ML19014A000

1/15/2019 NEI Handout for Public Meeting - Suggestions for Pt. 52 LL Rulemaking for January 15 2019 NRC Public Meeting

ML19014A000
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/15/2019
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
Jim O'Driscoll
References
NRC-2009-0196
Download: ML19014A000 (6)

Text

Suggestions for 10 CFR 52 Lessons Learned Rulemaking - January 2019 Regulation Comment/Basis Recommendation

1. 10 CFR 52 Changes during construction and construction to licensing Modify NRC interpretation to allow at-risk construction pending basis challenges are created by NRC's position that as soon approval of an LAR or the processing of a 50.59-like change.

as the COL is issued there is an approved licensing basis and the licensee, therefore, needs to be in compliance with its This interpretation would acknowledge the potential for LARs to licensing basis at all times regardless of whether there is any be denied. Changes at risk would need to be subject to impact to the health and safety of the public. configuration control to ensure that if the LAR is not approved or the licensee does not or cannot process a 50.59-like change, the ITAAC verification and construction oversight via licensee programs (e.g., quality control), as well as implementation change at risk will be reversed in the field.

of operational programs, ensure that the facility has been constructed and will operate in accordance with its license.

Restrictions should be removed thus allowing temporary deviation from the approved licensing basis during construction where configuration control, corrective measures or license amendments are implemented that restore conformance of the plant with its licensing basis. 10 CFR 52 when created was intended to ensure better control over standardization. The unintended consequence of hindering construction was not fully understood at that time.

2. 10 CFR 52, 10 CFR 52.39(e) requires that a license amendment be NRC should establish a 10 CFR 50.59-like change process for Subpart A, submitted to change the SSAR. The experience of the first ESPs and LWAs.

ESP licensees under 10 CFR 52 demonstrates a need for a change process for ESPs and LWAs. 10 CFR 52.39(e)

3. 10 CFR 52, The experience of the first licensees under 10 CFR 52 has Need to provide for a more flexible change process for Tier 1 DCR revealed a significant expenditure of NRC and licensee changes that do not decrease the level of safety, e.g., include a Appendices resources that is not commensurate with the safety provision to allow administrative departures from Tier 1 without 1

Regulation Comment/Basis Recommendation significance of numerous Tier 1 changes that do not an LAR/Exemption. Note that DCR AppendicesSection III.C Add Tier 1 decrease the level of safety. dictates that if there is a conflict between Tier 1 and Tier 2 of the minor DCD, then Tier 1 controls. Many of the administrative changes change processed are to reconcile conflicts between Tier 2 and Tier 1 process information where the Tier 2 information was correct.

Note: Vogtle 3&4 - 4 example LARs 3 approved and 1 under review by NRC

4. 10 CFR 52. The 15-year DC duration does not serve the underlying Revise 10 CFR 52 to remove the 15-year DC duration and the 2-55, 57 & 61 purpose of the rule - to permit more operating experience year DC application window.

with a given design to accumulate before the certification comes up for renewal. Design certification rules should not The industry questions the basis for the need for DC duration expire. They are rules, not licenses. They have been and more specifically the basis for a 15 year duration.

reviewed and approved by the NRC to have met all regulatory requirements. Existing regulations already exist that allow the NRC to impose new requirements on the DC should a new safety significant lesson learned be identified. It should be the discretion of the DC applicant when lessons learned have accumulated that would warrant DC renewal. The 15-year DC duration and 2-year DC application window is arbitrary and has no safety basis.

5. 10 CFR Reconcile the renewal requirements of 10 CFR 52.57 vs. Clarify 10 CFR 52.57 regarding what it means to bring up to 52.57 and 52.59 date the information and data contained in the previous 52.59 application in the context of the 52.59 requirement that renewals comply with regulations applicable and in effect at time of the original certification.

6. 10 CFR Part 52 does not distinguish DC renewals for designs that Revise 10 CFR 52 to allow DC renewal applications to be 52.57 and have been licensed and built in verbatim compliance (with a submitted following a facilitys construction & initial operation.

