 They're working with our potential construction permit Applicants 11 individually to better understand the design, what the level of information for 12 PRA at construction permit stage.
13 So, absent of having guidance, generic guidance, we are right 14 now working individually with the Applicants to come to a common 15 understanding as to expectations.
16 And I think the goal for the light water reactor side of the house 17 is by late summer or early fall this year, to have that guidance out. Candace?
18 MS. DE MESSIERES: Yeah, and maybe I'll add a little bit just 19 from the non-light water perspective. Something that's really exciting about 20 what I do every day is that I get to see this at the front lines.
21 I recently was in a meeting with TerraPower seeing some 22 preliminary information about their PRA and it was actually astounding. It was 23 even more comprehensive than I anticipated at that point and that's during pre-24 application activities.
25
79 And so I did want to just mention, and I took a couple notes 1
during some of the other remarks, that we are actually exercising this issue 2
right now as pre-applicants look to use the LMP process for non-light water 3
reactors.
4 So, we are developing guidance in the light water space. I would 5
say there are similar efforts in the non-light water space. In fact, having 6
discussions just this week about trying to identify those main technical issues 7
about expectations at a more tactical level.
8 But I would say, again, at a review level, the Staff looking at 9
these today, it's quite amazing to see this playing out in real time and really 10 demonstrating those early insights, even if they're not reflective of the final 11 design they inform the design.
12 And they're really an active component of the LMP process. So, 13 I just want to offer that a little bit too because we are living it today.
14 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you. So, Rob, what other 15 Commission policy statements are you looking to codify in the rulemaking and 16 why?
17 MR. TAYLOR: The other one that comes to mind is a severe 18 accident policy statement to assess and consider severe accidents early in the 19 design of the reactors.
20 We think that's an important piece because in our historical 21 approach to this, we've implemented severe accident regulations after the fact, 22 after plants were designed, and that creates significant costs and regulatory 23 uncertainty.
24 So, doing a look for the severe accidents early and assessing 25
80 them and what needs to really be there, because most of the time you don't 1
need safety-related equipment for that but you can credit non-safety-related 2
equipment, assessing that and making sure we have clarity on that early in the 3
design to avoid imposing those later.
4 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: I'm not clear that the safety benefit 5
of that was actually included in the regulatory analysis.
6 MR. TAYLOR: I'd have to go back and look at the regulatory 7
analysis.
8 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Ok. Thank you. Ms. Thomson, I'd 9
like to ask you a question about RAIs.
10 RAIs have historically been a huge challenge for the Agency and 11 there is certainly a correlation between the quality of the application and the 12 number of RAIs that the Staff needs to send in order to make the decisions and 13 the safety findings they need to make.
14 So, hopefully the legacy of thousands of RAIs being issued on 15 design certification applications are hopefully behind us.
16 Now, you discussed improving how we are using RAIs, in 17 particular identifying key attributes that every RAI should include, a clear 18 regulatory basis and explanation of safety significance and what information is 19 needed to make a safety finding.
20 This seems reminiscent of an office instruction from the early 21 2000s. Have you revised the office instruction or is this more an effort to bring 22 that more fully into practice among the Staff?
23 MS. THOMSON: Thank you for that question. It is more of an 24 effort to bring it into practice with the Staff.
25
81 As I discussed, having clearer communications early on, we're 1
able to identify the key components that are needed for the application, identify 2
where the risk areas are, or potentially will be, in that application.
3 And that helps focus the Staff to the safety significant portions 4
that they need to engage a thorough in-depth request for additional information.
5 And it's almost a triage of the issues, those are highly significant.
6 We can get a clearer scripted RAI to get the information that is 7
needed to make a safety finding or to clarify the information the Staff needs.
8 So, the early discussion and we have engaged on developing a better template 9
for RAIs so there is more consistency in how you're asking for the information.
10 So, that coupled with the focused approach gets to a better result.
11 MR. TAYLOR: I'll clarify one thing. In NRO, before we merged 12 the offices, we did overhaul the office instruction and then we merged the 13 offices. We brought the insights from that and did a consolidation of the NRR 14 and NRO office instructions to incorporate those insights and expectations.
15 So, that makes it applicable to the operating reactors and the 16 new reactors.
17 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Ok. Great, thank you.
18 MS. THOMSON: I would add that I am post-NRO.
19 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Caputo.
