ML19232A230
| ML19232A230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 08/20/2019 |
| From: | Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY |
| To: | NRC/OGC, Tennessee Valley Authority |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 52-047-ESP, ASLBP 17-954-01-ESP-BD02, RAS 55183 | |
| Download: ML19232A230 (196) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 August 20, 2019 Memorandum to Counsel for Applicant and Staff:
On August 14, 2019, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held an evidentiary session to receive testimony and exhibits in the uncontested proceeding regarding the application from the Tennessee Valley Authority for an early site permit for the Clinch River Nuclear Site in Roane County, Tennessee. On August 19, 2019, I issued an Order (Setting Deadline for Proposed Transcript Corrections). The hearing transcript appended to that Order omitted line numbers. Attached is a copy of the official hearing transcript containing line numbers. Please use the attached copy to develop your proposed transcript corrections, if any.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Denise McGovern (denise.mcgovern@nrc.gov, 301-415-0681) of.my staff.
Enclosure:
As stated.
Sincerely, u1~v~-<!_~
Annette Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Hearing RE Early Site Permit for the Clinch River Nuclear Site Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 Work Order No.:
NRC-0494 Pages 1-183 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 COMMISSION HEARING ON EARLY SITE PERMIT FOR THE 4
CLINCH RIVER NUCLEAR SITE: SECTION 189A. OF THE 5
ATOMIC ENERGY ACT PROCEEDING 6
+ + + + +
7 WEDNESDAY, 8
AUGUST 14, 2019 9
+ + + + +
10 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 11
+ + + + +
12 The Commission met in the Commissioners' 13 Hearing Room at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 14 One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, at 9:00 15 a.m., Kristine L. Svinicki, Chairman, presiding.
16 COMMISSION MEMBERS:
17 KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, Chairman 18 JEFF BARAN, Commissioner 19 ANNIE CAPUTO, Commissioner 20 DAVID A. WRIGHT, Commissioner 21 ALSO PRESENT:
22 ANNETTE VIETTI-COOK, Secretary of the Commission 23 MARIAN ZOBLER, General Counsel 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
2 NRC STAFF:
1 FRED BROWN, Director, Office of New Reactors (NRO) 2 ANNA BRADFORD, Deputy Director, DLSE, NRO 3
TAMSEN DOZIER, Project Manager, NRO 4
KENNETH ERWIN, Branch Chief, NRO 5
ALLEN FETTER, Senior Project Manager, NRO 6
MICHELLE HART, Senior Reactor Engineer, NRO 7
BRUCE MUSICO, Senior Emergency Preparedness 8
Specialist, NSIR 9
MICHAEL SCOTT, Director, Division of Preparedness 10 and Response, NSIR 11 MICHAEL SPENCER, Office of General Counsel 12 MALLECIA SUTTON, Senior Project Manager, NRO 13 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 ALSO PRESENT:
1 RYAN DREKE, Counsel for TVA 2
JOHN HOLCOMB, Manager, Small Modular Reactor 3
Engineering, TVA 4
RUTH HORTON, Program Manager, Environmental Support, 5
TVA 6
WALLY JUSTICE, Nuclear Consultant, Small Modular 7
Reactor Engineering, TVA 8
ARCHIE MANOHARAN, Senior Program Manager, Site 9
Nuclear Licensing, TVA 10 JEFF PERRY, Senior Project Manager, TVA 11 JOE SHEA, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and 12 Support Services, TVA 13 DAN STOUT, Director, Nuclear Technology Innovation, 14 TVA 15 ALEX YOUNG, Mechanical Engineer, Design, TVA 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
4 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 1
Opening Remarks, Swearing in of Witnesses and 2
Admission of Exhibits 3
Kristine Svinicki...............