52.59 high volume of lessons learned) versus designs that have 1. Changes that bring the DC up-to-date with the never been constructed in the United States (with a lower operating facilitys UFSAR are considered resolved and volume of lessons learned). A renewal process (similar to need no NRC review & approval.

2

Regulation Comment/Basis Recommendation the COLA process outlined in RG 1.206 R1 Section C.2.14) 2. Additional changes included in the renewal application should be developed to permit a DC to be brought up-to- beyond what is included in the operating facilitys date with an operating facilitys UFSAR. UFSAR may be evaluated by the DC applicant in accordance with Section VIII B.5 of the DCR.

• Changes needing NRC approval per Section VIII B.5 are treated as Amendments per 10 CFR 52.57(c)

• Changes that do not need NRC approval are considered resolved.

7. 10 CFR 52 - The 50.59 process and departure process are similar in Directly use the 50.59 process for Part 52 regulatory changes.

TBD regulation but have been interpreted somewhat differently.

8. 10 CFR 52 - S-COLA applicants need a process that avoids COL delays Establish a process that precludes construction of affected SSCs TBD due to generic design issues encountered by the preceding until known design errors are resolved.

COL licensees during construction of the FOAK (or first few of a kind) plant. Given the finality granted to certified Options for addressing this issue were identified in NRC letter to designs, a process should be established to clearly allow S- NEI dated May 9, 2018 (ML18123A245).

COLAs to complete the process of obtaining a COL while generic design issues are resolved in an approach that The preferred option for doing this is through the use of COL maintains standardization. Without such a process, license conditions that identify the design error; regulatory certainty for S-COLAs under review is reduced or o Require a license amendment (or design certification eliminated. amendment) to correct the error prior to the 10 CFR

§ 52.103(g) finding; and o Specify the design methodology for correcting the error and the acceptance criteria for the design.

9. 10 CFR 52 - At the time of COL issuance, NRC elected to duplicate Tier 1 It would seem that all the info in Tier 1 could be issued with the TBD information into COL Appendix C ITAAC. The benefit of COL as Appendix C with a full exemption from the need to maintaining both Tier 1 and the COL Appendix C is not maintain Tier 1 information. This would reduce the burden of understood. multiple exemptions (which arent being reflected in the COL),

and also the burden of maintaining two documents with essentially the same requirements.

Further, an acceptable 103(g) finding could simultaneously void the portions of the COL Appendix C which would no longer be applicable and authorize their removal. This would again reduce the burden of another license amendment to do the same action.

3

Regulation Comment/Basis Recommendation

10. 10 CFR 52 - Prior to a 103(g) finding what is the process for changes to Clarify whether the licensee should be using the TS Bases TBD the TS Bases document. A licensee may be using the TS Control Program to implement changes to the TS Bases prior to Bases Control Program to effect changes to the TS Bases 103(g). Also, clarify the appropriate change process to use.

document prior to the 103(g) finding, but the TS Bases Control Program is not in effect until after the 103(g) finding. The regulations are not clear. The regulations do indicate that the TS are not considered Tier 1 or Tier 2 material but is silent on the Bases.

11. Subpart B of Currently, it is NRCs practice to require a DC applicant to Allow DC/COL applicants the option of early submittal of 10 CFR 52 submit a complete application prior to docketing or segregable parts of the application that can be reviewed beginning its review. independently.

This is permitted under Subpart E (SDA) and guidance is being developed.

12. 10 CFR 52.1 The NRCs draft regulatory review roadmap for non-LWRs Confirm that preliminary design info may form the basis of an and Subpart allows preliminary design info to form the basis of an SDA, SDA, clearly document that NRC position and, if necessary, E, 52.135(a) consistent with industry guidance on SDA. Conforming revise the definition of SDA in 52.1 and Subpart E.

changes to the regulations are needed to reflect that intent and avoid confusion.

