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