6 4
Overview (TVA) 5 Joe Shea
................... 16 6
Dan Stout................... 21 7
Commission Q&A................. 29 8
Overview (NRC Staff) 9 Frederick Brown................ 39 10 Anna Bradford................. 45 11 Commission Q&A................. 56 12 Safety Panel:
13 Applicant 14 Archie Manoharan
............... 64 15 Alex Young
.................. 70 16 Staff 17 Allen Fetter
................. 74 18 Mallecia Sutton................ 77 19 Bruce Musico
................. 79 20 Michelle Hart................. 82 21 Michael Scott................. 92 22 Commissioner Q&A...............
100 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
5 Environmental Panel (TVA) 1 Jeff Perry 146 2
Ruth Horton.................
147 3
Tamsen Dozier................
153 4
Kenneth Erwin................
159 5
Environmental Panel (NRC Staff) 6 Tamsen Dozier................
168 7
Commission Q&A................
169 8
Closing Statement by Applicant 170 9
Closing Statement by Staff 180 10 Commission Q&A and Closing Statements 184 11 Adjourn....................
193 12 13 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
6 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
8:58 a.m.
2 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Again, good morning 3
and welcome everyone to this morning's mandatory 4
hearing which we will now call to order.
5 I want to welcome the applicant, the 6
Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA as I'm sure they'll 7
be referred to throughout the day. I want to welcome 8
also the NRC staff, members of the public in the room 9
with us and those who are observing the web cast of 10 today's proceedings remotely.
11 The Commission convenes today to conduct 12 an evidentiary hearing on TVA's application for an 13 early site permit to determine the suitability of the 14 Clinch River Nuclear Site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for 15 one or more small modular reactors.
16 The early site permit, if approved, would 17 resolve a number of environmental, emergency planning 18 and siting issues, but would not authorize the 19 construction or operation of any reactors. That would 20 require one or more separate and subsequent licensing 21 actions which would also be subject to a hearing.
22 As we begin this morning I would like to 23 acknowledge the presence of our federal partners from 24 the Federal Emergency Management Agency including Dr.
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 Michael Casey who is director of the Technological 1
Hazards Division.
2 We thank you, Dr. Casey, and FEMA for your 3
written comments which we received on July 8th 4
regarding the NRC's consideration of emergency 5
planning zones in this proceeding. Although today's 6
hearing does not include an opportunity for 7
presentations beyond those from the parties, which are 8
TVA and the NRC staff, we will be considering the FEMA 9
comments carefully. They have been entered as a part 10 of the docket of this hearing and we encourage FEMA to 11 continue working with the NRC staff. If after 12 listening today FEMA would like to supplement or 13 clarify its earlier written statement in this case, it 14 may certainly provide a supplemental letter to which 15 the parties would have an opportunity to respond and 16 the Commission would have an opportunity to take under 17 consideration again.
18 I will now look up and look up at our FEMA 19 visitors. Thank you very much for being here today.
20 I had an opportunity to say hello and good morning to 21 you separately.
22 This hearing is required under Section 23 189A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
24 The Commission also will be reviewing the adequacy 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
8 the NRC staff's environmental impact analysis under 1
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or 2
NEPA.
3 The general order of the hearing is as 4
follows: First, I will address procedural matters 5
associated with the swearing in of witnesses and the 6
admission into the record of the parties' exhibits.
7 TVA and the NRC staff will then provide testimony in 8
witness panels that provide an overview of the 9
application as well as address safety and 10 environmental issues associated with the NRC staff's 11 review with Commission questions following each panel.
12 The Commission expects to issue a decision 13 after the hearing promptly with due regard to the 14 complexity of the issues after it makes the following 15 necessary findings:
16 On the safety side the Commission will 17 determine, one, whether the applicable standards and 18 requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the 19 Commission's regulations, specifically those in 10 CFR 20 Section 52.24, have been met.
21 Second, whether any required notifications 22 to other agencies or bodies have been duly made.
23
- Third, whether there is reasonable 24 assurance that the site is in conformity with 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
9 provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and the NRC's 1
regulations.
2
- Fourth, whether the applicant is 3
technically qualified to engage in the activities 4
authorized.
5 And fifth, whether issuance of the permit 6
would be inimical to the common defense and security 7
or to the health and safety of the public.
