ML19135A440
| ML19135A440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/15/2019 |
| From: | Quynh Nguyen Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Nguyen Q | |
| References | |
| Download: ML19135A440 (86) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, DC 20555 - 0001 May 15, 2019 MEMORANDUM TO: ACRS Members FROM:
Quynh Nguyen, Senior Staff Engineer /RA/
Technical Support Branch, ACRS
SUBJECT:
CERTIFIED MINUTES OF THE ACRS NON-POWER PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES (NPUF) SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON JANUARY 23, 2019 The minutes of the subject meeting were certified on May 8, 2019, as the official record of the proceedings of that meeting. Copies of the certification letter and minutes are attached.
Attachments: As stated cc w/ att. A. Veil L. Burkhart
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, DC 20555 - 0001 MEMORANDUM TO:
Quynh Nguyen, Senior Staff Engineer Technical Support Branch, ACRS FROM:
SUBJECT:
Michael Corradini, Chairman Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities Subcommittee CERTIFICATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE NON-POWER PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES (NPUF)
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON JANUARY 23, 2019 I hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the minutes of the subject meeting are an accurate record of the proceedings for that meeting.
/RA/
May 8, 2019 Michael Corradini, Chairman Dated Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities Subcommittee
1 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MINUTES OF THE RESEARCH AND TEST REACTORS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING January 23, 2019 The Research and Test Reactors Subcommittee held a meeting on January 23, 2019 in T3-D50, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting convened at 8:29 AM and adjourned at 9:30 AM.
The entire meeting was open to the public.
No written comments or requests for time to make oral statements were received from members of the public related to this meeting.
ATTENDEES ACRS Members/Consultants/Staff MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, Subcommittee Chairman RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member DENNIS C. BLEY, Member CHARLES H. BROWN, JR. Member MARGARET SZE-TAI Y. CHU, Member JOSE MARCH-LEUBA, Member GORDON R. SKILLMAN, Member QUYNH NGUYEN, Designated Federal Official Other
Participants:
ALEXANDER ADAMS, NRR ROBERT BEALL, NRR THERESA CLARK, NMSS DUKE KENNEDY, NRR THOMAS NEWTON, Public Participant SEAN O'KELLY, Idaho National Laboratory*
MICHAEL SMITH, NRR RICH CLEMENT, NRR KEVIN FOLK, NRR ANTONIO GOMEZ, NMSS HOWARD BENOWITZ, OGC MEENA KHANNA, NMSS LOUISE LUND, NRR
- Present via telephone Certified on: May 8, 2019 Certified by Michael Corradii
2
SUMMARY
The purpose of this meeting is to review the updated proposed rulemaking regarding the streamlining of non-power production or utilization facility (NPUF) license renewal process. The meeting transcripts are attached and contain an accurate description of each matter discussed during the meeting. The presentation slides and handouts used during the meeting are attached to these transcripts.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Issue Reference Pages in Transcript Mr. Kennedy talks about the rule. Class 104 deals with research and development activities. Class 104a is about medical therapy and Class 103 are commercial activities, including medical isotope production.
NIST has a testing facility. The first objective is updating terms and definitions (13) without a reduction in protection.
10 Discussion of a dose criteria for research reactors. There is also a second part of the definition of testing facility that seeks to preserve an option for the Commission to make a determination that a facility may pose a risk that is not totally captured by the dose calculations themselves (20).
16, 41 Mr. Adams talks about the second objective of non-expiring license terms of the final draft rulemaking. Member Skillman discusses that 10 CFR 50.59 is key to this process (22, 43).
20 Another objective is to provide periodic updates to FSAR submittals.
35 Another objective is to clarify existing environmental reporting requirements.
43 Last objective is a provision to eliminate financial qualification information submission requirements at the time of license renewal, consistent with how power reactors are treated.
45 Documents provided to the Subcommittee
- 1.
SECY Paper: ML16019A060
- 2.
Federal Register Notice (Enclosure 1 to SECY paper): ML16019A057
- 3.
Draft Regulatory and Backfit Analysis (Enclosure 2 to SECY paper):
- 4.
Draft Regulatory Guide DG-2006 (Enclosure 3 to SECY paper): ML16019A055
- 5.
Draft Environmental Assessment: ML16019A054
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
ACRS Regulatory Policies and Procedures Subcommittee, Draft Final Non-Power Production Utilization or Facility License Renewal Rulemaking Docket Number:
N/A Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
January 23, 2019 Work Order No.:
NRC-0090 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 OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
(ACRS) 5
+ + + + +
6 REGULATORY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE 7
+ + + + +
8 WEDNESDAY 9
JANUARY 23, 2019 10
+ + + + +
11 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 12
+ + + + +
13 The Subcommittee met at the Nuclear 14 Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, Room 15 T3D50, 11555 Rockville Pike, at 8:29 a.m., Michael 16 Corradini, Chairman, presiding.
17 18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
19 MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, Vice Chairman 20 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 21 DENNIS C. BLEY, Member 22 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR. Member 23 MARGARET SZE-TAI Y. CHU, Member 24 JOSE MARCH-LEUBA, Member 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
2 GORDON R. SKILLMAN, Member 1
2 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
3 QUYNH NGUYEN 4
5 ALSO PRESENT:
6 ALEXANDER ADAMS, NRR 7
ROBERT BEALL, NRR 8
DUKE KENNEDY, NRR 10 THOMAS NEWTON, Public Participant 11 SEAN O'KELLY, Idaho National Laboratory*
12 13
- Present via telephone 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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
3 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
(8:29 a.m.)
2 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: The meeting will come 3
to order.
4 This is a meeting of the Regulatory 5
Policies and Practices Subcommittee of the Advisory 6
Committee on Reactor Safeguards. My name is Mike 7
Corradini, Chair of this subcommittee meeting.
8 ACRS members in attendance are Ron 9
Ballinger, Gordon Skillman, Charles Brown, Jose March-10 Leuba, Margaret Chu, Dennis Bley. And I think we have 11 Harold Ray on the phone line.
12 Quynh Nguyen of the ACRS staff is the 13 Designated Federal Official for this meeting.
14 The subcommittee will hear from 15 representatives of the staff regarding the Draft Final 16 Non-Power Production Utilization or Facility License 17 Renewal Rulemaking.
Previously the committee 18 commented regarding this rulemaking during our 632nd 19 full committee meeting in 2016. Based on public 20 comments, the staff has updated its rule.
21 The subcommittee will gather information, 22 analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate 23 proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for 24 deliberation by the full committee.
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
4 The ACRS was established by statute and is 1
governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or 2
FACA. This means that the committee can only speak 3
through its published letter reports. We hold 4
meetings to gather information to support our 5
deliberations. Interested parties who wish to provide 6
comments can contact our offices requesting time after 7
the meeting announcement -- after the meeting 8
announcement is published in the Federal Register.
9 That said, we set aside some time for 10 extemporaneous comments from members of the public 11 attending or listening to our meeting on the phone 12 line. Written comments are also welcome.
13 In regard to early site permits, 10 CFR 14 5223 provides the Commission shall refer a copy of the 15 application of the ACRS to the committee and shall 16 report on portions of it.
17 The ACRS section of the USNRC's public 18 website provides our charter, bylaws, letter reports, 19 full transcripts of all full and subcommittee 20 meetings, including slides presented at the meeting.
21 The rules for participation in today's meeting were 22 previously announced in the Federal Register, and 23 we've received no written comments or request for time 24 to make oral statements from members of the public 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
5 during today's meeting.
1 We have a bridge line established for 2
members of the public, interested members of the 3
public to listen in. To preclude interruption of the 4
meeting, the phone bridge line will be placed in a 5
listen-in only mode during the presentations and 6
committee discussions. We will then un-mute the 7
bridge line at a designated time to afford the public 8
an opportunity to make a statement or provide 9
comments.
10 At this time I request that meeting 11 attendees and participants silence their cell phones 12 and other electronic devices so we don't get any 13 beeps, or boops, or noises.
14 I also will mention to the members that 15 the microphones are always live. You cannot turn them 16 off, so minimize your extemporaneous comments to each 17 other, please.
18 A transcript of the meeting is being kept 19 and will be made available as stated in the Federal 20 Register notice.
Therefore, we request that 21 participants in the meeting use the microphones 22 located through the room. The participants should 23 first identify themselves, speak with sufficient 24 clarity and volume so they may be readily heard. Make 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
6 sure that the green light is on -- it will always be 1
on -- at the microphone before speaking.