20 Commissioner Crowell?
21 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank 22 you all for your presentations today. Helpful as always and the work that you 23 and your colleagues do is integral to the success that we all hope to share here.
24 But to do so you need clear direction from the Commission, from 25
82 leadership in the EDO's office that's clear, consistent, and then having the 1
resources to do those jobs. So, if that's ever not happening, make sure that 2
feedback comes up as well as down.
3 So, Rob, I'm going to start with you -- Mr. Taylor, I'm trying to be 4
more formal in these things but it is awkward to call you Mr. Taylor.
5 MR. TAYLOR: Either is fine by me.
6 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Obviously, there's extensive 7
experience at the Agency under Part 50 and 52 and I think Part 52 alone, 8
there's been somewhere in the realm of 25-plus permit reviews and approvals.
9 Tell me a little bit more about the biggest lessons we've learned 10 from those 52 reviews, and specifically how we've translated or passed those 11 lessons learned and knowledge on to new employees who may not have been 12 here during those previous reviews?
13 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you for that question. There is a lot that 14 we've learned over the years, I'll emphasize maybe a couple here. I want to 15 talk about the core teams more or the interdisciplinary review teams.
16 We didn't always have a systematic approach to bringing the 17 Staff together and looking at the design holistically. That matrix organization 18 construct that we talked about, that led to Staff doing their work sometimes in 19 silos.
20 So, they look at their work and rightfully they're focused on 21 safety, but they may not have the perspectives from other groups if they don't 22 know to go look for those perspectives.
23 So, I think changing our model for how to do it and putting a core 24 team together that looks at each issue holistically, so as they look at reactor 25
83 system design, they're asking what the PRA says, they're asking what the 1
materials do, because that shapes what's really necessary in the design for 2
robustness and quality.
3 So, I think that one is incredibly important. Going back to the 4
RAIs discussion we were just having with Commissioner Caputo, we issued a 5
lot of RAIs in those applications before and that was our go-to tool.
6 I'll give you an anecdote here. In Kairos through the use of 7
audits, we issued a single-digit number of RAIs to the Applicant.
8 So, we got through that entire review raising the questions for 9
clarity and context in audits that we would have usually just defaulted to issuing 10 RAIs, and said, okay, do I need anything on the docket related to this or can I 11 reasonably infer from what's already there and have a better understanding of 12 what the words mean?
13 That shapes how many we need, how many RAIs we need, 14 which streamlines the review.
15 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Can I assume that core team 16 structure you described is what helps when new employees come to the 17 Agency or employees from other parts of the Agency come into NRR or NRO or 18 wherever that they aren't starting from scratch?
19 MR. TAYLOR: It does. Another thing I'll emphasize is we have 20 an advanced reactor training qualification program that we put the Staff through 21 as we bring them on, lots of in-person instruction and education as well as 22 courses on specific advanced reactor technologies so that they understand 23 what the safety basis of those different technologies are so that they're primed 24 to hit the ground running when applications come in.
25
84 So, we invest a lot in our people to get them ready for the 1
reviews.
2 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: I want to come back to the pre-3 application engagements for a second because something you said earlier 4
actually concerns me now about this.
5 Recognizing that the scope of pre-application activities is broad 6
and varies from Applicant to Applicant, I think what I heard you say is the value 7
is minimal because of Staff turnover, which isn't a great answer.
8 Please tell me that's not actually the case, because I think the 9
pre-application space is going to be pretty important going forward because 10 we're going to have new players we're dealing with than the traditional ones that 11 have experience here.
12 And so they may not have the ability to come to you with things 13 that are ready for a white paper or a decision. They need some feedback, 14 some brainstorming perhaps even. So, talk me through how that pre-15 application phase can still be helpful?
16 MR. TAYLOR: I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. We are 17 striving for stability in the review teams and putting and keeping the people 18 experienced in the pre-application engagement on the team and then 19 transitioning them when we develop the charter for each review to the actual 20 review.
21 So, that's an emphasis and a point. I think the challenge comes 22 sometimes that if pre-application is spread over a significant amount of time, 23 there's a lot of dead time for Staff so we have to keep the Staff engaged and 24 working.
25
85 So, they might be working on multiple projects at the same time.
1 I can't lock one Staff Member down just doing pre-app for one Applicant 2
sometimes because it might be months between submittals and things like that.