8 On the environmental side under 10 CFR 9
51.105A, the Commission will first determine whether 10 the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 11 Act, Section 1022A, C and E, and the applicable 12 regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 have been met.
13 Second, independently consider the final 14 balance among the conflicting factors contained in the 15 record of the proceeding with a view to determining 16 the appropriate action to be taken.
17 Third, determine after weighing the 18 environmental, economic, technical and other benefits 19 against environmental and other costs and considering 20 reasonable alternatives whether the early site permit 21 should on the basis of the environmental review be 22 issued, denied or appropriately conditioned.
23 And finally, fourth, determine whether the 24 NEPA review conducted by the NRC staff has been 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 adequate.
1 Today's meeting is open to observation by 2
the public. We do not anticipate the need to close 3
the meeting to discuss non-public information. If a 4
party believes that the response to a question may 5
require reference to non-public information, then that 6
party should answer the question to the extent 7
practicable with information in the publicly-available 8
record and file any non-public response promptly after 9
the hearing on the non-public docket.
10 Let me now ask my fellow Commissioners 11 whether they have any opening remarks.
12 (No audible response.)
13 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Hearing none, I will 14 now proceed with the swearing in of witnesses and I 15 will begin with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
16 Would the counsel for TVA please introduce 17 yourself?
18 MR. DREKE: I'm Ryan Dreke with TVA's 19 Office of General Counsel.
20 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you. Would you 21 please read the names of TVA's witnesses?
22 Each witness should stand as her or his 23 name is read and please remain standing.
24 Please proceed.
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 MR. DREKE: Joseph Shea, Daniel Stout, 1
John Holcomb, Walter Lee, Archie Manoharan, Michael 2
Alex Young, Walter Justice, Jeffrey Perry, and Ruth 3
Horton.
4 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much.
5 So for all the witnesses, would you please 6
raise your right hand while I read the oath?
7 Do you swear or affirm that the testimony 8
you will provide in this proceeding is the truth, the 9
whole truth and nothing but the truth?
10 ALL: I do.
11 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you. Is there 12 anyone who did not answer in the affirmative?
13 (No audible response.)
14 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay. Hearing not, 15 you may put your hands down and you may retake your 16 seats. Thank you.
17 Staff counsel, are there any objections to 18 including the witness list as part of the record?
19 MR. SPENCER: No objections.
20 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you. In the 21 absence of objections the witness list is admitted 22 into the record.
23 Next we will turn to TVA's exhibits.
24 Counsel for TVA, are there any changes to your 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 previously submitted exhibit list?
1 MR. DREKE: No, there are not.
2 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Please read the range 3
of numbers of the exhibits to be admitted.
4 MR. DREKE: TVA-001 to TVA-015.
5 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Is there a motion to 6
admit the exhibits into the record?
7 MR. DREKE: Yes, there is.
8 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Staff counsel, are 9
there any objections to the admission of the exhibits 10 and the exhibit list as part of the record?
11 MR. SPENCER: No objections.
12 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: In the absence of 13 objections the exhibits and exhibit list are admitted 14 into the record.
15 We will now turn to the same process with 16 the NRC staff starting with the presentation of 17 witnesses.
18 Counsel for the NRC staff, would you 19 please introduce yourself?
20 MR. SPENCER: I'm Michael Spencer, counsel 21 for the NRC staff.
22 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Would you please read 23 the names of the staff's witnesses? And as you do, 24 would each NRC witness please stand as her or his name 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 is read and remain standing?
1 MR. SPENCER : Joseph Anderson, Daniel 2
Barss, Anna Bradford, Frederick Brown, Luissette 3
Candelario, Allen Fetter, Joseph Giacinto, Michelle 4
Hart, David Heeszel, Patricia Milligan, Bruce Musico, 5
Judy Petrucelli, Michael Scott, Mallecia Sutton, 6
Jenise Thompson, Jennifer Davis, Peyton Doub, Tamsen 7
Dozier, Kenneth Erwin, Jessica Kratchman, Phillip 8
Meyer, and Donald Palmrose.