2 We'll proceed. And I'll turn to Theresa 3
Clark, senior management of NMSS, to begin.
4 Ms. Clark.
5 MS. CLARK: Good morning. Thank you, Dr.
6 Corradini, and thanks for the time to be before the 7
committee in this even more intimidating space than we 8
usually are.
9 So, we're here today, as you mentioned, to 10 talk about what we lovingly refer to as the NPUF rule.
11 NPUF stands for non-power production or utilization 12 facility. You'll hear that acronym thrown around a 13 lot. And this has to do with license renewal as well 14 as some other things that our staff will get into.
15 So, over there in the witness box we've 16 got Bob Beall who is our senior rulemaking PM on this 17 rule. He's the project manager who's been leading it 18 throughout. He works in the Office of Nuclear 19 Material Safety and Safeguards with me where I'm the 20 deputy director of the Division of Rulemaking.
21 We also have Duke Kennedy who is the 22 acting branch chief in the Research and Test Reactor 23 Licensing Branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 24 Regulation.
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
7 And Al Adams who is a senior project 1
manager in the same branch.
2 And we've got a number of working group 3
members and supporting staff who are here with us 4
today in case there's any additional questions. I'll 5
mention a few names now, and I'm sure there's others 6
who can contribute as well.
7 One of the key contributors, Duane 8
Hardesty, couldn't be with us today. But that's why 9
Duke's up there to speak so capably.
10 We've also got Michael Smith, Kevin Folk, 11 Kos Lois from NRR. We've got Tony Gomez from my staff 12 in NMSS; Howard Benowitz from RDC, Richard Clement 13 from NRO, and Mike Eudy from Research. So we've got 14 several people in case there's questions from the 15 committee.
16 So, what you should have before you is the 17 draft plan in a little package which includes draft 18 versions of a Commission paper, Federal Register 19 notice, and the regulatory guide which is actually 20 separate from the rule package that we've provided to 21 you, and number of other supporting documents that 22 help support the rule.
23 And as these folks will tell you, there 24 are nine different regulatory actions that are 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
8 included in the draft final rule. And the most far 1
reaching of those is a recommendation to have a non-2 expiring license. And I think you've heard about this 3
in our previous committee meetings.
4 This non-expiring license is consistent 5
with the Atomic Energy Act requirement to impose the 6
minimum regulation that's necessary for adequate 7
protection of public health and safety. It reduces 8
burden on licensees as well as on NRC staff. And it 9
maintains that level of public health and safety 10 that's important 11 So, there are several other items that 12 they'll go through with you as well. So, we look 13 forward to an informative interaction with you and to 14 the questions that you may have. And we want to thank 15 you for your review and your comments which have 16 helped us develop this package throughout the process.
17 We'll start off with Bob giving an 18 overview of the rule and then Duke will give a 19 detailed discussion of those nine actions. So, I'll 20 turn it over to Bob.
21 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Good. Bob.
22 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thank you very much.
23 Good morning, everyone.
24 So, we're here to talk about the draft 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
9 final rule or the NPUF rule. So this draft final rule 1
is implementing the Commission's direction to the 2
staff to try to streamline and implement a more 3
efficient and effective process for non-power reactors 4
or NPUF that's focused on the current regulatory 5
framework that we have with these licensees.
6 We use innovative and transformative 7
approaches to address the current regulations that we 8
have for these licensees to come up with ways to 9
improve the license renewal process and streamline 10 both the way they interact with us and the way we 11 interact with them.
12 And so we've come up with nine rulemaking 13 objectives for draft changes to the regulations that 14 we'll be going over in a minute.
15 The proposed rule was published in march 16 of last year. It was out for a 75-day comment period.
17 We also had a public meeting to allow the 18 public and external stakeholders to ask questions of 19 us during that comment period. That was in May. We 20 received 16 comment submittals from the public and 21 some stakeholders. Some of them were from the TRTR 22 licensees, some of them from the general public.
23 And in general the comment submittals were 24 in support of the rulemaking actions, and they also 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
10 had some I would say out-of-the-box recommendations of 1
how we can improve the process that we were looking at 2
for us to implement in the draft comment rule. And 3
Duke will be talking about one of those suggestions or 4
comments that we had on the package here in a minute.
5 So, with that I'm going to turn it over to 6
Duke, and he'll go over who the respective entities 7
are for this draft comment rule.
8 MR. KENNEDY: Okay. Good morning, 9
everybody.
10 Just as a point of clarification, Al Adams 11 and I will both be discussing the specific provisions 12 of the draft final rule. So I'll, I'll begin with an 13 overview of this graphic which is a generalization of 14 the facilities that are potentially impacted by this 15 rulemaking.
16 So, you can see here that we have two 17 classes of facilities per the Atomic Energy Act. We 18 have Class 103 and Class 104. And generally the Class 19 104 facilities are for research and development 20 purposes.
21 Also we have 104a licensees which are for 22 medical therapy. Currently we only have one such 23 licensee.
24 Under Class 103 we have a class of 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
11 facilities for medical isotope production or 1
commercial radioisotope production and commercial 2
activities.
3 Part of the impetus for this rulemaking 4
was to bring new facilities under the current 5
terminology for non-power facilities. And so these 6
medical isotope facilities are one of the drivers for 7
the creation of this new term NPUF which includes 8
production facilities for medical isotopes.
9 So, as we go through the following slides 10 you'll see these three circles fade in and out to 11 indicate applicability of the different objectives of 12 the rule to these different types of facilities.
13 And just as another point of background, 14 currently we have 30 operating research reactors, one 15 operating testing facility, three facilities that have 16 permanently ceased operation and are in some stage of 17 decommissioning, and two facilities that have not yet 18 been constructed but have received construction 19 permits. Those are both for medical isotope 20 production.
21 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So just for my 22 edification, what's the testing facility, is it NIST?
24 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay. And then the 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
12 three that are in decommission status are?
1 MR. KENNEDY: General Electric has one 2
facility or two facilities, and General Atomics has 3
one. They're, one of them is currently --
4 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Oh, okay. These are 5
quite old facilities.
6 MR. KENNEDY: Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay. Okay. And 8
then for the committee, because some of us have been 9
pre, had a pre-brief so we can ask an intelligent 10 question on this one, you're going to come through and 11 talk about some of the changes or all of the changes 12 in the rule as you go through the nine. But I think 13 the major one that I see in this slide, unless I'm off 14 base, is the less than or greater than 1 rem TEDE.
15 I guess I have a question now for later, 16 and that is is the logic in choosing the accidents, 17 the postulated accidents that have to be considered to 18 determine that breakdown of greater or less than 19 remains the same in all of these facilities, it's just 20 a matter of how one classifies it now? Am I making 21 sense?
22 MR. KENNEDY: Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So when we get to 24 that point I'd like to at least investigate that 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
13 because I guess I didn't catch that if there was some 1
change in the procedure or it was simply a matter of 2
classification differences.
3 MR.
KENNEDY:
I'll discuss these 4
particular changes in the following slides --
5 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay.
6 MR. KENNEDY: -- but it's just a matter of 7
classification.
8 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay. All right, 9
thank you very much.
10 MR. KENNEDY: Okay. One other point, and 11 we go to the next slide, is that you'll see text in 12 red on these slides and that indicates where there was 13 a change from the proposed rule.
14 So the first objective of the draft final 15 rule that I'd like to mention is the updating in the 16 terms and definitions. So, the main change from the 17 proposed rule has been that we have revised 18 definitions for non-power reactor, research reactor, 19 and testing facility. And, again, this is driven by 20 response to public comments or by the public comments.
21 So, the main change has been in the 22 definition of testing facility. I'll describe this in 23 the next two slides. But we've also made some chnages 24 in the definition of research reactors and made 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
14 conforming changes throughout the different parts of 1
the regulations to clarify the language that's used 2
for different types of facilities.
3 (Construction noise.)
4 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: This is going to 5
happen all day long.
6 MR. KENNEDY: Should I stop speaking when 7
that noise happens or should I continue?
8 MEMBER BLEY: I think you should stop 9
because I can't hear you at all.
10 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Have any of the 11 definition changes resulted in a reduction in 12 protection? Have any changes in the terms or the 13 definitions dumbed down what was previously greater 14 defense to the health and safety of the public?
