ML18213A269
| ML18213A269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/01/2018 |
| From: | Margaret Doane NRC/EDO |
| To: | |
| Carrera, Andrew 301-415-1078 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18213A264 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-2015-225, RIN 3150-AJ68 | |
| Download: ML18213A269 (7) | |
Text
This draft document is being released to support the August 22, 2018 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Sub-Committee public meeting. This draft document has not been subject to Commission, NRC management, and legal reviews and approvals, and its contents should not be interpreted as official agency positions. Following the public meeting, the NRC staff plans to continue working on this document as well as other documents related to this rulemaking, and subsequently provide the documents to the Commission for approval in late 2018.
FOR:
The Commissioners FROM:
Margaret M. Doane Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED RULE: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FOR SMALL MODULAR REACTORS AND OTHER NEW TECHNOLOGIES (RIN 3150-AJ68)
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this paper is to obtain Commission approval to publish in the Federal Register the enclosed notice of a proposed rule (Enclosure 1) and draft guidance related to amended regulations for emergency preparedness (EP) for small modular reactors (SMRs) and other new technologies (ONTs).
SUMMARY
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is proposing to amend regulations that would specify new alternative EP requirements for SMRs and ONTs. The new EP requirements and implementing guidance would acknowledge technological advancements and other differences from large light-water reactors (LWRs) inherent in SMRs and ONTs, such as non-light water reactors and certain non-power production or utilization facilities (NPUFs).
Concurrently, the NRC also proposes to issue for public comment draft regulatory guide DG-1350, Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies. The NRC staff plans to hold a public meeting to promote full understanding of the proposed rule and guidance to facilitate public comments.
CONTACTS: Andrew Carrera, NMSS/DRM 301-415-1078 Kenneth Thomas, NSIR/DPR 301-287-9252 Arlon Costa, NRO/DSRA 301-415-6402
The Commissioners The proposed rule would be technology inclusive and would be applicable to all future SMR and ONT facilities to be licensed after the effective date of the final rule. This proposed rule does not include within its scope emergency planning, preparation, and response for large LWRs, which for the purposes of this rule are those LWRs that are licensed to produce greater than 1,000 megawatts thermal (MWt) power, fuel cycle facilities,1 or currently operating non-power reactors.
BACKGROUND:
Concurrent with large LWR deployment and design evolution, the United States and other countries have developed and promoted several different reactor designs that are either light-water SMRs or reactors that do not use light-water as a coolant or a moderator. This latter category is commonly referred to as non-LWR technology. Advanced designs using non-LWR technology include liquid metal-cooled reactors, gas-cooled reactors, and molten-salt-cooled reactors. These advanced designs range from small to large in power size and may apply modular construction concepts.
In SECY-15-0077, Options for Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies, dated May 29, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15037A176), the staff sought Commission approval to initiate rulemaking for EP for SMRs and ONTs to provide for regulatory stability, predictability, and clarity in the licensing process. The paper stated the following:
The NRC technical staff will rigorously review design and licensing information to ensure that the information applicants provide on the offsite dose consequences is commensurate with the requested EPZ size and that the applicable requirements ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, and the environment.
Subsequently, the Commission issued Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)-SECY-15-0077, Options for Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies, dated August 4, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15216A492), in which the Commission approved the NRC staffs recommendation to conduct rulemaking to address EP for SMRs and ONTs, and requested that the staff provide a plan and schedule for this rulemaking.
In response to SRM-SECY-15-0077, on May 31, 2016, the NRC staff issued SECY-16-0069, Rulemaking Plan on Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies (ADAMS Accession No. ML16020A388), proposing a rulemaking plan to address EP for SMRs and ONTs. In SECY-16-0069, the staff introduced the rulemaking plan and provided a proposed rulemaking schedule, outlining the need to develop EP requirements for SMRs and ONTs, commensurate with the potential consequences to public health and safety posed by these facilities. On June 22, 2016, the Commission approved the staffs proposed rulemaking plan and schedule in SRM-SECY-16-0069 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16174A166).
On August 22, 2016, the NRC held a Category 3 public meeting to request feedback from interested stakeholders on a potential performance-based approach the NRC was considering for the EP for SMRs and ONTs rulemaking. Most meeting participants supported a performance-based approach to EP, indicating that it would be more effective because it would 1 Emergency planning requirements for facilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 70 are set forth in § 70.22(i).
The Commissioners focus on achieving desired outcomes. Participants also favored the performance-based approach as one that would allow for innovation and flexibility in addressing the EP requirements. The potential need for an entire new suite of guidance documents, including the change process, was the only disadvantage identified by participants as it would require additional up-front work to reflect the new approach. The meeting summary details the results of this public meeting (ADAMS Accession No. ML16257A510). After considering the feedback received from the stakeholders, the NRC staff developed a draft regulatory basis to support a rulemaking that included a performance-based approach to EP.
