ML18303A102
| ML18303A102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/22/2018 |
| From: | NRC/NRO/DLSE, Neal R. Gross & Co. |
| To: | |
| Notich M | |
| References | |
| NRC-3941 | |
| Download: ML18303A102 (55) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Risk-informed Updates to Selected SRP Chapter 2 Sections Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
Monday, October 22, 2018 Work Order No.:
NRC-3941 Pages 1-53 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
RISK-INFORMED UPDATES TO SELECTED SRP CHAPTER 2 SECTIONS
+ + + + +
PUBLIC MEETING
+ + + + +
MONDAY OCTOBER 22, 2018
+ + + + +
The Public Meeting convened in the TWFN Auditorium, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, at 9:00 a.m, Daniel Mussatti, facilitating.
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 NRC STAFF PRESENT DANIEL MUSSATTI, Facilitator FREDERICK BROWN, Director, Office of New Reactors ANDREW C. CAMPBELL, Division of Licensing, Siting and Environmental Analysis, Office of New Reactors MICHAEL LEE, Division of Licensing, Siting and Environmental Analysis, Office of New Reactors MICHAEL D. MAZAIKA, Division of Licensing, Siting and Environmental Analysis, Office of New Reactors JENISE-MARIE THOMPSON, Division of Licensing, Siting and Environmental Analysis, Office of New Reactors
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 C O N T E N T S Daniel Mussatti, Facilitator, Opening Remarks and Explanation of Procedures,.............3 Fred Brown, Director, Introduction of Standard Review Plan...............................6 Andy Campbell, Review Scope for Changes of Plan for all External Hazards..................11 Mike Lee, Examination of Flood and Seismic Events, Standard Review Plan Section 2.4.......................................16 Jenise-Marie Thompson, Service Deformation, Standard Review Plan Section 2.5.3.....................................28 Mike Mazaika, Onsite Meteorological Monitoring, Standard Review Plan Section 2.3.3.....................................33 Andy Campbell, Closing Remarks, a Recap and the Path Forward........................40 Public Comment....................................45 Meeting Adjourn...................................53
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
9:04 a.m.
2 MR. MUSSATTI: Okay. This is a small 3
crowd. So I don't need quite as many notes as I 4
thought I did.
5 I'm Dan Mussatti. I'm with the NRC's 6
Facilitator Corps. I'm going to be trying to help 7
you today to make sure that this meeting is timely.
8 And that the information goes back and forth in an 9
easy manner.
10 We're going to take a break somewhere 11 around ten o'clock for a few minutes. It's a short 12 break. So, if you're going to go up to the -- try 13 and get a cup of coffee or something like that, please 14 try to come back on time as fast as you can.
15 And we're going to try to start on time 16 so that we can get through all of this. The prob --
17 what we're trying to do is have the meeting broken 18 into two pieces.
19 The first part is going to be the 20 presentations from the NRC Staff. And after that, 21 we're going to have an opportunity for the public and 22 all the people that are sitting here in the room to 23 ask questions.
24 We did not plan on having these questions 25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 and comments responded to by the staff at the time.
1 If it's a short little yes or no kind of an answer, 2
then yeah, we'll probably do that.
3 But, we're in an information gathering 4
mode today. So, we're probably going to be 5
responding through what our reactions to your 6
comments on the actual changes to the -- to the reg, 7
or to the NUREG.
8 We have a court reporter in the back of 9
the room who's going to transcribe this today for us.
10 So, when you do speak, I'd ask you to line up behind 11 the microphones.
12 And when I call on you to speak, start 13 with your name and your affiliation. And then speak 14 clearly and slowly so that we get a real good 15 transcription here.
16 Also, what you say may not be what you 17 thought you were trying to say. Or what we hear may 18 not be what you're trying to tell us.
19 So, it's a good idea for you to follow up 20 any comments that you have in -- that are verbal here, 21 with something in writing. So that we make sure that 22 we've got as accurate assessment of what it is that 23 you're to say as possible.
24 There's an email website that is 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 available to you that's in the paperwork that's been 1
handed out. And it will be in one of the, I think, 2
in one of the final slides will have that in it as 3
well.
4 Feel free to send us your comments, 5
additional comments, and a transcription of whatever 6
it is you were trying to say here, if at all possible.
7 Other then that, I don't think I need to 8
go into a whole bunch of rules about, you know, one 9
at a time and all that. You've been through all of 10 this stuff before. And we know how to have decorum 11 in our forum.
12 So, what I'd like to do now is I would 13 like to introduce Fred Brown, who is the Office 14 Director here. And let him take over. The switch 15 is on the bottom.
16 MR. BROWN: Well, thank you. And good 17 morning to those in the room, largely staff. And 18 hopefully on the line. And hopefully we will be 19 Skyping here before too long.
20 Thank you for coming. This is actually 21 a pretty important topic. The Standard Review Plan 22 is really at the heart of what we do as an agency in 23 licensing.
24 It's important to our applicants because 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 it lays out the expectation for a submittal.
1 Particularly, or specifically in this case, for an 2
operating reactor.
3 And so the amount of work, the analysis, 4
the documentation that's specified in the SRP, can 5
drive actions on the part of an applicant.
6 It's important to the Staff because it's 7
what we use to ensure that we've thought of the things 8
that we need to think about. And that we're making 9
the findings we need to make.
10 And it's -- the Standard Review Plan is 11 also important for adjudicatory and legal purposes.
12 To define the structure of the analysis that the Staff 13 has planned and has taken in order to perform a 14 review.
15 The Standard Review Plan goes back quite 16 a ways into NRC history. And if you look at the 17 document over the years, you will notice that it has 18 grown significantly.
19 While the regulations themselves haven't 20 changed that much, there's been a tremendous amount 21 of operating experience.
And that operating 22 experience is primarily associated with the large 23 light water reactors that we've licensed over the 24 years and we've now got 40 or more years of operating 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 experience with.
1 And so the Standard Review Plan, which 2
started out identifying what the regulatory 3
requirements were, and then the findings against 4
those requirements, has served as a knowledge 5
management tool for the technical Staff to remember 6
and to think about things that have happened with the 7
operating fleet.
8 Now, as we find ourselves no longer 9
generally reviewing large light water reactors with 10 active safety system, rather what we're reviewing 11 more of now, are passive safety features and small 12 modular reactors or System 3 -- Generation 3 pluses, 13 it's been referred -- they've been referred to.