15 MR. KENNEDY: No.
16 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you.
17 MR. KENNEDY: So, as I was saying, the 18 changes in the definitions, conforming changes have 19 been in various parts of the regulations. And the 20 objective is to improve clarity of which regulations 21 are applicable to the different types of facilities.
22 In the current regulations there are a 23 variety of terms used such as critical facility, 24 training reactor, testing facility, testing reactor.
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
15 And the objective is to reduce the number of terms 1
that are used and to standardize as much as possible.
2 So in doing this we've responded, we've 3
created this definition of NPUF for non-power 4
production or utilization facilities. And this 5
captures facilities that were previously not captured 6
under the definitions, particularly the production 7
facilities, the medical isotope production facilities 8
that are in the licensing process now.
9 We also think this definition will capture 10 future technologies and future types of facilities 11 that can be licensed as Class 103 or 104 production or 12 utilization facilities.
13 Okay, next slide, please.
14 So this is the most substantial change 15 from the proposed rule in terms of the definitions.
16 And the definition of testing facility has been 17 revised based on a public comment from NIST. Here in 18 the first sub-bullet NIST's comment is partially 19 quoted. And they've asked to remove an arbitrary 10 20 megawatt threshold and apply instead a risk-based 21 approach to regulation of a testing facility.
22 So, NIST went on to say that "risk is best 23 quantified by accident analyses performed under a 24 licensing."
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
16 And they recommended that the definition 1
of testing facility be changes to reference 1 rem dose 2
criterion which was proposed in the proposed rule for 3
defining research reactors, so, as a dose criterion 4
for research reactors.
5 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So let me ask my 6
question here. The procedure, whether I be a research 7
and test reactor, TRTR, in that regimen, or a testing 8
facility, how you identify the potential accidents and 9
how you do the analyses hasn't changed, it's a matter 10 of now you're applying this as a criteria for 11 classification? And changing it from a power to this 12 I assume didn't change any of the shifting of the 13 ground, but the anticipation is that there will be 14 something coming up that this would be important to 15 do?
16 In other words, all the test reactors, all 17 the research and test reactors are substantially less 18 than 10 megawatts I think.
19 MR. ADAMS: Correct. The only test 20 reactor right now is NIST at 20 megawatts. The 10 21 megawatt threshold we spent a lot of time looking for 22 a clearly spelled out technical basis for it. In 23 fact, it was discussed at the first meeting of this 24 committee back in the '50s, and we could not find a 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
17 reason why 10 was picked versus 15 or another number.
1 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay.
2 MR. ADAMS: So, we decided that going to 3
a dose-based criterion was -- made more sense from a 4
understanding of what the risks were.
5 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Right. It makes a 6
lot more sense to me. But I just wanted to understand 7
the procedure and how you identify the accident test 8
relative to this is the same.
9 MR. ADAMS: The accident side is discussed 10 in NUREG-1537.
11 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay.
12 MR. ADAMS: Longstanding accidents. And 13 that has not changed.
14 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay. All right, 15 thank you.
16 MEMBER BROWN: So those are not subject to 17 a
fire level
- issue, all those accidents?
18 Theoretically you could have a 1,000 megawatt testing 19 situation just as long as you met an accident 20 analysis. Which seems like there should -- there 21 would be some type of accident, you know, --
22 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: But I think they 23 would then fit into, as Al was, if I understand Al's 24 explanation, they would fit into based on a dose-based 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
18 analysis.
1 MEMBER BROWN: No, I understand that, 2
except I didn't see any discussion in the other parts 3
about were there other accidents explicitly at higher 4
power level that you should consider.
5 MR. ADAMS: Well, I mean --
6 MEMBER BROWN: If it's the same accident 7
sequences have been continuing to be used.
8 MR. ADAMS: Right. I mean there are, 9
there are obviously accidents that are based on power 10 level because power level leads to fission product 11 inventory, leads to decay heat. So the power level of 12 the reactor is still important. However, in the 13 design of the reactor there could be design features, 14 there could be engineered safety features that, that 15 reduce the, you know, the dose from the accident.
16 So we're looking at the entire design of 17 the facility and the consequences versus just one 18 attribute, power. Or in the case of the 1 megawatt 19 reactors, those three attributes which, again, it's 20 not clear why, you know, why 16 square inches was 21 picked for a facility in your reactor core, why that 22 was the cutoff.
23 So we, you know, we believe we're more 24 risk informed.
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
19 And, you know, under the rules the way 1
things are done now, you can have a 1,000 megawatt 2
test reactor.
3 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Nothing stops.
4 MR. ADAMS: No, nothing stops you. When 5
you're above 10 megawatts, right, by today's rule 6
you're a test reactor.
7 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: In fact, just for the 8
sake of --
9 MEMBER BROWN: I got it.
10 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: -- the DOE is 11 considering their versatile test reactor. And they 12 may be in front of staff.
13 MEMBER BROWN: A virtual test reactor?
14 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Versatile. Versatile 15 not virtual.
16 MEMBER BROWN: Oh, versatile.
17 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: And that will 18 probably be in front of the staff because they might 19 come through licensing.
So this sort of 20 classification fits right in.
21 MEMBER BROWN: Okay, thank you.
22 MR. KENNEDY: Next slide, please.
23 So, based on the public comment from NIST, 24 the NRC made the determination that, as Al mentioned, 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
20 with the 10 megawatt threshold, while it's generally 1
based on safety significance was not, the basis for 2
that determination is not well documented. Again, the 3
power level alone is not an indicator of the risk or 4
the potential dose from the facility.
5 And so we found that use of a more risk-6 informed performance-based approach is an acceptable 7
path for how we classify testing facilities in the 8
future.
9 There is also a second part of the 10 definition of testing facility that seeks to preserve 11 an option for the Commission to make a determination 12 that a facility may pose a risk that's not totally 13 captured by the dose calculations themselves. And so 14 in the case of a facility that presented some new or 15 unique design that didn't have operating experience or 16 wasn't well understand in terms of past experience, 17 the Commission still has the option to decide that a 18 facility could be categorized as a testing facility 19 and apply the additional regulatory scrutiny that goes 20 along with that.
21 Okay, with that I'll turn it over to Al to 22 discuss the no-expiring license portion of the 23 proposed -- of the draft final rule.
24 MR. ADAMS: Good morning. I'll be talking 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
21 about the next couple of slides.
1 So, the second objective of the rulemaking 2
was to eliminate license terms for certain NPUFs. The 3
Atomic Energy Act doesn't establish a license term for 4
Class 104 or 104c facilities, a or c facilities. The 5
term's only limited by 10 CFR 50.51(a) and 40 years or 6
less. And the staff currently licenses NPUFs for 20-7 years terms for both renewals and initial licenses.
8 The staff did consider terms greater than 9
20 years but less than indefinite. But we determined 10 that with the addition of regular FSAR updates there's 11 no significant nexus between safety and the license 12 renewal process.
13 The regulations allow 40-year licenses.
14 And several licenses with 40-year terms were issued in 15 the late '50s and early '60s. The staff determined 16 that 40 years was too long of a time to go without an 17 SAR update, and we adopted a practice of 20-year 18 license terms.
19 This was made after a decision was made in 20 the 1970s that license renewal would be no longer a 21 simple administrative action.
22 The staff's experience with renewals shows 23 that even going 20 years without a formal process to 24 update the licensing basis documentation contributed 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
22 to a loss of the licensing basis and contributed to 1
the last backlog of licensing renewals. Thus, the 2
staff concluded that longer license terms would 3
further aggravate difficulties that were experienced.
4 During the proposed rule phase it was 5
suggested that we both extend the terms of licenses 6
and require FSAR updates. However, feedback from 7
public meetings show that RPR licensees the community 8
would not support a proposal that included both FSAR 9
updates and license renewal for research reactors.
10 Staff agreed that both were not needed to 11 protect public health and safety.
12 The staff's view is that the non-expiring 13 license is consistent with the Atomic Energy Act 14 Section 104 to "impose only such minimum amount of 15 regulation under this Act to promote the common 16 defense and security, and protect the health and 17 safety of the public."
18 So the next two slides discuss how health 19 and safety of the public is maintained with a non-20 expiring license.
21 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Al, before you go there.