3 So, we have to balance that to use our resources efficiently while 4
providing stability in the core teams wherever possible. So, we are 5
emphasizing and actively looking at that because we want the people who 6
made the decisions engaged in the meetings to carry those issues through.
7 They're going to be the most knowledgeable and the most 8
efficient because they'll have a construct to the safety case for that design.
9 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: So, I assume there is some 10 method for memorializing those pre-engagement activities so that when Staff 11 move on or you reassign Staff as needed, a new person can come in and know 12 what was the substance of those pre-application discussions?
13 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, we keep records on all the pre-applications.
14 We get a licensing project plan or regulatory engagement plan from the 15 Applicants and that often defines what they want to accomplish in pre-16 application.
17 So, as we go through each of those activities, we collect the 18 information and maintain it for new Staff who may need to come onto the 19 project.
20 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: You mentioned working on 21 multiple things at the same time and I want to pick up on that theme but with 22 you, Ms. Thomson.
23 How do you, from your management perspective, balance Staff 24 resource allocation when you have multiple simultaneous applications that need 25
86 review? I'd say for instance like reactor systems or seismic engineering 1
experts, those are important parts of the review and in short supply sometimes 2
in terms of the expertise.
3 So, how do you balance that? Are you positioned to be able to 4
manage multiple simultaneous reviews on those types of topics?
5 MS. THOMSON: We've been preparing for quite some time for 6
managing applications of this type coming in.
7 We understand each application is going to be unique, so some 8
of the efforts we've undertaken to, as Rob said, balance what we are doing.
9 We routinely monitor changes that are going on in the industry so that we can 10 help streamline and get better estimates of how long things will take to do.
11 Because many of these are a new type of applications coming in.
12 We also look at, as we've discussed, pre-application engagements to get a 13 good idea of what areas are clear, what areas need additional clarity.
14 We've discussed training our workforce, initiatives ongoing at 15 divisional levels to capture information, knowledge transfer, and get that new 16 Staff up to speed so that they can manage when the application comes in or 17 work shifts.
18 We look at collaboration amongst ourselves so that we are better 19 informed, and we can focus more on safety-significant issues. So, when you 20 look at a project, a project is composed of the schedule, you've got the cost, 21 and you've got the quality of it.
22 We engage in communications; we can directly impact quality 23 because that application that comes in is going to be a higher standard.
24 By use of training our Staff we can impact schedules because 25
87 we have better estimates of what work needs to be done, how long it's going to 1
take to get done, and that impacts our budgeting and out year's budgeting 2
approach.
3 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Within that context, is there an 4
area of technical expertise that gives you the most concern about not having 5
capacity on when you're faced with simultaneous reviews?
6 MR. TAYLOR: I'll take that, I've done this a few times. Nuclear 7
engineers. It's a highly, highly competitive job market and we're competing with 8
the very vendors and utilities who are preparing those applications and stuff 9
and they're hiring up the nuclear engineers.
10 And so convincing folks to come to the NRC and being 11 competitive with the industry is something we're working on heavily, but we do 12 need to continue staffing up in the nuclear engineering realm because they're 13 going to do the fuels portion of the review, they're going to do the reactor 14 systems portion of the review that are so critical to the overall safety profile.
15 Those are the areas we're going to spend probably more 16 resources on and less in other areas.
17 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And I think a sense of purpose is 18 something the NRC can offer those folks that is different from our stakeholders, 19 so lean on that.
20 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Crowell, and 21 thanks to my colleagues, you guys have already plowed a lot of ground, so poor 22 Commissioner Baran. I want to pick up, again, I'm trying to highlight some 23 themes and I want to have a conversation I think, Rob, with you and Bernie 24 about Staff development.
25
88 A number of folks have already touched on knowledge 1
management. As we bring in new Staff, Rob, you were just talking about 2
nuclear engineers, into the Agency, I want to highlight and recognize and 3
celebrate the substantial work that's been done.
4 Certainly processes are important but my sense is overall culture 5
change in this area around new reactors and the approach to doing these 6
things. Rob, I'll start with you about as new Staff come onboard, that knowledge 7
transfer is happening.
8 How is training and qualification of new Staff happening so that 9
they can slip into those reviews and be effective reasonably soon?