14 And as we start to think about non-light 15 water reactor reviews, we have the opportunity to go 16 back and revise the Standard Review Plan to get back 17 to the basic fundamental question of what is it that 18 an applicant has to demonstrate?
19 What does the Staff have to have findings 20 on? And how can we focus both the application itself 21 and our review on the things that are most applicable 22 and most safety significant for the new designs that 23 we're being asked to review.
24 And so it's kind of interesting, the 25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 leadership of the agency has been thinking along the 1
lines of the importance of revising the Standard 2
Review Plan.
And organically within the 3
organization, some of the Staff and branches have 4
been doing the same things.
5 So, what we're going to talk about today 6
are some sections of the Standard Review Plan where 7
we've had a convergence of interest and thought. And 8
that convergence is timely, and it's leading to what 9
we're calling a pilot.
10 But, it also is a little less then perfect 11 in the presentation. So, there is a regular ongoing 12 SRP update process.
13 And this year the folks that will be 14 talking this morning about the chapters that we're 15 going to talk about, were scheduled to revise their 16 sections.
17 And had started to approach those 18 revisions from a how do we focus this on the level of 19 effort ought to be commensurate with the safety 20 significance.
21 The unfortunate -- and I mean, that's 22 obviously good. And it's consistent with a broader 23 look at the Standard Review Plan to achieve that same 24 outcome.
25
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The slightly unfortunate thing is that in 1
an ideal world we would have started with an entire 2
chapter or a subchapter 2.4, rather then 2.4-3 for 3
instance. And so the Staff will -- today will talk 4
about how what we published in the Federal Register 5
Notice should be read in the context of a slightly 6
broader change.
7 But if you take the time to listen to 8
that and understand, I think that what's going to be 9
described is a very positive approach to having 10 applicants focus on what's most important for their 11 site. And for the Staff to focus its efforts on 12 what's most important for those sites.
13 In addition, the structure, the format 14 and structure that we publish really is more 15 consistent with what we've historically done in the 16 SRP. And so that's -- that's the other area that 17 we're really interested in public comment.
18 Both in this meeting and then in written 19 comments for our Federal Register Notice solicitation 20 for input on structurally, how can we redo the 21 Standard Review Plan in a way that it both focuses 22 the effort of the applicant. And focuses the effort 23 of the Staff on the findings required for the 24 Regulation.
25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So I think conceptually what you're going 1
to hear today is a really good first effort to focus 2
the Standard Review Plan content. And an openness 3
to engage on how we can go beyond just structuring 4
the content too actually structuring the process and 5
the document, the SRP itself.
6 So we look forward to active engagement 7
and participation. Hopefully we'll have Skype up 8
here.
9 But, I would now like to turn the mic 10 over to Dr. Andy Campbell. Who will get into more 11 of the details.
12 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you Fred. So, I'm 13 Andy Campbell. I'm the Deputy Director of the 14 Division of Licensing, Siting, and Environmental 15 Analysis here at the NRC.
16 And my area of responsibility includes 17 all external hazards. We have an external hazards 18 center of expertise. And within that flooding, 19 seismic, other sorts of external hazards are covered, 20 both natural as well as man made.
21 So the review scope -- so today's 22 meeting, the review scope for the proposed changes of 23 four Standard Review Plan sections. So, we're going 24 to cover those four.
25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The scope of the proposed changes 1
summarized in the Federal Register Notice includes 2
hydrology and meteorology, which was Federal Register 3
49132, or 83 49132, surface affirmation 83 FR 41939.
4 So Chapter 2.4 was selected as a test 5
case for risk informed performance-based revisions.
6 To focus our efforts on what we're going to be calling 7
consequential events, and consequential floods.
8 So, recent application of NUREG-0800, 9
which is the Standard Review Plan, as you heard, 10 includes early site permit and combined operating 11 license reviews. We've completed to date, with 12 complete licensing, we did reviews at other sites.
13 But, some withdrew and some are still suspended.
14 But five early site permits have been 15 issued. And eight combined operating licenses have 16 been issued. So, that's a significant database of 17 work in these areas.
18 We've also, since 2012 been reviewing 50 19
-- what's called a 50.54(f) letter response, an 20 information request following the Fukushima Daiichi 21 nuclear power plant accident where both an 22 earthquake, but more importantly a tsunami caused a 23 total station blackout. And resulted in meltdowns 24 of three reactors.
25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So, that review encompassed both seismic 1
and flooding reevaluations of about 60 reactor sites.
2 So there's this large database of work in the external 3
hazards area in terms of impacts.
4 Staff identified opportunities for 5
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of NRC's 6
regulatory review process. There are lessons learned 7
from this extensive set of licensing actions and 8
reviews.
9 There's large indication from that of 10 where we can do a more risk informed performance-11 based approach in terms of the principals. And 12 there's really a more focused set of review criteria 13 when you're doing a flooding and/or seismic analysis.
14 And today 2.4 is talking about flooding.
15 So, the purpose of this meeting is to 16 begin a dialog with stakeholders. We're in listening 17 mode.
18 We want to get your comments on the 19 general approach to the Standard Review Plan updates, 20 which Fred talked about, and you'll be hearing about 21 as we go through the presentations. We want your 22 feedback on proposed risk informed performance-based 23 revisions to Chapter 2.4.
24 And we also want recommendations on how 25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 risk informed performance-based approaches can be 1
expanded to other SRP chapters and sections. And 2
we're seeking recommendations on modifications to the 3
Standard Review Plan format itself.
4 We will also be discussing potential 5
future SRP updates to Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 in 6
the coming calendar years of 2019 and 2020.
7 So the staff that -- on the update team, 8
I'll just -- you can see the slide. Or if you can't, 9
it's Hosung Ahn -- Dr. Hosung Ahn, Dr. Stephanie 10 Devlin-Gill, Joe Giacinto, Dr. Mike Lee, Dr. Nebiyu 11 Tiruneh, Brad Harvey, Mike Mazaika, Laurel Bauer on 12 geology, Gary Stirewalt -- Dr. Gary Stirewalt, Jenise 13 Thompson on geology, and project management is 14 Hoellman, Notich, and Rankin.
15 And with that I'm going to get -- start 16 with hydrology, Chapter 2.4 updates. These are the 17 tsunami hazards and channel migration. That's going 18 to be Dr. Mike Lee.
19 Surface deformation updates, which is SRP 20 Section 2.5.3 is Jenise Thompson. And onsite 21 meteorological monitoring program update is Section 22 2.3.3. And that's going to be Mike Mazaika.