22 MR. ADAMS: Certainly.
23 MEMBER SKILLMAN: It seems to me that the 24 integrity of the process with a non-expiring license 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
23 hangs on the strength of the 50.59 process. First of 1
all, there are going to be updates, FSAR updates, plus 2
the 50.59 process where a licensee is required to 3
identify where there is a potential license change.
4 MR. ADAMS: Correct. That's one of the 5
tools. The 50.59 process would be captured by FSAR 6
updates. Any license amendments that were issued 7
would be captured by the FSAR updates.
8 MEMBER SKILLMAN: But more importantly, 9
50.59 is a forward-looking tool where the licensee 10 would have to evaluate what that licensee is doing to 11 determine whether or not what is being done changes 12 the license; correct? That's what 50.59 does.
13 MR. ADAMS: Right. It allows you to make 14 changes without Commission approval.
15 MEMBER SKILLMAN: But you have to 16 determine whether or not you have in fact changed your 17 license?
18 MR. ADAMS: That's true.
19 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Okay. Now here's where 20 I'm going with this. What obligates the licensee to 21 have qualified people performing 50.59?
22 MR. ADAMS: Well, one, the regulation 23 itself, that there's an assumption in the regulation 24 that you're going to do the 50.59s properly. And the 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
24 inspection program specifically looks at 50.59s. And 1
there is a reporting requirement in 50.59 that the 2
licensee submit summaries of their 50.59 evaluations 3
to the staff.
4 So it's not, it's not a blind process 5
where the staff never looks in. So it's, it's 6
essentially a timing thing that we look in, you know, 7
at the 50.59 in the time frame it was done versus 8
maybe 20 years down the road, or 30 or 40 years.
9 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you.
10 MEMBER BALLINGER: I have a comment that 11 I come from one of the places that has one of these 12 reactors. And there's a fair amount of turnover of 13 personnel. And I wonder whether as part of the public 14 comment, comments, anybody thought about with a non-15 expiring license you may get to the point where you 16 get a complete staff turnover. And so it's a whole 17 new staff on the whole reactor.
18 And is there nothing now that kind of 19 forces the staff of these facilities to sort of re-20 zero themselves to get up to speed? Maybe I'm not 21 using the right words --
22 MR. ADAMS: No, I --
23 MEMBER BALLINGER: -- but you get my point 24 I think.
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
25 MR. ADAMS: No, I know exactly what you're 1
saying. And, indeed, that was one of the strengths of 2
what we saw with, you know, not only is not a, you 3
know, it's a whole package, the non-expiring license, 4
the FSAR updates that we believe that the FSAR updates 5
will focus those staffs onto a better understanding of 6
the facility in a shorter time frame. And, indeed, 7
turnover of staff and students was one of our driving 8
factors.
9 MEMBER BLEY: Al, just to put this in 10 perspective. As you introduced this topic a few 11 minutes ago I think you said in the old process, both 12 at 40 years and even at 20 years you found by the time 13 of that renewal the licensee basis had either 14 deteriorated or was lost.
15 Is that -- did I hear you correctly?
16 MR. ADAMS: We saw instances of that where 17 18 MEMBER BLEY: So that means there were 19 substantial changes that weren't supported anywhere?
20 Is that what it means? I'm not sure what it means.
21 MR. ADAMS: That we saw SARs that did not 22 capture accurately what the facility looked like.
23 MEMBER BLEY: So in your opinion this is 24 an improvement?
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
26 MR. ADAMS: Yeah, we believe that all of 1
this taken together will be a significant improvement 2
to safety, along with the reduction burden for both 3
the licensees and the NRC because it, you know, will 4
take every 20, 40 years a significant uptick in 5
resources to, you know, recapture what you lost.
6 In fact, one licensee came in and talked 7
to us about do they really need to, you know, 8
recapture their licensing basis? Could we, you know, 9
could we through simple observation make a
10 determination that the facility was safe.
11 We said that probably wasn't a good way to 12 go about it.
13 I believe we're on Slide 10 if there's no 14 other questions.
15 So this slide provides some of the 16 technical reasons based on --
17 MEMBER BROWN: Can I interrupt for a 18 question?
19 MR. ADAMS: Sure.
20 MEMBER BROWN: I jumped ahead a couple of 21 slides to the unlimited licenses. I remember reading 22 about that.
23 That's for the research reactors?
24 MR. ADAMS: That's for, right, that's for 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
27 Class 104a and c research reactors.
1 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. But you have test 2
reactors and the medical isotopes, they maintain 40 3
year terms later?
4 MR. ADAMS: Yes. Testing --
5 MEMBER BROWN:
So there's a
6 differentiation between the types of reactors and the 7
unlimited. Okay.
8 MR. ADAMS: Yeah, so --
9 MEMBER BROWN: I just wanted to make sure 10 I understood.
11 MR. ADAMS: -- so testing facilities and 12 commercial facilities, Class 103 or 5023 facilities --
13 MEMBER BROWN: Okay.
14 MR. ADAMS: -- will continue to have a 15 license term and will continue to go through 16 licensing.
17 MEMBER BROWN: Will they have the FSAR 18 requirements?
19 MR. ADAMS: Yes, and they will have the 20 FSAR requirements. So that small subset of licensees, 21 and right now, you know, there's three licensees in 22 that subset. We'll, you know, we'll be doing some 23 additional work but we believe the FSAR update is 24 important to do.
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
28 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. Thank you.
1 MR. ADAMS: So this slide is presenting 2
the technical reasons based on design and operational 3
characteristics of Class 104 NPUFs other than testing 4
facilities to discontinue the licensing rule due to 5
their low risk. So this discussion is applicable to 6
medical therapy and research reactors. It's not 7
related o testing facilities or commercial medical 8
isotope facilities who will still be subject to 9
10 While commercial facilities may have some 11 of the attributes of non-commercial facilities, 12 potential pace and scope of commercial activities 13 justifies the additional scrutiny of the Class 103 14 licensing process.
15 So, under this rule, Class 104 NPUFs other 16 than testing facilities will have a maximum accident 17 dose criterion of 1 rem TEDE. These facilities 18 operate at low power levels, they have a small 19 inventory of fission product, and they operate at low 20 temperatures and pressures, presenting a low potential 21 radiological risk to the environment and the public.
22 These facilities are also simply in design 23 and operation and, therefore, the scope of age-related 24 concerns is limited.
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
29 Staff found no significant aging issues 1
because the NRC currently imposes aging-related 2
surveillance on NPUFs versus technical specifications.
3 In addition, the design basis of these 4
facilities evolve slowly over time. The NRC receives 5
approximately five license amendment requests each 6
year from all the licensees combined. Further, on 7
average each of these licensees reports about five 8
50.59 evaluations per year.
9 Can I have Slide 11, please.
10 So, we continued, we considered the nexus 11 between license renewal and safety. When the first 12 power reactors are facing license renewal, research 13 reactor license renewal is already an established 14 process.
15 We looked at the framework that was being 16 developed for power reactor license renewals that 17 focused on the aging of structures, systems and 18 components important to continued safety.
19 We made a decision not to include research 20 reactors in the power reactor framework of Part 54 21 because we already had an established license renewal 22 process at that time. We also could not envision what 23 license renewal would encompass for NPUFs if limited 24 to just aging issues.
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
30 So, the question is, without notable aging 1
issues what does taking a snapshot of a research react 2
or every 20 or 40 years contribute to safety? We came 3
to the conclusion that there was nothing of safety 4
importance. There are other processes in place to 5
ensure safety on a continuing basis. And the actions 6
we have taken or are proposing to take contribute more 7
to continuing safety than performing a license renewal 8
every 20 to 40 years for these facilities.
9 NUREG-1537 is our format and content 10 guidance for NPUFs. And it's the standard review plan 11 for the staff to renew licensing actions. It was 12 issued in 1996. And there's been two interim staff 13 guidance documents that were issued after that.
14 Prior to 1996 there was no comprehensive 15 guidance for either licensees or the staff in this 16 area.
17 As an entrance criteria to being ordered 18 into a non-expiring license all the facilities must 19 undergo a license renewal using the guidance of NUREG-20 1537. This ensures a comprehensive and consistent 21 licensing basis using established guidance for the 22 licensees.
23 For the staff we have a licensing basis 24 that was reviewed and documented in a safety 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
31 evaluation report using the standard review plan. So, 1
we have a solid documented basis of safety of the 2
facilities in a non-expiring license process.