10 MR. TAYLOR: We're investing in that knowledge management 11 and training significantly. So, as new Staff come in to do the reviews there are 12 established qualification programs for technical reviewers, qualification 13 programs for project managers, and they are guided by senior staff and Branch 14 Chiefs who have extensive experience to make sure they understand how the 15 processes work, but also the kind of thinking that we want to have on these 16 reviews.
17 So, we have that opportunity to do it early. The merger of NRR 18 and NRO is bringing some Staff who have worked their lives in NRR into New 19 Reactor Reviews for the first time.
20 So, we're giving them background training on the technologies 21 and the needs relative to doing those kinds of reviews as well.
22 So, we're investing in it with the goal to make sure the Staff is 23 ready to hit the ground running. What we try to do is make sure we have a plan 24 for the Staff that are going to do each review about six months before it comes 25
89 in.
1 That's when we can say, okay, we know the application is 2
coming, we can start to assign Staff to it, build our core teams out and then 3
make sure those people all have the necessary training, because they might 4
need molten salt reactor training, they might need high-temperature gas-cooled 5
reactor training.
6 And then we make sure they've got that.
7 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you. I think Commissioner Caputo has 8
talked about the importance of understanding the effectiveness of our training 9
qualification and knowledge management efforts. I think I would certainly agree 10 with her about that.
11 Bernie, one of the things you talked about is early identification 12 and elevation. Can you maybe say a little bit more about that and about how 13 that's working and where in the process, what does early in the early 14 identification mean, and what is the elevation piece in that? Can you talk a little 15 bit more about that and how it's working internal to the Staff?
16 MS. THOMSON: Currently on the NuScale review that we've 17 been reviewing, we've employed the opportunity to take the collective 18 knowledge of the Staff and as we're collaborating we will be employing a 19 technical advisor in that review when it comes in.
20 And part of the rationale and the requirements for that position is 21 to work across the Staff and as issues are identified, if the Staff amongst 22 collaboration within themselves are not able to resolve it, it elevates up.
23 And that individual, based on their background, their depth of 24 knowledge, their experience, is able to direct the technical group to a resolution.
25
90 If they themselves cannot get that resolution, it can continue elevating.
1 So, it's a real-time application of solving the issue as it's 2
identified and working with the Applicant to get the necessary information to 3
resolve it. Again, I mentioned before agile project management, I've got a lot of 4
background in project management.
5 You are using a communications tool to identify the issue and 6
then part of your roles and responsibilities, you know who the solution-maker is.
7 It may not necessarily be a collective at the Staff level, but the Staff informs the 8
decision and that historically is a project management best practice and it 9
works.
10 And that is a method that we are using going forward with the 11 NuScale review because we realized there may be some challenges.
12 MR. TAYLOR: Just real quick, we're in acceptance review on 13 the NuScale and we've identified two potential highly challenging issues. So, 14 the emphasis we're trying to right now with the Staff is to say it's not a bad thing 15 to elevate issues.
16 We want awareness at all levels because management provides 17 some help to make sure we're taking the right risk-informed approach, that we 18 have the right construct for making the decision in accordance with the 19 regulations.
20 What we want to avoid is the churn of the Staff trying to resolve 21 this and not making progress because at that level it just isn't getting resolved.
22 So, we elevate it to push for resolution quickly because we recognize if you let 23 these things linger, they'll consume resources throughout the review and 24 detract from other areas of the review.
25
91 CHAIR HANSON: That's a great segue, Rob. And Bernie, I'm 1
going to get back to your PMP certification in just a minute because I noticed it 2
in the slides.
3 But before I do, in your presentation, Bernie, two words really 4
jumped out at me when we're talking about the project management and trying 5
to inculcate a project management culture in our reviews.
6 One was visibility and the data and the dashboards and those 7
kinds of things and I think that's absolutely critical. And then you mentioned 8
accountability but I almost wonder if the missing element in there was authority.
9 If project managers absolutely need to have visibility and they 10 need to be held accountable but they also need the authority in a way to 11 enforce -- I don't know what the right word is -- discipline and focus in those 12 reviews.
13 So, do our project managers have that as they're going through 14 this process?
15 MS. THOMSON: From an outside perspective, I've been here 16 about a year now, looking at project management processes within the Agency, 17 it's got the foundational pieces there. A lot of emphasis does have to be put on 18 the accountability piece.
19 Because like I said, a project is essentially three parts and two of 20 those parts affect cost. It's just standard practice.