On April 13, 2017, the NRC issued a draft regulatory basis, Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies, for a 75-day public comment period
[Volume 82 of the Federal Register, page 17768 (82 FR 17768)]. Additionally, the NRC staff developed a preliminary regulatory analysis that was included in the draft regulatory basis. In the draft regulatory basis and the associated regulatory analysis, the NRC requested feedback from the public on topics related to the: scope of the draft regulatory basis, performance-based approach, regulatory impacts, and cumulative effects of regulation. In addition, the NRC held a public meeting on May 10, 2017, to facilitate the development of public comments on the draft regulatory basis and issued a summary of the meeting on May 24, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17139C860).
The NRC received 57 comment submissions on the draft regulatory basis and the associated regulatory analysis, which contained 223 individual comments related to EP. The commenters included individuals, environmental groups, industry groups, a Native American Tribal organization, States, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The NRC staff reviewed all comments submitted on the draft regulatory basis, grouped the comments into categories by comment topic, and developed a resolution for each topic. The most notable comments that were received include topics such as: consequence-based approach, collocation, dose assessment, emergency planning zone (EPZ) and offsite EP, general rulemaking approach, siting of multi-module facilities, performance-based approach, regulatory analysis, scope of the draft regulatory basis, safety, and technology-inclusive approach. The NRC staff considered, but did not respond to, all public comments during the development of the regulatory basis and the associated regulatory analysis. The NRC staff published a Federal Register notice announcing the public availability of the regulatory basis on November 15, 2017 (82 FR 52862). The NRC staff used the regulatory basis and the associated regulatory analysis to inform the development of the enclosed proposed rule.
Within this proposed rule, the NRC staff uses the term ONTs to refer to non-LWRs to be licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 or 52, and medical radioisotope facilities to be licensed under 10 CFR Part 50. This proposed rule would also define non-power production or utilization facility to clarify its usage in the applicability of the proposed performance-based EP framework. As used in this proposed rule, the term non-power production or utilization facility would be defined to have the same meaning as the definition used in the NRCs proposed rule,
Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal (82 FR 15643). The definition would include non-power reactors and other production or utilization facilities licensed under 10 CFR 50.21, Class 104 licenses; for medical therapy and research and development facilities, or 10 CFR 50.22, Class 103 licenses; for commercial and industrial facilities, that are not nuclear power reactors or fuel reprocessing plants.
The Commissioners DISCUSSION:
Overview of Proposed Changes to Emergency Preparedness Regulations Current EP requirements and guidance, initially developed for large LWRs and non-power reactors, do not address advances in designs and safety research and their applications to future operation of SMRs and ONTs. Through this rulemaking, the NRC staff proposes to amend regulations and develop implementing guidance to create an alternative EP framework for SMRs and ONTs. The new EP requirements and implementing guidance adopt a consequence-oriented, risk-informed, performance-based, and technology-inclusive approach.
The NRC staffs objective for this rulemaking is to create a set of EP requirements that would:
(1) continue to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and would be implemented by an SMR or ONT licensee; (2) promote regulatory stability, predictability, and clarity; (3) reduce requests for exemptions from EP requirements; (4) recognize technology advancements embedded in design features; (5) credit safety enhancements in evolutionary and passive systems; and, (6) credit smaller-sized reactors and non-LWRs potential benefits associated with postulated accidents, including slower transient response times, and relatively small and slow release of fission products. This rule and guidance would be applicable to future SMR and ONT facilities to be licensed after the effective date of the final rule. These applicants and licensees would have the option to develop a performance-based EP program, rather than using the existing, deterministic, EP requirements in 10 CFR Part 50.
This proposed rule includes the following major provisions:
A new alternative performance-based EP framework, including requirements for demonstrating effective response in drills and exercises for emergency and accident conditions.
A hazard analysis of any NRC-licensed or non-licensed facility located contiguous to an SMR or ONT that considers any hazard that would adversely impact the implementation of emergency plans.
A scalable approach for determining the size of the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone.
A requirement for licensees to describe ingestion response planning in the emergency plan, including the capabilities and resources available to prevent contaminated food and water from entering the ingestion pathway.
Generally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ for nuclear power reactors consists of an area about 10 miles in radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ (IPZ) for such facilities consists of an area about 50 miles in radius. As discussed in the Background section of the enclosed proposed rule (Enclosure 1), in the early 2000s, the NRC anticipated that future SMR and ONT applications would reflect a wide range of potential designs that have smaller source terms and incorporate EP considerations as part of the design. In addition, the Commission Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced Reactors (73 FR 60612) stated that the Commission expects that advanced reactors will provide enhanced margins of safety and/or use simplified, inherent, passive, or other innovative means to accomplish their safety and security functions. Under the current EP framework, the size of plume exposure pathway EPZs and IPZs for SMRs and ONTs featuring different designs, smaller source terms, and enhanced margins of safety (as compared to current large LWRs) can be determined on a case-by-case
The Commissioners basis. In addition, Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, provides the flexibility to determine other emergency planning considerations, such as organization, assessment actions, activation of emergency organization, emergency facilities, and equipment, on a case-by-case basis for certain facilities. The NRC initiated this rulemaking to seek a wide-range of public views and increase regulatory predictability and flexibility in the development of an optional, generic approach that designers, vendors, and applicants may use to determine the appropriate EP requirements for SMRs and ONTs, for which emergency planning may otherwise be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Large LWRs were not included by the NRC in the scope of this proposed rule because an EP licensing framework already exists for those reactors, and licensees for those plants have not presented a clear interest in changing that framework.