9 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you. And it's 10 very convenient that the NRC staff witnesses are all 11 off here in the seats to my left.
12 So I would ask each of you to raise your 13 right hands.
14 Do you swear or affirm that the testimony 15 you will provide in this proceeding is the truth, the 16 whole truth and nothing but the truth?
17 ALL: I do.
18 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: You may lower your 19 hands. Are there any NRC witnesses who did not take 20 the oath or answer in the affirmative?
21 (No audible response.)
22 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Hearing none, thank 23 you. You may retake your seats.
24 Counsel for TVA, are there any objections 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 to including the witness list as part of the record?
1 MR. DREKE: TVA has no objection.
2 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: In the absence of 3
objections the witness list is admitted into the 4
record.
5 We will now turn to the staff exhibits.
6 Counsel for the NRC staff, are there any changes to 7
your previously submitted exhibit list?
8 MR. SPENCER: No changes.
9 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Please read the range 10 of numbers of the exhibits to be admitted.
11 MR. SPENCER: NRC-001 to NRC-018.
12 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Is there a motion to 13 admit the exhibits into the record?
14 MR. SPENCER: Yes.
15 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Counsel for TVA, are 16 there any objections to the admission of the exhibits 17 and the exhibit list into the record?
18 MR. SPENCER: TVA has no objections.
19 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: In the absence of 20 objections the exhibits and exhibit list are admitted 21 into the record.
22 We will now turn to our first panel 23 presentation. Counsel, thank you very much and you 24 may re-take your previous seats.
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 I would ask the staff witnesses -- or 1
no, that's not how we're doing it. Sorry. Our first 2
presentation is TVA providing an overview of its 3
application, but the Office of the Secretary will 4
clear some of the name plates here at the table. Yes?
5 MS. VIETTI-COOK: Well, they will come up 6
after this.
7 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay. All right.
8 Thank you very much.
9 The NRC staff witnesses will join us after 10 the TVA presentation.
11 So for our first presentation, again TVA 12 will provide an overview of its application. And 13 after each overview panel we will have a round of 14 questions from the Commissioners. For the two 15 subsequent presentations, the Safety Panel and the 16 Environmental Panel, first TVA and then the staff will 17 testify followed by an opportunity for the Commission 18 to pose questions to both parties.
19 The Commissioner will have an opportunity 20 to bank their time as they see fit throughout the day 21 to focus on particular questions or areas of focus.
22 And we will rotate the order of questioning by members 23 of the Commission throughout the day.
24 I remind the witnesses of this panel 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
16 other panels who will appear before us that they 1
remain under oath and that the Commission is generally 2
familiar with the prehearing filings and it is not 3
necessary to repeat that testimony.
4 So now I will ask the TVA presenters in 5
the order that they've established to please proceed.
6 And prior to presenting for the first time would you 7
please introduce yourselves briefly? Thank you.
8 MR.
SHEA:
Good
- morning, Chairman 9
Svinicki, Commissioner Baran, Commissioner Caputo and 10 Commissioner Wright. My name is Joe Shea and I am 11 Vice President for Regulatory Affairs and Support 12 Services for the Tennessee Valley Authority.
13 I'm pleased to appear before you today 14 regarding TVA's application for an early site permit 15 for the Clinch River site in Roane County, Tennessee.
16 With me at the table today are Dan Stout, Director of 17 Nuclear Technology Innovation, and John Holcomb, Small 18 Modular Reactor Engineering Manager.
19 To open I would like to talk briefly about 20 TVA and set the stage for discussion of the early site 21 permit application for the Clinch River site.
22 Slide 2. TVA is a corporate agency and 23 instrumentality of the United States Government 24 established by the Tennessee Valley Authority Act 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
17 1933. This federal statute stated that TVA's primary 1
missions are to improve the navigability and to 2
provide for the flood control of the Tennessee River, 3
to provide for reforestation and the proper use of 4
marginal lands in the Tennessee Valley, to provide for 5
the agricultural and industrial development of the 6
valley, and to provide for the national defense by the 7
creation of a corporation for the operation of certain 8
government properties. In short, TVA's mission is to 9
improve the quality of life in the valley through the 10 integrated management of the region's resources.