3 The oversight and inspection program is a 4
comprehensive look at all aspects of facility 5
operations. Inspectors are on site up to several 6
times a year. Any deterioration of a licensee 7
performance will be discovered, documented, and 8
corrected.
9 Inspection results are reviewed for 10 adverse trends that could indicate new aging issues.
11 Licensees also report maintenance, which includes 12 component issues in your annual report, which would 13 allow the NRC to identify new aging issues if they 14 were to occur.
15 As
- such, the staff believes that 16 regulatory oversight and requirement for FSAR updates 17 in the final rule provide the safety benefits 18 currently afforded by the license renewal process, and 19 we believe even more.
20 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Was there pushback from 21 the licensees for that license renewal inspection?
22 MR. ADAMS: Well, there is not a license 23 renewal inspection. There's just a normal inspection 24 process which looks at, which looks at attributes that 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
32 enter into showing the continued safety of the 1
facility.
2 MEMBER SKILLMAN: What I was imaging is 3
the licensees have been tardy or deficient for a long 4
time and all of a sudden they're being called to task 5
to, if you will, present their licensing basis.
6 MR. ADAMS: Yes.
7 MEMBER SKILLMAN: And they say, well gee 8
whiz, you know, that's a lot of work. I don't really 9
want to do that.
10 MR. ADAMS: There was a number of public 11 comments and a lot of discussion on it. Because the 12 entry requirements for a non-expiring license is that 13 NUREG--1537 license renewal, at the end of that 14 license renewal the licensing documentation is 15 brought up to date. The biggest task would be taking 16 out the answers to the RAIs and working them into the 17 narrative of the SAR so to speak.
18 So, most of the work was already done at 19 that, at that point because of license renewal. And 20 we expect after that first update, you know, because 21 of the slowly evolving licensing basis that will be, 22 you know, easy for the licensees to keep up.
23 MEMBER SKILLMAN: So let me ask my 24 question again. Was there pushback or was there 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
33 general agreement that we're good with that?
1 MR. ADAMS: There was some pushback until 2
what we were proposing was fully understood. There 3
was some fear that this 5-year FSAR was just a stealth 4
license renewal every five years. And as we discussed 5
this with the community more they grew to understand 6
what we were trying to accomplish.
7 So I think at the end of the day the 8
feedback of the licensees is positive and the comments 9
from the licensees their comments were positive. And 10 if there's any, you know, licensees that are 11 representatives of a TRTR here I would invite them to, 12 you know, to give their opinion when that time comes.
13 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Okay, thank you, Al.
14 Thank you.
15 MR. ADAMS: Could we have Slide 12, 16 please.
17 So, for Class 103 NPUFs and testing 18 facilities the staff is proposing a new section 50-135 19 that would consolidate in one section the existing 20 regulatory requirements for license renewal for 21 current and future NPUF licensees licensed under 22 Section 50.22 and testing facilities.
23 The final rule would not impose any new 24 regulations on these facilities.
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
34 Some minor changes were made to the final 1
rule, not in technical requirements but in the 2
administrative process as a result of comments and 3
staff review.
4 The final rule is making renewed operating 5
licenses for these facilities effective immediately 6
upon the date of issuance instead of 30 days after 7
issuance, as was in the draft proposed rule. This way 8
the applicants for the renewed license can propose a 9
schedule for implementation of the renewed license to 10 the extent that additional time is needed to make any 11 necessary and conforming changes to the facility 12 processes and procedures required by the applicable 13 conditions of their renewed license.
14 The final rule provides a substantially 15 similar result in this area as the proposed rule, but 16 also allows the NRC licensees additional flexibility 17 in the time of implementation.
18 Also, as written the proposed rule could 19 have unnecessarily restricted the license term for a 20 renewed NPUF license to less than 40 years. Section 21 103 of the Atomic Energy Act allows license terms of 22 up to 40 years. To address this issue the final rule 23 clarifies that renewed licenses are issued for a fixed 24 period of time not to exceed 40 years.
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
35 At this point I'll turn it back to Duke 1
for the next dozen slides.
2 MR. KENNEDY: The next objective is to 3
provide updates periodically of the FSAR submittals.
4 So we have extended the applicability of 10 CFR 5
50.71(e) to NPUFs. And as was mentioned by Al, we 6
believe this, this requirement will allow the 7
licensing basis to be kept up to date in a manner that 8
it can better support our inspection program and 9
operator licensing program.
10 What we've seen in the past, as Al 11 mentioned, is covered by questions that were already 12 asked that the licensing basis in some cases is not 13 maintained as well as it could have been to support 14 licensing actions such as amendments
- and, 15 specifically, license renewal. So, we believe that 16 the 5-year frequency for providing FSAR updates will 17 allow the licensing basis to support future licensing 18 actions and NRC regulatory oversight better than it 19 currently does.
20 We selected the 5-year periodicity 21 considering the 2-year periodicity for power reactors 22 and the less frequent changes expected for NPUF 23 licensees. We believe that 5 years provides enough 24 flexibility for licensees to develop their own program 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
36 for updating their FSARs and submitting the to the NRC 1
without being overly burdensome by provide very 2
frequent updates.
3 We've also developed a regulatory guide to 4
support licensees in performing these updates. And so 5
it goes over explicitly what will be required of 6
licensees for their first FSAR update which would 7
follow their initial licensing. So when the license 8
is issued they'll have 5 years to submit an update to 9
the FSAR that incorporates all of the requests for 10 additional information and other supplements to the 11 application during the licensing process.
12 Following that, licensees will be required 13 to submit periodic FSAR updates not to exceed 5 years.
14 And the reg provides guidance on what information to 15 include in those types of updates as well as the 16 administrative process for submitting them to the NRC.
17 Next please.
18 The next objective is to amend the timely 19 renewal provision. So, currently licensees are given 20 30 days to submit their license renewal application 21 prior to the expiration of their existing license.
22 And we found through the last round of license 23 renewals that 30 days was not an adequate amount of 24 time for NRC to make a final determination on the 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
37 acceptability of that application or whether the 1
license could be renewed.
2 In the final rule, the draft final rule, 3
we have a 2-year time frame for submission of a 4
license renewal application before expiration of the 5
existing license. And we believe that this provides 6
adequate time for the NRC staff to perform its 7
acceptance review as well as to go through the 8
detailed technical review and either issue -- and 9
issue a renewed license based on that application 10 before the existing license expires.
11 As you're aware, some licensees were 12 timely renewal for many years beyond the expiration of 13 their current licenses during the last round of 14 license renewal. And we're seeking to avoid that 15 situation in the future.
16 One change from the proposed rule to the 17 draft final rule is that we are maintaining the 30-day 18 timely renewal requirement for certain facilities.
19 This is because of one special case in which a 20 licensee will be required to submit their renewal 21 application in the time period between when the final 22 rule is issued and between the expiration of its 23 current license.
24 If the rule were issued as it was 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
38 proposed, timely renewal would not even be an option 1
for that licensee. In this case we expect that the 2
license application would be due approximately one 3
year after publication of the rule, in which case the 4
2-year limit would not allow them to go into timely 5
renewal at all. So, for this one licensee we kept th 6
30-day provision so that they can continue to benefit 7
from timely renewal and not be inordinately impacted 8
by the final rule.
9 MEMBER BROWN: Is that are they specified 10 and you call that a renewal or is it a generalized 30-11 day?
12 MR. KENNEDY: It's a generalized 30 days, 13 30-day provision that will only be applicable to this 14 licensee by the circumstances, by the facts.
15 MEMBER BROWN: Is it written down is what 16 I'm trying to say, that only one guy has this 17 exception?
18 MR. KENNEDY: The actual facility is --
19 MEMBER BROWN: That one licensee has this 20 exception?
21 MR. KENNEDY: The licensee is not called 22 out in the regulations. The regulations --
23 MEMBER BROWN: The others could then try 24 to take advantage of the 30 days?
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
39 It just seems to be inconsistent. I mean, 1
you're the NRC, you could easily tell people, yeah, 2
it's in the rule but, yeah, you've got --
3 MR. ADAMS: Well, the 30-day rule, the 30-4 day rule exists in the regulations now. What we've 5
done is we've taken some facilities out of that 30-day 6
bin and put them in the new bin. So this one facility 7
remains in the 30-day bin mainly because they are 8
within two years of --
9 MEMBER BROWN: I understand that. It's 10 just that nobody else can now piggyback on this?
11 MR. ADAMS: No.
12 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. That's my question.