23 And with that, I'm going to turn it back 24 to Dan. And let Dr. Lee begin his presentation.
25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. MUSSATTI: Okay. Before we start 1
the presentation, I've got a little housekeeping work 2
here that needs to be done.
3 We have found out that we have some 4
technical difficulties in trying to get the webinar 5
to connect. And we know that there are some people 6
that are online listening on the phones that have 7
been trying to figure out what's going on.
8 We don't think we're going to be able to 9
get the webinar to actually fire off. But, if you're 10 listening on the phone and you can follow along with 11 the slides, you're more then welcome to do that.
12 And we will see what we can do about 13 trying to take your questions later on if you have 14 them. To get the slides, if you would go to the 15 NRC.gov home page, there's a calendar right there on 16 the front page, right in the middle that has today 17 highlighted.
18 If you click on that, it will give you 19 this webinar and this morning's meeting as a meeting 20 for the day. And towards the bottom of that you will 21 be able to see the Adams number for the slides.
22 If you want the Adams number for the 23 slides right now, grab a pencil. And I can give you 24 that number so you don't have to go to the web -- to 25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 our web page to get it.
1 The ascension number under Adams is 2
ML18292A592. One more time I'll say that number for 3
you. It's ML18292A592.
4 And we'll try to work on this, like I 5
said, to be able to get your questions today. If 6
not, please mail in your questions or your comments 7
to the information that's -- the address that's on 8
that announcement.
9 And we will include that in our work in 10 the future. Thank you.
11 MR. CAMPBELL: So, I'm going to introduce 12 Dr. Mike Lee, who's going to talk about the 2.4 13 section tsunami hazards and channel migration. Dr.
14 Lee.
15 MR. LEE: Thank you Andy. For those that 16 are participating remotely, I'm going to turn to slide 17 one.
18 And what I -- we've done here is just 19 kind of show graphically or in cartoon form the points 20 that Andy's pointed out or acknowledged earlier, that 21 the SRP update process kind of benefitted from some 22 lessons learned. First with the ESP and COLA reviews 23 that were done over the last decade or so and more 24 recently.
25
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 We've been working with our licensees in 1
the context of the 50.54(f) review to examine the --
2 to reexamine the design basis for flood hazard reeval 3
-- floods and seismic events.
4 So, if we can turn to slide two. And 5
parochially now we'll just turn directly to flooding.
6 In the context of the flood hazard 7
reevaluations and based on what the Standard Review 8
Plan tells us to do in Chapter 2.4, we more or less 9
looked at eight flood causing mechanisms. Which are 10 laid out here for you.
11 And for the benefit of the folks on the 12 phone, I'll just read them briefly. We have local 13 intense precipitation. Which is basically a rainfall 14 event that occurs over the footprint of the power 15 plant.
16 We have flooding on streams and rivers, 17 which maybe adjacent to a particular power plant site.
18 We're concerned of course with dam failures and onsite 19 water control structures.
20 You may have a breach of a dam upstream 21 that leads to kind of a transient flood event that 22 migrates downstream. Or you could have a flood --
23 you could have a dam breach if you will, for a cooling 24 system, a water storage system that's onsite.
25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Storm surge applies to those sites which 1
are located predominantly in marine settings along 2
the coast. Seesh (phonetic) is a -- more or less an 3
atmospherical phenomena that occurs when a -- when 4
you have resident vibration of the water surface on 5
very large bodies of water like the Great Lakes.
6 Tsunami of course is an event that we're 7
all very interested in. That occurs again, in 8
reference to a marine setting.
9 You may have ice induced flooding due to 10 some ice jam upstream or an ice dam downstream of a 11 nuclear power plant that's adjacent to a river.
12 Creating backwater event -- effects and the potential 13 for flooding.
14 And lastly, we're always interested in 15 channel migrations or diversions. Particularly in 16 reactor sites that are in what you might consider to 17 be a dynamic environment in terms of riverine 18 processes.
19 So if we could turn to slide three.
20 Okay.
So, having done these evaluations 21 collectively, we began to see a few things.
22 We found for example that not all sites 23 were subject to the same -- to all flood causing 24 mechanisms.
25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And in particular we found that only a 1
few flood causing mechanisms were actually found to 2
be consequential in terms of defining the design basis 3
or challenging if you will, a design basis in terms 4
of water surface elevations.
5 So, we found for example that LIP and 6
associated drainage were practically at all power 7
plant sites. Flooding from streams and rivers, 8
hypothetical failure of dams and other onsite water 9
structures were also challenging some design 10 assumptions, as well as storm surge.
11 So, turning to slide four. We also found 12 that most flood causing mechanisms were not discrete 13 events.
14 They usually occur in combination with 15 other site -- some other type of flood causing 16 mechanism.
17 For example, you may have a heavy 18 precipitation event that occurs over a
large 19 watershed, and that may have an impact both on the 20 water surface elevation in some contiguous river or 21 stream. But it also may begin to challenge a water 22 storage structure such as a dam upstream from a site.
23 And that being said, we also found that 24 associated effects were important. You know, water 25
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 surface elevation increases lead to other 1
consequences like collection of
- sediment, 2
hydrodynamic or hydrostatic loads can change, things 3
like that are important for evaluation in the context 4
of a reactor design.
5 We also learned that some flood causing 6
mechanisms, I mean, it's not really a surprise, but 7
are controlled by topography, geography, and/or 8
climatic setting.
9 Not all sites are subject to the same 10 flood causing mechanisms. A site out in the desert 11 may not have trouble with a tsunami or ice dams or 12 ice jams as opposed to inland sites, which typically 13 aren't affected by storm surge or tsunamis.
14 So, we found basically that the hazard 15 you might argue can be discretely defined in terms of 16 a marine or coastal setting. Or a different suite 17 of hazards for continental and inland locations.
18 And lastly, one of the other insights on 19 slide six is that not all flood causing mechanisms 20 are equal in terms of occurrence and consequence.
21 The magnitude of the event can change 22 depending on the type of flood causing mechanism, the 23 intensity, the duration, and the location. All of 24 these things we found were important in reviewing 25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 design basis at the operating -- within the operating 1
fleet.
2 So, having reflected on what we've 3
learned from both the ESP and the COLA reviews, as 4
well as the 50.54(f) reviews, we can reach some 5
general conclusions. And those are -- I began to 6
address in slide six.
7 Not all flood causing mechanisms are 8
equal in time and space. A rainfall event, for 9
example, that you might associate with a tropical 10 storm, is going to be a lot different from the 11 rainfall event that you might associate with the 12 synoptic storm that originates on the continent.