11 In proposing the TVA in 1933, Franklin D.
12 Roosevelt asked Congress to create a corporation 13 clothed with the power of government, but possessed of 14 the flexibility and initiative of a
private 15 enterprise.
16 TVA is fully self-financed and funds 17 virtually all operations through electricity sales and 18 power system bond financing. TVA sets rates as low as 19 feasible and reinvests net income in power sales and 20 to power system improvements, economic development and 21 environmental stewardship.
22 Next slide, please. TVA's mission to 23 provide low-cost reliable power to the people of the 24 valley is an enduring one. TVA serves that mission in 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 the context of today's strategic imperatives, namely 1
balancing power rates and debt such that TVA can 2
maintain low rates while living within its means and 3
managing the trade-off between optimizing the value of 4
our asset portfolio and being responsible stewards of 5
the valley's environmental and natural resources. To 6
achieve the mission within those strategic imperatives 7
TVA focuses on the key areas of energy, environmental 8
stewardship, and economic development.
9 Slide 4. With regard to energy, TVA 10 serves approximately 10 million citizens living in 11 parts of seven states in an area covering 12 approximately 80,000 square miles. As an energy 13 provider TVA uses a network of over 16,000 miles of 14 transmission lines to provide power to a series of 154 15 local power companies who distribute power directly to 16 individual customers. TVA also transmits power to 58 17 directly-served large customers.
18 In addition, TVA also purchases a portion 19 of power supply from third-party operators under long-20 term power purchase agreements.
Today TVA's 21 generation portfolio is approximately 39 percent 22 nuclear, 21 percent coal, 26 percent natural gas, 10 23 percent hydro, 3 percent wind and solar, and 1 percent 24 energy efficiency.
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 Next
- slide, please.
Environmental 1
stewardship is an important part of TVA's mission of 2
service. TVA is committed to protecting the valley's 3
natural resources as well as its historical and 4
cultural heritage. TVA manages the Tennessee River to 5
provide multiple benefits to the people that it serves 6
and to ensure that the region will always be a safe, 7
healthy and beautiful place to live, work and play.
8 That includes monitoring the health of the region's 9
reservoirs, rivers and streams, promoting clean 10 marinas and clean boating, and taking good care of 11 approximately 293 acres of reservoir land, 11,000 12 miles of shoreline, and more than 80 public recreation 13 areas. TVA's management of the river also helps 14 maintains navigation, provides water supply for about 15 5 million people in the region, and provides a 16 reliable 652-mile river navigation channel from 17 Knoxville, Tennessee to Paducah, Kentucky.
18 Next slide, please. TVA is also committed 19 to limiting the environmental impact of its operation.
20 To protect air quality TVA has invested more than $7 21 billion to reduce nitrogen and sulfur dioxide 22 emissions from its coal-fired plants. TVA has in 23 recent years decommissioned some of its oldest, least 24 efficient coal-fired units and increased power 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 generation from cleaner resources. These include the 1
21st Century's first new nuclear unit at Watts Bar and 2
more natural gas units. TVA is moving toward 3
generating and purchasing more renewable energy. In 4
fact, in 2017 renewables, including conventional hydro 5
production, constituted approximately 13 percent of 6
our energy portfolio and contributed in part to a 47 7
percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions compared 8
to 2005 levels.
9 Slide 7, please. Economic development is 10 a cornerstone of TVA's mission to make life better for 11 valley residents. Last year in partnership with state 12 and local groups TVA helped attract or retain more 13 than 65,000 jobs and more than $11.3 billion in 14 capital investment across the Tennessee Valley Region.
15 TVA helped our economic development partners by 16 hosting workshops, sharing in-depth technical and 17 economic data, providing grants, and supporting 18 business incubators. In recognition of these efforts, 19 in 2018 Site Selection magazine ranked TVA among North 20 America's 10 best utilities for economic development 21 for the 13th year in a row.