As described in SECY-16-0069, the staff used lessons learned from the ongoing Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning and the Non-power Production or Utilization Facility (NPUF) License Renewal rulemakings, and coordination of the Tennessee Valley Authority early site permit review to inform the development of this proposed rule. As such, the staff will continue to assess and coordinate this rulemaking effort with those activities moving forward. The staff will also continue interactions with the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee to discuss issues of mutual interest to the NRC, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and other government organizations.
Regulatory Analysis The NRC staff prepared a draft regulatory analysis (Enclosure 2) to determine anticipated costs and benefits of this proposed rule. In particular, the draft regulatory analysis evaluates the costs and benefits associated with new requirements and the development of, or modifications to, NRC guidance and shows that the NRC staffs recommendation for rulemaking and guidance development for EP for SMRs and ONTs is overall cost beneficial to the industry, Government, and society. The conclusion from the analysis is that this proposed rule alternative and associated guidance would result in net averted costs to the industry and the NRC ranging from
$5.65 million using a 7-percent discount rate to $13.0 million using a 3-percent discount rate.
Cumulative Effects of Regulation The NRC staff is following the process to consider the cumulative effects of regulations by engaging with external stakeholders throughout the development of this proposed rule and related regulatory activities. The NRC staff published the draft regulatory basis in the Federal Register (82 FR 17768, April 13, 2017), and sought public comment on specific questions and issues with respect to possible revisions to the NRCs requirements. In addition, the NRC staff held a public meeting on May 10, 2017, to facilitate public comments on the development of the final regulatory basis and regulatory analysis.
The NRC staff will issue the draft implementing guidance with the proposed rule and draft regulatory analysis to support more informed external stakeholder feedback. Further, the NRC staff will continue to hold public meetings throughout the rulemaking process. During the development of the final rule, the NRC also plans to conduct a public meeting to better understand and clarify the cumulative effects of the new EP requirements.
The Commissioners Implementing Guidance The NRC staff will publish the following draft guidance document (Enclosure 3) for public comment in conjunction with the proposed rule:
Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1350, Performance-Based Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors, Non-Light-water Reactors, and Non-Power Production or Utilization Facilities (ADAMS Accession No. ML18082A044).
The draft guidance document is intended for use by licensees, applicants, and the NRC staff. It describes optional approaches and methods acceptable for implementing the requirements in 10 CFR 50.160, Emergency preparedness for small modular reactors, non-light water reactors, and non-power production or utilization facilities. As a guidance document, DG-1350 does not establish additional requirements, and licensees are free to propose alternative ways for demonstrating compliance with the regulations.
Backfitting and Issue Finality Considerations This proposed rule would not be subject to the NRCs backfitting regulation at 10 CFR 50.109, Backfitting, or issue finality regulations in 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants. This proposed rule would contain alternative requirements for EP for SMR and ONT applicants and licensees. As alternatives, these requirements would not be imposed upon applicants and licensees and would not prohibit applicants and licensees from following existing requirements. Further, the NRC staff expects that this proposed rule would be in effect before any operating licenses under 10 CFR Part 50 or combined licenses under 10 CFR Part 52 would be granted for SMR or ONT applicants. For these reasons, the proposed requirements would not constitute backfitting or a violation of issue finality.
RESOURCES:
This rulemaking is designated as a medium-priority rulemaking with Commission direction, in accordance with the Common Prioritization of Rulemaking. The New Reactors Business Line includes resources for the proposed rule for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. The NRC staff will address resources beyond fiscal year 2019, if needed, through the planning, budget, and performance management process and will prioritize these activities in a manner consistent with the current Common Prioritization of Rulemaking process and other priorities in the New Reactors Business Line.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The NRC staff recommends that the Commission approve the enclosed proposed rule (Enclosure 1) for publication in the Federal Register.
The following six activities are related to the publication of the proposed rule:
(1)
Upon Commission approval, the NRC will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for a 75-day public comment period.
(2)
This proposed rule contains revised information-collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq.). The NRC staff will
The Commissioners submit information collection requirements to the Office of Management and Budget for its review and approval on or immediately after the date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register.
(3)
The NRC staff has prepared a draft environmental assessment and determined a proposed finding of no significant impact (Enclosure 4).
(4)
The Office of Congressional Affairs will keep the appropriate congressional committees informed.
(5)
The Office of Public Affairs will issue a press release when the NRC publishes the proposed rule in the Federal Register.
(6)
The NRC staff will hold a public meeting during the comment period for this proposed rule.
COORDINATION:
The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to the publication of the proposed rule related to EP for SMRs and ONTs. The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objections. The NRC staff will provide an information copy of the Federal Register notice to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards after publication.
Margaret M. Doane Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. Federal Register Notice
- 2. Draft Regulatory Analysis
- 3. Draft Regulatory Guidance
- 4. Draft Environmental Assessment