13 So you have a situation where the 14 locations around the power block may be different in 15 terms of flood events. The magnitude, intensity of 16 duration is also not usually uniform across the power 17 block. And the associated effects that I discussed 18 earlier can also vary.
19 And so what we find though, is we began 20 to see that we could distinguish between what you 21 might consider to be a consequential flood in terms 22 of defining the design basis, or challenging the 23 design
- basis, versus a
flood that was 24 inconsequential, that had not material affect on the 25
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 design basis.
1 And more in our view the 2
inconsequential floods do not contribute to defining 3
the design basis. They're just not important if they 4
don't provide us with any design challenges.
5 So, turning to slide seven, and thinking 6
about what we might do in context of revising or 7
updating the Standard Review Plan, particularly for 8
Chapter 2.4, this leaves the Staff's judgement at 9
this time that the definition of a consequential flood 10 should be the focus of the review.
11 It always has been if you think about it.
12 We're always interested in what the design basis flood 13 elevation is for a
particular flood causing 14 mechanism.
15 So, what we're proposing now is in terms 16 of revisions to Chapter 2.4. That we rely on a 17 hierarchical or graded screening approach to 18 identifying consequential flood causing mechanisms.
19 And for those flood causing mechanisms 20 that are found to be consequential to defining the 21 design basis, we believe that the Staff should focus 22 its review on inundation maps that identify the 23 location, magnitude, intensity, and duration of 24 flooding.
25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 These are the things that were key in our 1
50.54(f) and ESP and COLA reviews. And that you also 2
-- the Staff would also be examining the description 3
of associated flooding effects in the context of any 4
consequential flood causing mechanism.
5 So, if we can turn to slide eight, please.
6 So, for the flood causing mechanisms found to be 7
inconsequential, this is one of the key revisions 8
we're proposing to how we address these issues in the 9
context of the Standard Review Plan, that the safety 10 evaluation report in whatever section in 2.4, would 11 be limited to a single statement that the flood 12 causing mechanism in question was found not to be 13 applicable at the site.
14 And there would be some technical 15 justification. But we don't think we needed an 16 encyclopedic evaluation anymore, if I can use that 17 term.
18 That the slightly longer technical 19 explanation for why a flood causing mechanism might 20 be inconsequential, would be in Chapter 2.4.1. Which 21 is the hydrologic summary chapter that appears at the 22 front end of Chapter 2.4.
23 And then the Staff would look to that 24 summary description, supported by some technical 25
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 rationale, possibly even including an analysis of a 1
limited extent to say why this particular flood 2
causing mechanism wasn't applicable to the site.
3 For example, you may have a slight that's 4
a -- you may have site, excuse me, that's in a 5
Mediterranean type of climate, and you wouldn't 6
expect ice to be an issue.
7 So, we can, you know, accept those types 8
of arguments, I think, with some reasonable degree of 9
success to differentiate between types of floods that 10 are consequential versus inconsequential.
11 But, turning parochially now to what we 12 made available for public comment, we upon reflection 13 and we see that we still need to add a little more 14 fine tuning to our writing.
15 And what the Staff's intent is in terms 16 of what we're looking for or proposing for applicants 17 to consider in the future, we would say, I think I'm 18 on the third tick. Oh, yeah. There you go. Thank 19 you.
20 On slide eight. That this section, for 21 example, if you're in an inland site, let's say in 22 the Midwest somewhere, we would expect for purposes 23 of the tsunami discussion, we'd say this section we're 24 proposing is only applicable to a site where tsunami 25
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 flood causing mechanisms are found to be 1
consequential.
2 So, we're trying to, you know, improve 3
our thinking. And communicate that in terms of 4
writing as we seek public comments.
5 So turning to slide nine, please. So, 6
what we're -- what you saw in the Federal Register 7
Notice that appeared this past September, was a 8
glossary of terms that include the description of 9
LIT.
10 And so when we get into our review of 11 2.4.1, we're proposing ultimately to include this 12 glossary of terms as an appendix to Section 2.4.1 of 13 the SRP.
14 For 2.4.6, some of the description --
15 some of the revisions we made including introducing 16 this new terminology, which was identified in a series 17 of footnotes, we streamlined the reference list.
18 We don't think we need to be in a position 19 to tell applicants nor the Staff what references are 20 pertinent to the evaluation of tsunami hazards. We 21 think this is something that the Staff should be very 22 aware of in context of doing their reviews.
23 And at the same time, the literature is 24 always changing. So, we don't want to find ourselves 25
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 in a position of having to update the reference list 1
periodically based on changes in the literature.
2 And the same can be said for channel 3
migrations and stream diversions. The changes we 4
propose were similar in terms of cleaning up the 5
writing, or refining the writing, and adding a new 6
terminology via footnotes.
7 We also found for the purposes of the 8
50.54(f) reviews and the ESP and COLA reviews that 9
reliance on imagery from satellite platforms is very 10 useful to rely on. So, we've introduced that type 11 of review feature into the SRP.
12 Okay, so turning to slide ten, please.
13 In terms of the longer vision for what we're thinking 14 about or proposing that we do in terms of revisions 15 to Section 2. or Chapter 2.4 of the SRP, we're 16 proposing that we're going to do some extensive 17 rewrite of Section 2.4.1, the hydrologic description 18 to differentiate between consequential and 19 inconsequential flood causing mechanisms.
20 We're proposing that the Staff place its 21 emphasis review, emphasis that is on the evaluation 22 of consequential flood causing mechanisms, because 23 these are the most -- flood causing mechanisms most 24 important to defining design basis.
25
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 We're proposing too simply the discussion 1
in some respects, and to eliminate references to the 2
discussion of water use by -- outside of the reactor 3
area.
4 These are issues that are typically 5
handled in the environmental assessment, or EIS 6
phase. We don't think we have to re-review that 7
information in the license application.
8 We're also going to introduce a glossary.
9 Which is the list of new terms that we propose that 10 appear in the FRN.
11 For floods, for 2.4.2, we're proposing 12 that we repropose that SRP to focus on local intense 13 precipitation. As I mentioned earlier, just about 14 every site that we looked at for the purposes of the 15 50.54(f) reviews had issues relative to local intense 16 precipitation.
17 So, we believe it's important now that we 18 update the SRP to address that particular flood 19 causing mechanism. In introducing the LIT concept, 20 if I can use that term, we're going to also address 21 how we evaluate the probable maximum precipitation 22 estimate that's important in making that -- in 23 performing that review.