21 But I think some of the things that we have been doing across 22 the Agency, the use of the dashboards, does highlight clarity and a clear, visible 23 picture of the program and what's going on with it. And that forces 24 accountability.
25
92 The training aspect, we're training up project managers, there is 1
a project management qualification that they go through.
2 We are using technology, the dashboards, to leverage at the 3
management level, quickly identify trends and how we need to impact or weigh 4
into -- if it's a positive trend, that's good, if it's a negative trend we can weigh in 5
to affect it and change it to a positive impact.
6 I would say this, though, I'll take a chance here to say this, that 7
Lean Six Sigma is an opportunity I think for the organization to holistically look 8
at the processes that it has and streamline to best practices and that we can 9
use to inculcate the culture of the new people coming in.
10 Because we've got to train them anyway and they will be the 11 future of the Agency and they will be closing out some of these projects and 12 programs. So, it's a short circuit method to get the culture engaged in best 13 principles for project management, et cetera.
14 And, yes, I guess I am speaking from a PMP perspective.
15 CHAIR HANSON: I know I'm running out of time but I do want to 16 sneak in one question about that because I'm a PMP drop-out, I took the course 17 but never took the exam and as a former management consultant, Lean Six 18 Sigma, you're kind of singing my song here on some of this stuff.
19 But I did want to ask you how you, as a PMP, project 20 management professional, the value of that for you in your own work and 21 whether that course and that certification is something we should make more 22 widely available to the NRC Staff, either through encouragement, kind of soft, or 23 more formally integrate some of the principles in the project management book 24 of knowledge into our training and qualification courses?
25
93 MS. THOMSON: So, since I've been here I've been informally in 1
transition with some of those best practices. The overall PMP certification, I'm 2
all in favor of doing it. The key thing that it does is it sets a baseline level of 3
knowledge for all project managers.
4 And when you have that common language, it makes it much 5
easier to resolve issues to transition from various projects easily because you 6
know when you go to something different there's a certain standard that it has 7
ascribed to and you can easily move the knowledge, you can easily transition 8
people across projects.
9 It does require an extensive amount of experience. The test is 10 extremely difficult, but I think the value that you gain from it far outweighs the 11 challenges.
12 When I was at Corps of Engineers before I came here, the 13 process there was you went through a screen to identify and focus a certain 14 group to take that test.
15 Now, if others wanted to do it, that was encouraged but the 16 Agency actually paid for a certain percentage of people to get training. There 17 was like a boot camp or something. I did it the hard way, there was bootcamp 18 and then take the test.
19 And if you passed the test, the Agency paid for it, if you didn't 20 pass the test, you paid for it. So, there was some incentive there to pass the 21 test but what it did was a group would be learned in the best practices and that 22 helped enrich the culture of the organization to take it forward.
23 And the Corps does a lot of projects, billion-dollar, multi-million-24 dollar projects very similar to what this Agency is doing with these applications.
25
94 1
From my perspective, it is an investment in the future of the 2
people and the Agency that is well worth it.
3 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you very much, culture change, and 4
thank you, Commissioner Baran, for your patience.
5 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Sure. Thanks, everyone. I think it's 6
been a great discussion. I'll focus my questions on a rulemaking we've talked a 7
fair bit about which is this Part 50-52 rulemaking, to get those parts better 8
prepared for new reactors.
9 I think maybe the piece of it we've talked the most about is PRA.
10 There are dozens of other pieces of this rule and maybe we could cover at 11 least a few of those but let me start with PRA again just to ask on that.
12 There was a fair bit of discussion about the challenge of gauging 13 design maturity and then therefore appropriate PRA maturity at the construction 14 permit stage.
15 Can someone, backing up a little bit, does the Staff see a safety 16 benefit with carrying the Part 52 PRA requirement over into Part 50? And can 17 someone talk about just the overall safety benefit they're seeing for that 18 provision?
19 MR. TABATABAI: Thank you, Commissioner, I can start and 20 others can chime in. Let me just start by saying the purpose of this proposed 21 rule with respect to PRA is to make Part 50 Applicants and Part 52 Applicants 22 treated equally.
23 Right now, as you know, Part 52 Applicants are required to have 24 a PRA, Part 50 Applicants are not required. And the Commission policy applies 25
95 to all regulatory matters so that is basically the reason for proposing that 1
change.