13 MR. ADAMS: Yes.
14 MEMBER BROWN: Making sure there was a 15 line in the sand somewhere.
16 MR. ADAMS: Correct.
17 MR. KENNEDY: No, essentially it's 18 structured so that once this licensee goes through 19 renewal no other licensees will be able to enter into 20 this provision.
21 MEMBER BROWN: Okay.
22 MR. ADAMS: Right. Our research reactor 23 licensees. The 30-day provision is still on the books 24 for, say, certain materials licensees and other 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
40 licensee groups but not for research reactors or 1
2 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Duke, when you were 3
explaining the logic her you mentioned that there was 4
attention given to prevent licensees from going into 5
their, if you will, a period of extended operation 6
without a valid license. And what comes quickly to my 7
mind is what the agency and the licensee went through 8
at Indian Point where those plants drifted into beyond 9
their expiration, and they were provisional. And, you 10 know, it was quite a, quite a legal effort on both 11 sides to find a remedy to that.
12 What is in this rule change for NPUFs to 13 prevent that same type of miserable outcome from 14 occurring?
15 MR. KENNEDY: There's nothing that would 16 prevent it from happening. But the expectation is 17 that by getting the renewal application further in 18 advance that there will be a much higher likelihood 19 that we will actually be able to make the final 20 determination before that happens.
21 MEMBER SKILLMAN: That's fair enough.
22 Okay.
23 MR. KENNEDY: And every license we 24 renewed, you know, in the current round that started 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
41 in the late 1990s every one of them expired on time.
1 That it was only they were only continued to be valid 2
licenses because the applications are in 30 days ahead 3
of time. And 30 days is not enough time for the staff 4
to do an acceptance review, get, you know, if there 5
are shortcomings get those shortcomings corrected and 6
get, and get a better application on the docket.
7 So we would have to, you know, accept 8
whatever came in the door and through the RAI process 9
slowly correct the shortcomings in the application, 10 which was -- at times could be very time consuming.
11 MEMBER SKILLMAN: Thank you.
12 MR. KENNEDY: Next slide, please.
13 The next objective provides an accident 14 dose criterion for research reactors. Again, there's 15 no significant change in the draft final rule from the 16 proposed rule.
17 But just as a brief background, the NRC 18 has been applying the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 to 19 accidents at research and test reactors. And it was 20 recognized many years ago in 1972 by the Atomic Safety 21 and Licensing Board that these are unduly restrictive 22 for accident situations at research and test reactors.
23 However, until now there hast been no action to set 24 new dose criterion specifically for research reactors.
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
42 So the 1 rem dose criterion that was 1
proposed and that exists in the draft final rule is 2
based on the Environmental Protection Agency's 3
protective action guidelines for releases during 4
nuclear accidents, radiological accidents.
5 And the protective action guidelines do 6
not recommend any actions, or they're silent on 7
recommendations when the expected dose is below 1 rem.
8 So this was chosen as threshold for research reactor 9
accidents. But there are no recommended protective 10 actions below that threshold that provide adequate 11 protection of health and safety.
12 Facilities certainly are allows to take 13 actions below that threshold but it's just not 14 recommended, no recommendations from the EPA in that 15 respect.
16 So the change between the proposed rule 17 and the draft rule is really just to relocate where 18 these, where this dose criterion sits in the 19 regulations just to improve clarity that this 20 criterion is applicable to research reactors and that 21 it's applicable not just in calculations related to 22 our application for a construction permit, but that it 23 also needs to be explicit and finalized in the 24 operating license application as well. So it's just 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
43 been moved for clarity. The substance, the basis has 1
not changed.
2 Next please.
3 Okay. The seventh objective was to extend 4
the applicability of 10 CFR 50.59 to NPUFs that are 5
undergoing decommissioning regardless of their 6
decommissioning status. And essentially what this 7
means is that even if the fuel is removed from an NPUF 8
they'll still be able to use the provisions of 50.59 9
to make changes to their safety analysis report, 10 procedures, and so on.
11 In the current regulations they are not 12 allowed this. And we have been incorporating a 13 license condition that essentially provides them the 14 flexibility of 50.59. However, that just including 15 that license condition adds additional burden. And to 16 streamline that we've proposed to change 50.59 to 17 allow NPUFs in decommissioning to take advantage of 18 that process for making changes.
19 There was no change here between the 20 proposed and draft final rule.
21 Next please.
22 The next objective is to clarify existing 23 environmental reporting requirements. In the past, 24 for licensing actions and other reasons, collecting 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
44 environmental information from licensees has been done 1
under 51.41. And the new requirements in the draft 2
final rule just clarify how the NRC will collect the 3
information.
4 There are no new information collection 5
requirements and there have been no changes from the 6
proposed rule. We think this just improves 7
consistency and clarity of Part 51 and allows us to 8
get the information we need and for licensees to 9
respond with better certainty.
10 MEMBER BROWN: Can I stop to ask a 11 question?
12 MR. KENNEDY: Sure.
13 MEMBER BROWN: The applicability of 50.59 14 after decommissioning is there a safety reason for 15 wanting 50.59 type rules after fuel is removed and off 16 site?
17 MR. ADAMS: The answer is, the answer is 18 yes. So this was a sort of an error that was made 19 when the rule language was rewritten. And, for 20 example, back when that happened I had a --
21 decommissioning plans were put in place by order, I 22 actually had to write an order that allowed a facility 23 to use disposable protective clothing versus reusable 24 protective clothing.
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
45 So the answer is yes, you know, you still 1
need to make changes to your -- to the SAR and 2
procedures, especially if you're go into 3
decommissioning. And not having 50.59 available means 4
you've got to come to the NRC each and every time.
5 MEMBER BROWN:
So mostly due to 6
contamination type issues, correct, as opposed to 7
overall type of conditions?
8 MR. ADAMS: Sure. And, you know, and 9
procedures on, you know, how to physically take the 10 facility apar. So there's a lot of activities that 11 can occur under 50.59 when you're in decommission.
12 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. Thanks.
13 MR. KENNEDY: Okay. Finally, we, in the 14 draft final rule we maintain the proposed rule 15 provision to eliminate financial qualification 16 information submission requirements at the time of 17 license renewal. And this is consistent with how 18 power reactors are treated.
19 It was found in previous reviews during 20 license renewal that the financial information 21 submitted by licensees did not have any great 22 contribution to the staff's determination of whether 23 a renewal application was acceptable or not. So to be 24 consistent with what's done for power reactors, and 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
46 recognizing that we maintain safety through oversight 1
programs, would check for financial driven degradation 2
and safety. We believe that removal of the 3
requirement to submit this financial information at 4
license renewal is adequate to protect public health 5
and safety.
6 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. So let me follow 7
that up a little bit. I didn't chase this. But I 8
thought originally the financial requirements were 9
there to ensure that a licensee could not only operate 10 the plant but could shut it down and clean up the 11 place afterwards. Seems like that still ought to be 12 important.
13 MR. ADAMS: Well, that still is important, 14 that the requirements of 50.75, 50.82 for 15 decommissioning are not changed in that licensee, so 16 17 MEMBER BROWN: So that covers this in that 18 regard?
19 MR. ADAMS: Right. This is only that the 20 licensee, say, at license renewal would have to give 21 us information here's where the -- normally it was the 22 first 5 years of license renewal, here's where we're 23 going to get our money from, here's how we're going to 24 spend our money, and this is why we're going to be 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
47 from a financial point of view viable.
1 So it doesn't change the decommissioning 2
funding insurance regulations.
3 So we're at Slide 19.
4 And so this summarizes the change from the 5
final rule or form the draft rule to the final rule as 6
a result of staff comments and other considerations.
7 So these are the most significant changes.
8 So, we revised the proposed definition of 9
no-power production or utilization facility to exclude 10 production facilities designed or used primarily for 11 the formation of plutonium, or uranium-233, or 12 designed or use for the separation of the isotopes of 13 plutonium.
14 Based on a comment from NIST, we revised 15 the existing definition of non-power reactor, research 16 reactor, and testing facility to base the definitions 17 on radiological risk rather than reactor power level.
18 This is probably the most significant change we made 19 from the proposed rule.
20 Where appropriate we made conforming 21 changes to terms and definitions throughout 10 CFR 22 Chapter 1 to add, correct, or standardize terminology 23 and definitions.