22 And now I'd like to introduce Dan Stout 23 who will discuss in more details TVA's efforts to date 24 regarding the pursuit of an early site permit for 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
21 small modular reactor at the Clinch River site.
1 Dan?
2 MR. STOUT: Good morning, Chairman 3
Svinicki and Commissioners Baran and Caputo and 4
Wright. I'm very pleased to be here today regarding 5
the Tennessee Valley Authority's application for an 6
early site permit at the Clinch River site in Oak 7
Ridge, Tennessee.
8 I'd like to start by recognizing the 9
significant work put forth by the Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission staff in reviewing our application and the 11 diligent work of all the TVA employees and contractors 12 supporting the review. The NRC has completed a 13 thorough review and analyzing site
- safety, 14 environmental protection and plans for coping with 15 emergencies consistent with the NRC mandate to protect 16 the public health and safety.
17 The purpose of our application is to 18 determine the suitability of the site for deployment 19 and operation of two or more small modular reactors, 20 which I'll refer to as SMRs. SMRs are nuclear 21 reactors that are 300 megawatts electric or less, 22 enabling more factory fabrication and less 23 construction at the site. As a next generation 24 nuclear technology the designs considered incorporate 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 improved safety and increased operational flexibility.
1 SMRs support TVA's technology innovation mission and 2
are consistent with our vision to be one of the 3
nation's leaders in cleaner low-cost energy.
4 SMRs would use a small fraction of land as 5
compared to other clean energy sources and could re-6 power retired fossil fuel sites. Although expected to 7
usually operate as baseload generation, SMRs are 8
designed to be capable of varying output to match 9
electricity
- demand, enabling integration with 10 intermittent renewables. Underground construction 11 provides enhanced safety and security. Most SMR 12 designs rely heavily on passive safety, meaning that 13 they can safely shut down, self-cool with no operator 14 action or electrical power and no additional water for 15 extended durations.
16 SMR designs have accident source terms 17 that are expected to be several orders of magnitude 18 lower than large light water reactors which results in 19 reduced accident consequences and lower doses.
20 Accordingly, SMRs have the potential for reduced 21 emergency planning zones and correspondingly lower 22 costs.
23 Next slide, please. TVA has been 24 evaluating small modular reactors for about 10 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
23 Work initially was focused on a construction permit 1
for B&W, later BWXT's mPower reactor design, with site 2
characterization work starting in 2010, but B&W 3
reduced its pace and eventually ceased development in 4
2014. TVA shifted to pursuing a technology-neutral, 5
early site permit application using a plant parameter 6
envelope with an appropriately sized emergency 7
planning zone.
8 The plant parameter envelope was informed 9
by the four U.S. light water reactor designs under 10 development at that time: mPower, Holtec, NuScale and 11 Westinghouse. Based on very preliminary evaluation 12 TVA had confidence that a two-mile emergency planning 13 zone would accommodate all of the SMR designs being 14 considered and that at least one would be able to 15 demonstrate the ability to meet site mandatory 16 requirements. Archie and Alex will get into detail on 17 this in the Safety Panel.
18 TVA established four key objectives for 19 the SMR program: (1) to demonstrate that power 20 generated by SMRs could be used for addressing 21 critical energy security issues; and (2) to 22 demonstrate that SMR technology can assist federal 23 facilities with meeting carbon reduction objectives; 24 (3) to demonstrate SMR design features that lead to 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 improved safety; and (4) to demonstrate that SMR power 1
generating facilities can be deployed in an 2
incremental fashion to better meet the power 3
generation needs of a service area.
4 These objectives informed the site 5
selection process leading to identification of four 6
candidate sites, one on Redstone Arsenal and three on 7
or near the Oak Ridge Reservation. The Clinch River 8
site was determined to be the preferred site.
9 Next slide, please. Because it was 10 disturbed in the 1970s and 1980s by the Department of 11 Energy's Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program, there 12 would be less environmental impact from SMR deployment 13 on this preferred site as compared to the other 14 candidate sites.