13. 10 CFR PRA Upgrade Requirements Prior to Fuel Load: 10 CFR Modify the regulation to establish the standards to which the 50.71(h)(1) 50.71(h)(1) requires COL holders to develop a level 1 & 2 applicant is committed in the COL application.

PRA that includes initiating events and modes endorsed by the NRC one year prior to initial fuel loading. One year is Modify 50.71(h)(2) to provide more reasonable timeframes for not enough time to develop, peer review, and approve a incorporating recently-endorsed consensus standards, and a less PRA model to include newly endorsed standards, particularly frequent timeframe for conducting the upgrade.

in the busy year prior to fuel loading.

50.71(h)(2) requires an upgrade every 4 years, and that the upgrade must reflect endorsed consensus standards in effect one year prior to the upgrade. Again, one year is not sufficient time to develop, peer review and approve a model.

4

Regulation Comment/Basis Recommendation

14. 10 CFR Clarify definitions and use of commission approved Clarify 55.46(c)(1) definition of commission approved 55.46(c)(1) simulators. simulators and plant-referenced simulators.

The NRC issued an exemption allowing applicants for an operator license at VEGP 3 & 4 to satisfy the requirement to provide evidence that the applicant, as a trainee, has successfully manipulated the controls of either the facility for which the license is sought or a plant referenced simulator by, instead, providing evidence that the applicant has successfully manipulated the controls of a Commission-approved simulation facility.

Reference ML16090A176.

15. 10 CFR The NRC should revise 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5) to permit the first Revise 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5) to permit the first part of a phased 2.101(a)(5) part of a phased COL application to consist solely of the COL application to consist solely of the environmental report plus environmental report plus the general administrative the general administrative information specified in § 50.33(a) information specified in § 50.33(a) through (e). It is not through (e).

necessary for the NRC to have complete seismic and other siting information, plus financial and emergency planning Consider the option of eliminating the detailed radiological information, to review an environmental report. evaluation in the environmental report since a facility licensed under Part 50 or 52 will have small impacts by definition.

16. 10 CFR Application of the Subpart K provisions of Part 26 show that 1. Modify 10 CFR 26.4 to provide allowance for escorted access 26.4(e)(4) some aspects need modification. to allow visitors to perform safety or security related work activities, similar to operational plant provisions in 10 CFR 73.55(g)(7), and

2. Currently Subpart K is silent on certain administrative provisions provided in Subpart A-H, N and O. For example - the authorization reinstatement provisions of 10 CFR 26.59. Clarify that these provisions also apply to Subpart K workers.

17. 10 CFR 171 Currently, annual fees begin at NRC 52.103(g) decision in 10 Change annual fee provision to begin at the start of commercial CFR 170.15(e). Annual fees should be assessed at the time operation (when economic benefit is derived) rather than the the licensee begins to experience a derived economic time the NRC 52.103(g) decision is made.

benefit.

5

Regulation Comment/Basis Recommendation

18. 10 CFR Requires applicant to identify the methods to be used to Allow development of methods to be used to limit radioactivity 20.1406 limit radioactivity contamination of environment at time of contamination of environment before NRC makes the 52.103(g) application. determination.

Recommendations for Policy Statement(s) or guidance associated with 10 CFR 52 LL RM Policy Comment/Basis Recommendation

1. SOC for 10 CFR 52 LL There is confusion as to whether the Tier 1 doc is Clarify that Tier 1 doc is not required to be part of Rulemaking considered part of the FSAR the FSAR

2. SOC for 10 CFR 52 LL Strong emphasis on standardization and finality Revisit the balance struck between standardization/

Rulemaking creates challenges in implementing 10 CFR 52 for finality and flexibility, especially for first of kind first-of-kind designs/applicants. applicants, and make rule changes, as appropriate.

This effort should also include consideration of the appropriate level of detail to be included in the application and licensing basis is also a key factor in providing flexibility to make changes during construction for issues that have no potential to impact the safety determination.

6