24 Proposed 10 CFR 50 at 135 was revised so 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
48 that renewed licenses would be effective immediately.
1 Time for the licensee to implement the 2
renewed license would be determined on a case by case 3
basis instead of by rule, allowing more licensee 4
flexibility in operation.
5 We also clarified proposed 50.135 to 6
maintain up to a 40-term for renewed licenses. The 7
wording of the draft regulations inadvertently could 8
limit license terms to 30 years.
9 We also maintained the 30-day timely 10 renewal provision for facilities licensed under 11 Sections 104a and c of the Atomic Energy Act that 12 still needed to undergo license renewal to be subject 13 to a non-expiring license.
14 Finally, we revised the location within 10 15 CFR 50.34 of the accident dose criterion. We realized 16 we could place the criterion in a section of 50.34 17 that would allow great clarity in the application of 18 the criterion.
19 Next slide, please.
20 So, this slide is just a summary of the 21 nine objectives, the nine rule change areas in the 22 NPUF rule, showing facilities each of the changes are 23 applicable to.
24 I'd like to take a minute to recognize and 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
49 thank the working group for this rulemaking. They put 1
many hours carefully developing the documents that 2
were given to you. And they spent a lot of time going 3
through the public comments to make sure that they 4
were carefully considered and intelligently responded 5
to.
6 With this, I'll turn the discussion back 7
to Bob to discuss the schedule for the rule as we move 8
forward.
9 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thanks, Al.
10 So, in parallel with this committee's 11 deliberations of this draft final rule the staff is 12 also moving the package through concurrence through 13 our NRC agency management. We will be back in front 14 of the full committee, ACRS Committee, during the week 15 of February 4th. I think we're scheduled for February 16 7th is the current date we're planning on coming back 17 to the full committee to present the final rule again.
18 We will have one more public meeting to 19 discuss the implementation schedule for this draft 20 final rule with the public. That's going to be in 21 late February.
22 And the entire draft final NPUF rule 23 package is due to the Commission in June of this year.
24 And we're hoping to issue the draft of the final rule 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
50 sometime in early 2020.
1 With that we would like to address any 2
additional questions the committee may have.
3 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay. Questions by 4
the committee?
5 (No response.)
6 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: All right. Why don't 7
we turn to the in-room audience. Are there any 8
comments from members of the public?
9 MR. NEWTON: Hi. I'm Tom Newton from NIST 10 Center for Neutron Research. I just wanted to kind of 11 put my perspective and also since I'm a member of the 12 TRTR Executive Committee, we've had a lot of 13 discussion about this proposed rule.
14 We believe if it's properly implemented it 15 is a win/win situation, both for the NRC and for the 16 licensee. It will reduce burden and help us to keep 17 our facilities up to date, our SARs up to date. And 18 we support this rule.
19 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay, thank you.
20 Any other comments from anyone in the 21 room?
22 MR. O'KELLY: This is Sean O'Kelly.
23 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay, hang on.
24 MR. O'KELLY: I'm with TRTR staff.
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
51 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Anybody else in the 1
room?
2 (No response.)
3 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay. Now we're 4
turning to the phone.
5 MR. O'KELLY: Oh, sorry.
6 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: That's all right. Go 7
ahead.
8 MR. O'KELLY: We've also had a lot of 9
discussions in TRTR. And I want to thank --
10 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Can you repeat who 11 you are and I identify and then speak a little louder, 12 please.
13 MR. O'KELLY: I'm sorry. Sean O'Kelly, 14 the TRTR Chairman this year. I work at the Idaho 15 National Laboratories.
16 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Hi, Sean.
17 MR. O'KELLY: We want to thank the NRC 18 staff on working with TRTR to get the guidance out so 19 the clarity of what a 5-year FSAR update would look 20 like. One of the committee members mentioned that the 21 high turnover at universities has been a problem.
22 I'd like to express support for the NRC 23 staff to assure that they also get recognized that 24 they've had turnover also. And it's, there has to be 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
52 four or five people on either side and experience from 1
either side of the licensing.
2 Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Thank you. Are there 4
any comments on the phone line?
5 (No response.)
6 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay, hearing none, 7
why don't we close the phone line.
8 Any final comments by members of the 9
committee?
10 We're going to take this up in February.
11 And we'll have a shorter, maybe similar discussion in 12 terms of time in front of the full committee.
13 All right, thank you very much. We're --
14 MEMBER BLEY: I have a question.
15 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Go ahead.
16 MEMBER BLEY: For you, Mr. Chairman.
17 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Yes, Member Bley.
18 MEMBER BLEY: We haven't done, we haven't 19 done, actually done a new rule in a while. I'm 20 thinking of the process. In February we will give our 21 comments on the draft final rule. And then the 22 rulemaking will proceed. Is that correct?
23 And then at some point in the future will 24 we see this again?
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
53 MR. BEALL: No. After the full committee 1
we will -- if you have any comments you'll of course 2
address those in your letter. That's the formal 3
process.
4 And the staff, once we get your formal 5
letter the staff will respond to that letter and 6
incorporate any comments you have or address them 7
appropriately in a letter back to the, to the 8
Commission.
9 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: So I guess Dennis' 10 question was we're not going to see the rule in its 11 final form for one last go?
12 MR. BEALL: That's correct. After the 13 full committee review you will not be seeing the rule 14 again.
15 MEMBER BLEY: And really the only thing 16 happens after that is whatever the Commission does?
17 MR. BEALL: Yes, sir.
18 MEMBER BLEY: Okay. Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN CORRADINI: Okay. With that I 20 think we're adjourned.
21 (Whereupon, at 9:30 a.m., the above-22 entitled matter was adjourned.)
23 24 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
ACRS Subcommittee Meeting:
Non-power Production or Utilization Facility (NPUF)
License Renewal Rulemaking 1
January 23, 2019
2 NRC Staff Presenters
- Robert Beall, NMSS: Rulemaking PM
- Duane Hardesty, NRR: Technical Lead
- Al Adams, NRR: Senior Project Manager
3 Purpose of the NPUF Final Rule
- Implement Commission direction to streamline the license renewal process by establishing a more efficient, effective and focused regulatory framework
- Use innovative and transformative approaches to address existing shortcomings in the current regulations for non-power licensees 9 rulemaking objectives
4 Public Comments on the NPUF Proposed Rule
- Proposed rule was published for comment on March 30, 2017 day public comment period
- Public meeting was held on May 24, 2017
- Received 16 comment submissions
- Public comments generally supported the proposed rulemaking and recommended alternative approaches to certain aspects of the rule
5 Relationship of NPUF Entities (Post-Final Rule) 5 Class 104 a or c Testing Facilities**
licensed under § 50.21(c) or
§ 50.22 for R&D; accident radiation doses
> 1 rem TEDE; associated risk warrants classification as testing facility Commercial Medical Radioisotope Irradiation and Processing Facilities Research Reactors licensed under § 50.21(c) or
§ 50.22 for R&D; accident radiation doses
< 1 rem TEDE Class 103 Research mission
- Deletes previous power levels and notable safety considerations:
Circulating loop through the core used for fuel experiments Liquid fuel loading Large experimental facility in the core (> 16 in2 in cross-section)
- 1. Update Terms and Definitions Establish a single term (non-power production or utilization facility) to capture all non-power facilities licensed under part 50 Revise definitions for non-power reactor, research reactor, and testing facility in response to public comment and make conforming changes*
Ensure clarity and consistency for the applicability of NPUF regulations 6
Research Reactors Testing Facilities Medical Radioisotope Irradiation and Production Facilities Class 104 a or c Class 103
- Text in red are changes from the proposed rule.
7
- 1. Update Terms and Definitions
- National Institute of Standards and Technology public comment
- Revise definitions of testing facility and research reactor to remove the arbitrary 10MW(t) threshold, and apply, instead, a risk-based approach to its regulation of a testing facility.
- risk is best quantified by accident analyses performed under a licensing safety analysis
- Recommended definitions refer to the proposed accident dose criterion of 1 rem (0.01 Sv)
8
- 1. Update Terms and Definitions
- NRC staff determination
- 10 MW(t) threshold, while generally based on safety significance, is not documented.
- Prescriptive power thresholds do not account for the safety features that are engineered into the facility design and those barriers that must be breached during an accident before a release of radioactive material to the environment can occur.