24 And then we're also going to propose some 25
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 methodologies for how you might evaluate LIT.
1 Lastly, we're also proposing -- again, and this is in 2
terms of the broader vision.
3 We're proposing that we combine SRP 4
Chapters 2, 4, 12 related to groundwater behavior and 5
2, 4, 13 in terms of the accidental release of 6
radionuclide affluence into one SRP chapter.
7 We think it might improve the efficiency 8
of the Staff review. And reduce some redundancy in 9
the SRP if we combine those.
10 So, as Andy mentioned before, as we make 11 new SR -- as we work through the SRP review process 12 and get new SRP sections available, those will be 13 noticed in the Federal Register.
14 The Staff is always open to meeting with 15 the public on any issue, you know, relative to these 16 updates. We particularly believe that we're going 17 to have public meetings later on down the road 18 relative to the Section 2.4.1 on the hydrologic 19 description, LIT, and groundwater.
20 So, I thank you for your time.
21 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you Dr. Lee. Thank 22 you Mike. So, next I'm going to introduce Jenise-23 Marie Thompson, who is a geologist in the Division.
24 And Jenise is going to talk about service 25
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 deformation, SRP Section 2.5.3. Jenise?
1 MS. THOMPSON: Good morning. Hi, I'm 2
Jenise Thompson. And I'm a geologist in the Office 3
of New Reactors. And I was the lead for the updates 4
to SRP Section 2.5.3, surface deformation.
5 For this update to the SRP we looked at 6
three key insights and lessons learned. The first 7
was our most recent SRP update which was done in 2014.
8 And the focus in 2014 we added 9
information related to the using the site safety 10 audits and REI development. We added information 11 related to the geologic mapping, license or permit 12 condition.
13 And as always with these SRP updates, we 14 look at lessons learned from recent reviews. Another 15 thing that we looked at for this particular update 16 were insights from the 05.504(f) reviews. Can you 17 go back, please?
18 So, we looked at the risk informed 19 approach that was used successfully for flooding. It 20 allowed licensees to focus on the hazards that are 21 most likely to impact the site and adversely affect 22 the SSEs important to safety.
23 And kind of thought of how we could apply 24 that to our review in surface deformation. And then 25
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 we also looked towards our ESP and COL review 1
experience, where we noted that there's a variable 2
potential for surface deformation based on numerous 3
site specific factors.
4 So, considering that each site is unique 5
based on their unique geology and their geologic 6
setting, we think that the risk informed approach 7
that was used by flooding in the 50.54(f) reviews 8
maybe applicable to the review of the potential for 9
surface deformation at a site.
10 Next slide, please. So, looking also to 11 our regulatory statutes, our siting criteria are in 12 10 CFR, Part 100.23. And we were tasked with 13 evaluating the potential for tectonic and non-14 tectonic surface deformation.
15 And something else that informs our 16 reviews is the geology of North America. It's 17 relatively diverse geologically.
18 The tectonic and structural history is 19 not uniform. It's varied depending on where you are.
20 And therefore the potential for surface deformation 21 is going to vary spatially as well.
22 So, factors such as subsurface lithology, 23 the local and regional geologic structures, 24 anthropogenic activities, are all factors to consider 25
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 when assessing the potential for surface deformation 1
at a site.
2 So, next slide, please. So, using all 3
of this information, we're on slide three of SRP 4
Section 2.5.3, surface deformation.
5 So, using all of this information, our 6
update to SRP Section 2.5.3 is that the investigations 7
for a potential for surface or non-tectonic surface 8
deformation still need to be conducted for each 9
individual site.
10 But these investigations should be 11 commensurate with the geologic assessment of evidence 12 for potential for surface deformation.
13 So, looking at the level of detail or 14 documentation or burden, it should be consistent with 15 that geologic assessment of evidence as to whether 16 there is a potential for surface deformation, either 17 tectonic or non.
18 And whether that surface deformation is 19 likely to impact the site and affect structures, 20 systems, or components that are important to safety.
21 So what this means, to give you an 22 example, in a hypothetical site that's underlain by 23 granite, perhaps there is a quaternary or recent 2.6 24 million years fault near the site. Let's say five 25
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 miles.
1 You could reasonably expect to say that 2
the level of detail that you would need to provide 3
for surface deformation due to karst, would be much 4
less then the level of detail you would need to 5
provide for tectonic surface deformation associated 6
with that recent fault.
7 So your surface deformation, your level 8
of detail is going to vary depending on what the 9
mechanism is.
10 So, we also our final, you know, I guess 11 major change or update to this was looking at the 12 potential for non-tectonic surface deformation due to 13 anthropogenic or human activities.
14 So, mining, underground fluid injection.
15 As we continue to alter the subsurface, we learn more 16 about how those activities may affect not only the 17 subsurface but the surface, and deformation of that 18 surface.
19 So that's something that we've learned 20 that we should be including within the scope of 21 surface deformation in SRP Section 2.5.3.
22 Next slide, please. So to summarize, we 23 saw how effective the use of a risk informed approach 24 was for flooding. And we identified a way that we 25
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 could apply it to assessing the potential for surface 1
deformation that could adversely SSEs important to 2
safety.
3 And we added non-tectonic surface 4
deformation due to anthropogenic activities or 5
effects at the site.
6 So, looking ahead, this is -- SRP Section 7
2.5.3 is one of five Sections in 2.5. So, looking 8
ahead we hope to use insights from this update of 9
2.5.3 to inform future updates of 2.5.1, which is 10 geologic characterization information, 2.5.2, which 11 is vibratory ground motion, 2.5.4, the stability of 12 subsurface materials and foundations, and 2.5.5, the 13 stability of slopes.
14 And all of that is relatively far off in 15 the distance for us. So, we're looking at 2020 before 16 we undertake any future updates in 2.5.
17 MR. CAMPBELL: So, with that thank you 18 Jenise. Next I'd like to introduce Mike Mazaika.
19 He's a meteorologist in the Division.
20 And Mike is going to talk about onsite 21 meteorological monitoring program. Which is SRP 22 Section 2.3.3.
23 This is a section really focused on 24 technology and monitoring. And so with that what we 25
34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 wanted to do was include this in the update.
1 It is more about incorporating lessons 2
learned from as the technology increases. And also 3
some of our experience with monitoring programs 4
increases.
5 So with that Mike, could you go ahead?
6 Thank you.
7 MR. MAZAIKA: Thank you Andy. Good 8
morning folks. For you horse racing fans, we're at 9
the top of the back stretch now.