2 In terms of benefits of PRA, of course, we are talking about risk-3 informing our reviews with respect to any application and construction permit is 4
basically a licensing process.
5 We understand that of course the design maturity is not 6
developed that much, like a combined license application for instance, not to 7
that level, but an Applicant who comes to the NRC and applies for a 8
construction permit, they know what kind of reactor they want to build.
9 That's the minimum information that's available and that's a good 10 starting point basically. Designs are different and PRA levels could be different 11 obviously.
12 And I think that's the reason why the Staff is working with 13 potential Applicants, to better understand, basically, what the design is and how 14 much information the Applicants could provide by the time they submit their 15 application.
16 And based on my conversation with my colleagues in the 17 Division of Risk Assessment, they don't see any pushback from the Applicants.
18 They are willing to work, they are willing to cooperate with the Staff to come up 19 with a common understanding as to what the expectations are.
20 And I think I would answer that from that perspective. And of 21 course, if you have a PRA at the construction permit stage, by the time you 22 transition to operating license space obviously you would only focus on 23 reviewing the changes from the construction permit to operating license.
24 MR. DORMAN: I just wanted to make an observation. Over the 25
96 last couple hours I kind of heard what I thought was a paradox, that we wanted 1
to do more risk-informed construction oversight but were not clear on what level 2
of risk the staff is looking for at the construction permit stage.
3 So, I think clarity in what the Staff expects at the construction 4
permit stage is important because I think what the Staff is looking for is risk 5
insights commensurate with the maturity of the design that will help us, A, focus 6
on the most important parts of the application for the construction permit, and 7
then also we can bring that forward and make sure in our oversight we're at the 8
most important items. So, the overarching trend of what we're trying to do over 9
the last five years or so is really this focus on risk insights at the front end of the 10 process, whether it's the licensing or the inspection process and how does that 11 inform our focus on our level of effort as we go forward in the process to be 12 most effective and efficient.
13 So, that's where I think the Staff sees an opportunity for benefit 14 from having risk insights such as are available commensurate with the maturity 15 of the design at that stage of the process.
16 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Great. One issue down, and we've 17 got 60 to go. (Laughter) I'll lower my ambitions.
18 The requirements established after the 1979 Three Mile Island 19 accident were applied to Part 50 construction permit and operating license 20 application pending at that time, as well as future Part 52 design certification 21 and combined license applications.
22 But they were never applied to future Part 50 applications I think 23 because future Part 50 applications weren't anticipated. The Agency thought 24 everyone would use Part 52.
25
97 The draft proposed rule would address that gap by applying the 1
Three Mile Island requirements to new Part 50 applications. Does anyone want 2
to say anything about the rationale for that provision or the safety requirements 3
or the lack thereof of it?
4 MR. TABATABAI: Thank you. I can start and others can chime 5
in. Post-TMI requirements are applicable to all designs and new reactors and 6
all of them. And along with a proposal to have a construction permit Applicants 7
or Part 50 Applicants to have a PRA available, having done that, many of the 8
TMI action items will become redundant.
9 And as part of this proposal, we are also proposing to remove 10 some of those TMI action items that would become redundant if a CP Applicant 11 would develop a PRA. So, it's a matter of aligning the requirements, getting rid 12 of duplicates.
13 We have duplicate requirements in, let's say, Part 55, for 14 instance of that TMI action items. So, in this rulemaking we are trying to see if 15 we are adding requirements where we can remove the duplicates and things we 16 would not need in proposing this new requirement.
17 MR. TAYLOR: Can I add one thing? We talked so much about 18 lessons learned. The TMI event posed probably the most significant 19 opportunity for lessons learned for the Agency in our entire history.
20 So, the idea of taking those lessons learned and making sure we 21 factor them into reviews just seems to make sense, appropriately factor them in 22 based on the applicability to the technology.
23 So, I really think that's driving a lot of our perspective on this and 24 there's no reason they shouldn't be applicable to certain designs.
25
98 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Let me ask about a couple potential 1
changes that raised some concerns in my mind. Currently, design certification 2
standard design approvals and manufacturing licenses have a 15-year term.
3 After 15 years they would need to be renewed if they are continue to be used.
4 The draft proposed rule would eliminate the terms for a design 5
certification and standard design approvals and extend the term for a 6
manufacturing license to 40 years. What gives me pause is that we've seen 7
several issues arise with the AP-1000 design certification, these were problems 8
that needed to be fixed.