- Power thresholds do not accurately represent the risk associated with a particular facility.
- Use of a postulated accident dose is a more risk-informed, performance-based approach.
- 2. Eliminate License Terms 9
Exempt Class 104a and 104c NPUFs, other than testing facilities, from 40-year fixed term in 10 CFR 50.51 No license term specified in AEA for Class 104 NPUFs Consistent with AEAs minimum regulation standard Reduce burden for licensees and NRC, but maintains public health and safety Research Reactors Testing Facilities Medical Radioisotope Irradiation and Production Facilities Class 104 a or c Class 103
No Notable Safety Considerations 10
- small fission product inventory
- small radiological consequence for maximum hypothetical accident
- Low energy systems
- low operating power and temperatures
- minimal decay heat
- No significant aging considerations
- simple designs
- proactive aging management / aging-related surveillance requirements
- loss of coolant is an analyzed condition
- Slowly evolving licensing basis
- Very low number of design changes each year
- Few rulemakings apply
Maintaining Safety without License Renewal Class 104a or c, except testing facilities
- License renewal under NUREG-1537
- Inspection program
- Technical specifications
- Existing reporting requirements
- Safety issues with SSCs
- Maintenance activities
- FSAR Update rule requirement 11
- 3. Define the License Renewal Process 12 Consolidate license renewal requirements under 10 CFR 50.135 for testing facilities and NPUFs licensed under 10 CFR 50.22 Clarify license renewal process Licenses will be effective immediately Maintains 40-year term for licenses Enhance regulatory efficiency Research Reactors Testing Facilities Medical Radioisotope Irradiation and Production Facilities Class 104 a or c Class 103
- 4. Require Updated FSAR Submittals 13 Extend applicability of 10 CFR 50.71(e) to NPUFs Ensure timely documentation of changes to licensing basis Benefit knowledge management, NRCs inspection program, and licensee operator training and exams Reg Guide 2.7 provides guidance on the FSAR updates.
Research Reactors Testing Facilities Medical Radioisotope Irradiation and Production Facilities Class 104 a or c Class 103
- 5. Amend Timely Renewal Provision Create two-year timely renewal for Class 103 and testing facilities and exempt Class 104a and 104c NPUFs, other than testing facilities 30 days in 10 CFR 2.109 is not a sufficient period of time for adequate assessment of license renewal application Two years provides sufficient time Maintain 30-day timely renewal provision for certain facilities 14 Research Reactors Testing Facilities Medical Radioisotope Irradiation and Production Facilities Class 104 a or c Class 103
- 6. Provide an Accident Dose Criterion Create new accident dose criterion for NPUFs, other than testing facilities, in 10 CFR 50.34 Part 20 public dose limits are unnecessarily restrictive as accident dose criteria Criterion would align with early phase EPA PAG and provide adequate protection from unnecessary exposure to radiation Revised the location within 10 CFR 50.34 of the accident dose criterion 15 Research Reactors Testing Facilities Medical Radioisotope Irradiation and Production Facilities Class 104 a or c Class 103
- 7. Extend Applicability of 10 CFR 50.59 16 Extend applicability to NPUFs regardless of decommissioning status 10 CFR 50.59 currently is not applicable to NPUFs once fuel is moved offsite Avoid burden of issuing license amendments Research Reactors Testing Facilities Medical Radioisotope Irradiation and Production Facilities Class 104 a or c Class 103
- 8. Clarify Existing Environmental Reporting Requirements 17 Add requirement in 10 CFR 51.56 for NPUFs to provide an environmental report per 10 CFR 51.45 Historically, NRC has relied on 10 CFR 51.41 to collect environmental information Improve consistency and clarify Part 51 requirements for licensing actions Research Reactors Testing Facilities Medical Radioisotope Irradiation and Production Facilities Class 104 a or c Class 103
- 9. Eliminate NPUF Financial Qualification Information Requirement 18 Eliminate 10 CFR 50.33(f)(2) financial qualification requirement at license renewal Primary means to ensure safety is through NRCs oversight and enforcement programs Reduce licensee burden without compromise to public health and safety Research Reactors Testing Facilities Medical Radioisotope Irradiation and Production Facilities Class 104 a or c Class 103
19 19 Significant Changes from the NPUF Proposed Rule
- Revised the proposed definition of non-power production or utilization facility
- Revised the existing definitions of non-power reactor, research reactor, and testing facility
- Made conforming changes to terms and definitions throughout 10 CFR Chapter I
- Revised proposed 10 CFR 50.135 so that renewed licenses will be effective immediately
- Clarified proposed 10 CFR 50.135 to maintain 40-year terms for renewed licenses
- Maintained timely renewal provision for certain facilities
- Revised the location within 10 CFR 50.34 of the accident dose criterion
NPUF Final Rule Summary NPUF Final Rule Change Class 103 Facilities Class 104a Facilities Class 104c Facilities Commercial Medical Therapy R&D Testing
- 1. Update terms and definitions
- 2. Eliminate license terms N/A
N/A
- 3. Define the license renewal process
N/A N/A
- 4. Require updated FSAR submittals
- 5. Amend timely renewal provision
- 6. Provide an accident dose criterion
N/A
- 7. Extend applicability of 10 CFR 50.59
- 8. Clarify existing environmental reporting requirements
- 9. Eliminate NPUF financial qualification information for license renewal
N/A N/A
20
- Not applicable for Class 103 testing facilities
NPUF Rulemaking Schedule
- Final NPUF rule milestones
- Currently in concurrence
- Presentation to ACRS full committee during the week of February 4, 2019
- Public meeting on the draft final rule implementation schedule for late February
- Due to Commission in June 2019 21
QUESTIONS?
22
23 BACK UP SLIDES
24 Regulatory Policy - Class 104 The policy for regulation of Class 104 NPUFs is described in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Section 104a. and c.
Sec. 104. Medical Therapy and Research and Development
- a. the Commission is directed to permit the widest amount of effective medical therapy possible with the amount of special nuclear material available for such purposes and to impose the minimum amount of regulation consistent with its obligations under this Act to promote the common defense and security and to protect the health and safety of the public.
- c. The Commission is directed to impose only such minimum amount of regulation of the licensee as the Commission finds will permit the Commission to fulfill its obligations under this Act to promote the common defense and security and to protect the health and safety of the public and will permit the conduct of widespread and diverse research and development.
24
25 25 Regulatory Policy - Class 103 The policy for regulation of Class 103 NPUFs is described in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Section 103.
Sec. 103. Commercial Licenses
- a. The Commission is authorized to issue licenses to persons applying therefor to transfer or receive in interstate commerce, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, possess, use, import, or export under the terms of an agreement for cooperation arranged pursuant to section 123, utilization or production facilities for industrial or commercial purposes. Such licenses shall be issued in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 and subject to such conditions as the Commission may by rule or regulation establish to effectuate the purpose and provisions of this Act.
- c. Each such license shall be issued for a specified period, as determined by the Commission, depending on the type of activity to be licensed, but not exceeding forty years from the authorization to commence operations and may be renewed upon the expiration of such period.
25
26 Regulatory Definitions
- Non-power reactor means a research or test reactor licensed under §§50.21(c) or 50.22 of this part for research and development [10 CFR 50.2 Definitions].
- Research reactor means a nuclear reactor licensed by the Commission under the authority of subsection 104c of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of § 50.21(c) of this chapter for operation at a thermal power level of 10 megawatts or less, and which is not a testing facility as defined by paragraph (m) of this section [§170.3 Definitions].
26
27 Regulatory Definitions (cont.)
- Testing facility means a nuclear reactor which is of a type described in §50.21(c) of this part and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation at:
(1) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (2) A thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt, if the reactor is to contain:
(i) A circulating loop through the core in which the applicant proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (ii) A liquid fuel loading; or (iii) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section. [§ 170.3 Definitions]
27
28 Characteristics of Current NPUF Entities 28 Class 104 a or c Testing Facilities
> 10 MWt or
> 1 MWt if notable safety considerations Commercial Medical Radioisotope Irradiation and Production Facilities Research Reactors 10 MWt or 1 MWt if notable safety considerations Class 103 Research mission Notable safety considerations:
Circulating loop through the core used for fuel experiments Liquid fuel loading Large experimental facility in the core (> 16 in2 in cross-section)