10 For you ice hockey fans, I'm the caboose 11 among the SRP sections that's -- that we've discussed 12 today. Caboose because I'm an old hockey goalie.
13 And it's a hockey thing.
14 For the rest of you, we're almost done.
15 There are only four slides in my presentation.
16 The first one is a brief look back. The 17 second one discusses some lessons that we've learned 18 from our reviews.
19 The third is a look forward of sorts.
20 Anticipating the kinds of issues that we might have 21 to review in the future for siting small modular 22 reactors.
23 And the fourth and final slide in this 24 set is also a look ahead. But at other sections 25
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 under SRP Section 2.3 and that we're slated to update.
1 If I could just have the next slide, please.
2 Standard Review Plan Section 2.3.3. deals 3
with our review of the onsite meteorological 4
measurement's program. That's set up and run by an 5
applicant before a new facility or a new unit gets 6
built. Or by a licensee once the facility is 7
operating.
8 In and of itself, meteorological or MET 9
monitoring is not a risk informed activity. And was 10 not covered by the 50.54(f) letters that were 11 discussed earlier for hydrology and geology.
12 However, MET monitoring programs may 13 provide supporting data for risk informed activities.
14 For example, dispersion modeling analysis and severe 15 accident analysis.
16 Listed here are some examples on this 17 slide of some of the things that were necessary to be 18 updated in this proposed revision. Hopefully the 19 folks that are online have access to the slides now.
20 I didn't plan to read them for you. But, 21 to summarize, the first item is aimed at making the 22 Staff review guidance more consistent with the 23 guidance that we give to applicants to set up and run 24 their MET monitoring program. And that's discussed 25
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 in Reg Guide 1.23, Onsite meteorological Monitoring 1
Programs.
2 The third item recognizes that other 3
agencies are involved with meteorological monitoring.
4 For example, the EPA, industry organizations like the 5
American Nuclear Society.
6 That for efficiency we don't have to 7
reinvent the wheel, but we can reference those 8
documents. But that those documents get updated over 9
time as well.
10 The last two items on slide two, they're 11 intended to identify some of the linkages that we 12 have with other regulatory guides and where 13 monitoring procedures are called for. They include 14 Reg Guide 1.21, 1.33 for example, that deal with 15 quality assurance requirements and the monitoring 16 that occurs once a facility is operating.
17 Can I have the next slide, please? This 18 would be slide three. That's not me falling over.
19 That's my cane.
20 This next slide shows some lessons 21 learned that the Staff has from our reviews of the 22 combined license in early site permit applications 23 over the last ten years or so. Standard Review Plan 24 under Section 2.3 was last updated about ten years 25
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 ago.
1 It's also important to understand that 2
these proposed revisions also have their roots in two 3
other places. I came from the consulting industry, 4
and as a user, a reader of Regulatory Guide 1.23 and 5
other related guidance, and being aware of what the 6
NRC Staff looks for in performing its reviews, this 7
allows us to include perspectives from the regulated 8
community.
9 But that's not the end of it. And that's 10 why you are here today online or in person. Why we 11 make these proposed updates available for public 12 comment. Your comments add value to these documents 13 as well.
14 Again, I won't read what's on the slide.
15 But they're representative of some of the things that 16 we've seen along the way. And that we considered 17 important enough to address in this update.
18 The first item, there's nothing like 19 boots on the ground early in the review process to 20 understand how a monitoring program is sited, how 21 it's set up, how it's operated and maintained, how 22 it's documented. This is a preventative exercise if 23 you will. It's a training opportunity as well for 24 younger staff and for older staff alike.
25
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The second and third items represent some 1
additional clarifications to those topics that we 2
considered important enough to be included. The 3
second related to new facilities proposed to be 4
located at existing plant sites.
5 The third related to how measured data 6
will be used. We don't measure just data just for 7
the sake of measuring data. It has an application.
8 And we have to be aware of how those data, how those 9
numbers get used.
10 The fourth item was added to reflect 11 changes. In this case, wind measurements. But it 12 also applies to other MET data.
13 And being cognizant of how those data 14 should be processed based on how they're going to be 15 used. And that's a benefit that we had from 16 considering other agency and other industry guidance.
17 Next slide, please.
18 This next slide is intended to highlight 19 some of our thinking ahead to the siting of the next 20 generation of reactor technology. For example, small 21 modular reactors. Which might, because of their 22 smaller output, because they're smaller in size, they 23 might be deployed in non-traditional or remote 24 locations that are subject to harsh environment 25
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 conditions.
1 We've done some pretty good, I think 2
initial noodling about the potential issues that 3
applicants might encounter. And that we're going to 4
have to deal with as reviewers.
5 There are also some ideas that applicants 6
might need to take into account when they're planning 7
and operating their MET monitoring program at such 8
locations. And because the Standard Review Plan is 9
primarily guidance to the NRC staff that we need to 10 have a leg up on before the fact.
11 For those of you that are familiar with 12 or involved with meteorological monitoring programs, 13 hopefully the potential issues listed on this slide 14 will strike a cord and get you all thinking as well.
15 These will also be reflected in planned updates for 16 other SRP sections.
17 And the next and final slide. That leads 18 to another look ahead. Standard Review Plan sections 19 that we're planning to update in calendar year 2019.
20 Of the five sections under Section 2.3, 21 we aim to update SRP Section 2.3.1. There are about 22 20 climate related items that are considered under 23 this section.
24 Unlike SRP Section 2.3, the bulleted 25
40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 items listed here have a more direct linkage to risk 1
informed considerations.
But they're 2
characteristics of a particular location. And their 3
implication to the design and operation of a facility 4
are taken into account by the engineering teams.
5 Under Section 2.3, our review is more 6
limited to evaluating whether or not these conditions 7
can be reasonably expected to occur at a proposed 8
location.
9 The update to this section will consider 10 whether all of the climate related items and the 11 current revision are necessary to be included going 12 forward.
13 And finally, the planned revision to SRP 14 Section 2.2. Which deals with local meteorologicals 15 more closely related to SRP Section 2.3.3, in that it 16 presents comparisons of the data that you acquire 17 from the onsite MET monitoring program.
18 Which will be obtained over a relatively 19 shorter period on the order of two years. And we 20 want to evaluate the representativeness of that data 21 against long term conditions by comparison to nearby 22 offsite measurements.
23 So, with that I'll be quiet now. I don't 24 see many heads bobbing. I appreciate your attention.
25
41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And I'll turn the podium back to Andy.