9 So, they were repeatedly addressed in combined licenses and 10 they were fixed in the design certification renewal. But if the design certification 11 is of unlimited duration, those fixes probably wouldn't have been incorporated 12 into the certified design and we'd have a design codified in the regulations with 13 known issues indefinitely potentially.
14 Does the Staff see that as a disadvantage? And maybe I'll just 15 ask a related question and you can talk about the issue in its totality. I can 16 definitely see an argument that the 15 years is too short, but there are other 17 options besides unlimited duration.
18 My understanding, though, is that Staff didn't really analyze 20-19 year, or 30-year, or 40-year terms. I could see a 40-year term striking a 20 balance between the current 15-year term and the Staff's concept of an 21 unlimited term, and that would also match the Staff proposal of 40 years for a 22 manufacturing license term.
23 So, I'm interested in your thoughts about whether a 40-year term 24 has any merits?
25
99 MR. TABATABAI: Yes, actually I would say that the Staff did 1
and did not consider different duration for design certification. We did not look 2
at 20 or 30 or 40 years but the question that we asked ourselves was it worth 3
extending or just eliminating?
4 And we looked at our experience from AP-600 renewal, ABWR 5
renewal, and we realized that it really doesn't matter how long the duration is if 6
nobody is going to reference the design certification.
7 So, there is no actual experienced licensing facility that 8
references the design. So, from that perspective, it makes sense that we keep 9
it open as when somebody comes in to reference those designs, then you can 10 look at if there are changes, if there are errors in them, if there are updates that 11 have to be done.
12 Otherwise, AP-600 and ABWR was just extra burden on the 13 Applicants and the Staff and there is still no other Applicants referencing those.
14 MR. TAYLOR: Commissioner, just to add on Omid's response 15 which was really good, if the Commission wants to put a longer term on it, the 16 Staff would be supportive of that of course.
17 The key is there's a number of certified designs in the 18 appendices that I'm not sure will ever be built.
19 We know nobody wants to build an ABWR in the United States 20 or any ESBWR at this point in the United States. So, we can go through 21 certifications or renewals on any periodicity and address those issues but if 22 there's no plan to build it, have you enhanced safety for the public at that point?
23 So, I think it's a good question, we can do it on a frequency 24 defined by the Commission but we also have to question the effective use of 25
100 our resources and those licensees' resources as well.
1 COMMISSIONER BARAN: I guess the challenge there is 2
striking the balance on readiness because we don't really know who might 3
come through the door at any time on a certified design and if we haven't done 4
any of the work to make sure the design is where it needs to be, then it does 5
create additional work on the COLs or whatever the vehicle is that comes in.
6 Well, we're dealing with about 60 issues, or 59, but I'll leave it 7
there so we can wrap up. I'll just say that I think this rule, the draft proposed 8
rule, includes some very important safety enhancements.
9 It also includes a lot of lessons learned as we've talked about 10 today that we didn't get to talk about on operator licensing, simulators, fitness 11 for duty, change processes.
12 It's almost like a walk through memory lane of the issues that 13 were encountered and resolved on the AP-1000 sites or with the NuScale 14 design.
15 And I think a lot of those things make a lot of sense and are the 16 kinds of updates that are going to improve the use of Parts 50 and 52 for future 17 Applicants, these near-term Applicants that we have now or will have soon.
18 Thanks.
19 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Baran, and thanks 20 to all of our panelists, both external and internal this morning. I think we 21 covered a wide breadth of issues as we often do and we also I think in this case 22 ranged from the very high level also to the very detailed. And I found it very 23 illuminating.
24 As we move forward, whether with Part 53 or harmonizing 25
101 appropriately Part 50 or 52, I hope the Staff stays in close communication with 1
the Commission about -- in addition to the review and policy decisions that you 2
might need from us about any one of those specific proposals - but also about 3
some of the policy statements that are out there that are being incorporated in 4
these, and if there are other kinds of revisitations or whatever that may be 5
needed to enable these kinds of forward-looking regulatory infrastructure that 6
we're trying to build here that I hope you all will be willing to engage us, identify 7
and elevate early and often.
8 With that, we're adjourned, thank you all.
9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 10 12:02 p.m.)
11