1 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you Mike. So, with 2
that what I'm going to do is cover, in my closing 3
remarks, a recap and the path forward.
4 So, for future SRP revisions for SRP 5
Chapter 2.4, I'm on slide one of the closing remarks.
6 Hydrology is 2.4. So, updates are to be announced 7
in the Federal Register, and we'll have additional 8
public meetings to follow.
9 In particular, 2.4.1 will be announced.
10 And that really provides the overall scope and vision 11 that we have for the whole hydrology section. And 12 also, you know, the linkage to our risk informed 13 performance-based approach where revising the 14 Standard Review Plan.
15 The early calendar year 2019 updated 16 drafts will be announced in the Federal Register for, 17 as I just said, 2.4.1, the hydrologic description.
18 And 2.4.2, local intense precipitation.
19 Which Mike Lee, Dr. Mike Lee pointed out, 20 we found all of the sites were affected from the 21 Fukushima work. And that was mainly, let's keep it 22 clear, that was mainly because most sites did not 23 have a design basis for local intense precipitation.
24 And because we were asked, and the sites 25
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 were -- the industry was asked to reevaluate their 1
local hazards with respect to their design basis, 2
essentially all of the sites didn't have a design 3
basis, or many of the sites, to all of them, didn't 4
have a design basis for flooding from a rainfall 5
event.
6 So, there are a
whole series of 7
interactions that took place in terms of what do we 8
need to do? What does the industry need to do for 9
local intense precipitation?
10 And there is a White Paper that NRC 11 reviewed from NEI that looked at a variety of 12 different things that will be considered in -- for a 13 site, evaluating the impacts of local intense 14 precipitation on the site.
15 That doesn't necessarily mean every site 16 was challenged in terms of consequential flooding for 17 a particular event. It's just there was no design 18 basis set up for the many, many sites.
19 So, we also have -- will be presenting a 20 draft NUREG on site specific probable maximum 21 precipitation. For those of us that have been 22 involved in local intense precipitation reviews, the 23 hydrometeorologic reports produced by NOAA, are old.
24 They pretty much stopped producing them 25
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 in the '80s in terms of updates. And so stepping 1
into that void, the private sector has developed 2
methodologies to evaluate locate intense 3
precipitation.
4 And we've reviewed a lot of these in the 5
-- over the course of the Fukushima work. As well 6
as some of the COLs.
7 And so with that we've learned something 8
about local intense precipitations in terms of -- and 9
flooding for whole watersheds, in terms of the site 10 specific probable maximum precipitation approaches 11 that pretty much follow the World Meteorological 12 Association guidance.
But there are some 13 differences.
14 And so lessons learned from that, from a 15 large number of views, will be considered and laid 16 out in the NUREG. And then expectation Staff would 17 have for utilizing that information.
18 Also, SRP Section 2.4.8 cooling water 19 canals and reservoirs will be updated. And SRP 20 2.4.11, low water effects will be evaluated. And 21 these will be updated in the SRP.
22 So, future SRP revisions for SRP Chapters 23 2.3 and 2.5. So, 2.3 was climatology. So, 2.3.1 is 24 the regional climatology.
25
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 This is late calendar -- I'm on slide two 1
of the closing remarks. 2.3.1 regional climatology 2
and 2.3.2 local meteorology will be sometime late in 3
calendar year 2019.
4 Also late in calendar year 2020, we are 5
going to have updated drafts announced in the 6
Federal Register for several geology sections. SRP 7
Section 2.5.1 which is geologic characterization 8
information, 2.5.2 vibratory ground motion, 2.5.4 9
stability of subsurface materials and foundations, 10 and SRP 2.5.5 stability of slope.
11 So this is -- these are our plans in terms 12 of these updates. And as I said earlier, we will be 13 having Federal Register notices for all of those.
14 So, next steps. I'm on slide three of 15 the closing remarks. So, this visit we want your 16 comments. We're in listening mode today.
17 We want to hear from you about what you 18 think about the sections that have been presented in 19 the Federal Register. And also your general thoughts 20 about the whole approach that we're having, that we're 21 talking about.
22 So the closing date for submission of 23 public comments for 2.3.3, 2.4.6, 2.4.9, and 2.5.3, 24 i.e., the sections we have talked about today, would 25
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 be Monday, October 29, 2018. So that's the end of 1
the month.
2 Comments can either be submitted too 3
online. And that's a http://www.regulations.gov.
4 The Docket ID number is NRC-2018-0178.
5 Or you can mail it in, in the regular 6
mail care of Ms. May Ma, Office of Administration, 7
Mail Stop TWFN7. That's Two White Flint North 7.
8 A60M, that's a mail stop. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 9
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.
10 We intend to respond to all public 11 comments. And availability of public comments 12 disposition to accompany Federal Register notices 13 announcing the availability of the final revised SRP 14 sections.
15 So, as we announce the final, we will 16 have a full section of dispositioning every single 17 comment or set of comments that have been made on 18 that section.
19 For SRP sections discussed today, the 20 final SRP revisions are expected some time in calendar 21 year 2019.
22 And so with that I'm going to turn it 23 over to Dan Mussatti, our Facilitator. And we'll 24 open it up to public comments.
25
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Take it away Dan.
1 MR. MUSSATTI: All right. Thank you.
2 According to our agenda, it is now ten o'clock. And 3
we were planning on having a short ten minute break 4
in here before we start with the comments.
5 Which will give me an opportunity to try 6
an experiment here, since we haven't got the webinar 7
up and running because of some bandwidth issue or 8
whatever. We do have the phone lines open. And 9
we're hoping that the people that are on the phones 10 would have an opportunity to be able to ask their 11 questions live.
12 So, while everyone's taking a break here, 13 we're going to perform a small experiment to see if 14 we can actually communicate with the folks on the 15 phone. And have it heard in the room here and by our 16 court reporter.
17 So, if you could be back by ten after, I 18 would certainly appreciate it. And we stand 19 temporarily adjourned here.
20 Could I get the phone lines opened up so 21 we can see if we can communicate? Okay. Is there 22 anybody on the line?
23 (No response) 24 MR. MUSSATTI: If you're on the line, 25
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 we're not able to hear you yet. We're still working 1
on it.
2 Okay. Mark, could you put slide three 3
up again so that I can read it off to these folks 4
that are on the phone in case they're still there?
5 Oh, you're calling in to see. Okay.
6 MR. NOTICH: We're going to experiment.
7 MR. MUSSATTI: Right. We have an 8
experimenter right here in the room. Yes, please.
9 In case you're on the phone and we're not 10 able to hear your comments live, please remember that 11 http://www.regulations.gov will gladly accept your 12 comments to us.
13 Just make sure you include the Docket ID, 14 NRC-2018-0178. That's probably your most efficient 15 way to be able to get that information to us.
16 That's also the -- on the last slide that 17 was presented by Andy just a few minutes ago.
18 And we're trying a live version. I've 19 got a gentleman in the room here that's trying to 20 call me live. You can hear me.
21 Okay. He can hear me, but I can't hear 22 him. Is there some setting in the booth that we can 23 play with?
24
- Yeah, you're not coming over the 25
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 speakers. Okay. It doesn't look like this 1
experiment has been very successful.
2 We will proceed with comments from 3
whoever is in the room when they get back. And when 4
there aren't any more comments, I guess we're done.
5 So, I'll see you at about ten after.
6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 7
went off the record at 10:05 a.m. and 8
resumed at 10:16 a.m.)
9 MR. MUSSATTI: We are going to be 10 abandoning the telephone line that we have. And 11 we're going to open up a regular conference line 12 upstairs here that we should be able to have people 13 call in then.
14 So, it's going to take another minute or 15 two to be able to get that set up upstairs. And 16 until then, I don't think we're going to fill up a 17 full two hours with comments anyway. So, bear with 18 me, please.
19 MR. CAMPBELL: And are we going to 20 announce the number the number they need to call?
21 MR. MUSSATTI: We'll get the new number 22 here in a minute, as soon as we get the conference 23 information from the guy that just ran upstairs.
24 MR. CAMPBELL: Okay.
25
49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. MUSSATTI: All right. We're ready 1
to make a change. Grab a pencil and a piece of paper 2
so you can write down some numbers.
3 And we're going to ask you to hang up in 4
a minute. And then to dial into this new number.
5 The toll-free number is (866) 617-1024.
6 Once again, that number is (866) 617-7 1024. And we would like to have you use this pass 8
code to get into the line, 2406646. 2406646.
9 So if you've got that information now, 10 please hang up. And give it a good strong ten count.
11 And then try calling back in again to these new 12 numbers. Thank you.
13 (Phone dialing) 14 MR. MUSSATTI: This is the NRC.
15 (Phone speaking) 16 MR. MUSSATTI: Can you hear me now?
17 (Phone speaking) 18 MR. MUSSATTI: All right. We're going 19 to have to -- we're going to give it a little more 20 time as people are signing in here.
21 But, we're going to have to have just a 22 little bit of patience amongst you folks on the phone 23 as you're trying to make your comments. Eventually 24 you will be heard.
25
50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 But, when you're trying to talk over each 1
other it's going to be a little confusing. So, bear 2
with us, because we have no way to be able to really 3
manage who's talking next, other then you guys helping 4
us out with that as much as you possibly can.
5 So, we're back from our break. Hopefully 6
everyone had a chance to follow through this morning 7
on the slides that we had.
8 And we're going to take questions now.
9 I'm going to start with -- since we haven't heard 10 from you all day long, I'm going to start with one 11 question from on the phone first.
12 And please state your name and 13 affiliation when you start. I have no comments on 14 the phone?
15 (No response) 16 MR. MUSSATTI: Cool. We'll go to the 17 room then. Would somebody in the room like to speak?
18 (No response) 19 MR. MUSSATTI: This could be a very, very 20 fast comment section.
21 (No response) 22 MR. MUSSATTI: Back to the phones.
23 Anybody on the phone that would like to speak?
24 (No response) 25
51 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. MUSSATTI: Okay. Back to the room.
1 (No response) 2 MR. MUSSATTI: All right. Einstein said 3
that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over 4
again and expecting a different result. I'm only 5
going to do this one more time.
6 Back to the phones. Is there somebody 7
on the phone would like to make a comment?
8 (No response) 9 MR. MUSSATTI: And now back to the room.
10 (No response) 11 MR. MUSSATTI: Okay. Andy?
12 MR. CAMPBELL: Okay. So this is Andy 13 Campbell. Maybe I can stimulate some questions.
14 One of the things we wanted to get 15 information on was not just your input on these 16 particular sections, but the overall approach to 17 revising the SRP.
18 Are there any comments on that overall 19 approach? Both as articulated by our Office 20 Director, Fred and by myself, as well as the Staff 21 approaches that you saw in each of these sections 22 that you can see in the slides.
23 Anybody on the phone want to make 24 comments about that?
25
52 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (No response) 1 MR. CAMPBELL: So, let me repeat the next 2
steps in terms of public comments. Even though there 3
may not be some comments at this point, we do direct 4
people to the slide deck on the public meeting 5
announcement.
6 The closing date for a submission of 7
public comments on SRP Sections that are in that slide 8
deck that we've talked about today, the hydrology, 9
the meteorology monitoring, and the ground 10 deformation section, and the tsunami section and the 11 channel migration section at 2.4.
12 The closing date is the end of the month.
13 Not quite the end of the month, but October 29.
14 That's next Monday. And with that said, you know, 15 if someone feels the need for an extension, we will 16 consider that.
17 And again, www.regulations.gov. With 18 Docket ID Number NRC-2018-0178.
19 (Background noise) 20 MR. CAMPBELL: Was that a comment?
21 (No response) 22 MR. CAMPBELL: Okay. And then you can 23 also respond via standard mail to Ms. May Ma, Office 24 of Administration, Mail Stop --
25
53 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (Telephone interference) 1 MR. CAMPBELL: BWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear 2
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.
3 And so with that, I'm going to turn it 4
back to Dan.
5 MR. MUSSATTI: Okay. Normally by now 6
I'd be reminding you that we need you to fill out 7
your feedback form for us. But, I'm pretty sure I 8
know what the feedback's going to be on this meeting.
9 I'd like to again apologize and voice our 10 frustration here that the electronics didn't work as 11 well as we wanted it to today. I'm hoping the meeting 12 was informative to everybody.
13 This isn't the only meeting that's going 14 to be on this. There's going to be other 15 opportunities for people to comment on the SRPs 16 further on down the line as well.
17 And what I'd like to do is adjourn the 18 meeting. I don't think there's anything left to do, 19 is there?
20 (No response) 21 MR. MUSSATTI: All right. Well, we'll 22 see you the next time. And thank you up in the booth 23 for all your help.
24 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 25
54 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 went off the record at 10:22 a.m.)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13