15 The Clinch River site is located on the 16 Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir and is 17 within the City of Oak Ridge in Roane County, 18 Tennessee. The site is a 935-acre portion of the 19 1,200-acre parcel of TVA-managed reservoir land. The 20 land is owned by the United States of America and is 21 managed by TVA as an agency of the Federal Government.
22 It is a neighbor to the Department of Energy's Oak 23 Ridge Reservation, a current TVA customer. Existing 24 500 and 161-kilovolt transmission lines cut through 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 the site making transmission connection relatively 1
easy.
2 Although the Clinch River Breeder Reactor 3
Project ended in the 1980s without being completed 4
some basic infrastructure such as roads and stormwater 5
retention structures were built and remain. The Oak 6
Ridge area provides strong community support and an 7
abundant and skilled workforce.
8 Next slide, please. The TVA early site 9
permit application itself consists of a site safety 10 analysis report, environmental report, two distinct 11 major features emergency plans, and the associated 12 exemptions. TVA drafted the early site permit 13 application and its constituent plant parameter 14 envelope based upon NRC-endorsed NEI 10-01 guidance 15 with margin added to specific parameters.
16 TVA's early site permit application 17 assumes a maximum of 800 megawatts thermal for each 18 individual reactor unit and a maximum of 2,420 19 megawatts thermal for the site. The early site permit 20 application also assumes two or more reactor units are 21 deployed. A plant parameter envelope approach is 22 conservative and flexible, allowing for a variety of 23 reactor
- designs, design updates and providing 24 flexibility for future business options and decisions.
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 Next
- slide, please.
This slide 1
illustrates the regulator bases for the development of 2
the early site permit application. The regulatory 3
bases consist of various Commission regulations, 4
standard review plans, regulatory guides, review 5
standards, and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 6
of 1954, as amended.
7 Next slide, please. The NRC commenced the 8
review of the early site permit application in the 9
beginning of 2017. The application was originally 10 submitted -- was originally submitted had about 8,000 11 pages supported by 80,000 pages of technical 12 information.
13 One of the highlights I'd like to point 14 out is the efficient use of audits. The staff did a 15 good job preparing for the audits listing out all of 16 their question, all their information needs well in 17 advance of the audits. As a result, TVA was able to 18 prepare responses to all of the information needs in 19 advance so that when face-to-face discussions took 20 place between the staff and the TVA subject matter 21 experts, there was meaningful discussion on the 22 challenges leading to clarity regarding the resolution 23 of open issues. Further, with clarity of open issues 24 TVA voluntarily supplemented the application avoiding 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 the need to use the RAI process in many cases.
1 Both NRC staff and TVA identified issues 2
early and promptly addressed them by applying each 3
agency's resources efficiently. By the end of the 4
audits and application supplements issues had been 5
resolved. Accordingly, instead of dealing with 6
hundreds of RAIs, the total was about a dozen. Many 7
of these review process successes resulted from very 8
frequent clear and candid communication at both the 9
staff and the management levels.
10 Next slide, please. Prior to TVA's 11 submission of the early site permit application to NRC 12 in May of 2016 the NRC and TVA were involved in a 13 number of preapplication interactions including site 14 visits, alternative site visits, preapplication 15 readiness review. Following acceptance the NRC 16 performed four major audits during the spring and 17 summer of 2017 supporting hydrology, groundwater, 18 seismic, geotech, environmental and a comprehensive 19 four-month emergency preparedness audit that began in 20 the fall of 2017.
21 In the summer of 2018 audits supporting 22 meteorology and health physics were conducted along 23 with a supplemental emergency preparedness audit.
24 Additionally, the NRC conducted a detailed QA 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 inspection covering Chapter 17.5 of the SSAR.
1 Next slide, please. The NRC review 2
officially began the first week of January in 2017.
3 The top line of this chart shows the application 4
updates and revisions.
5 The second area shows the safety review 6
with audits and RAIs in 2017, ACRS meetings in 2018, 7
and the final Safety Evaluation Report in June of this 8
year.
9 The next area is the environmental review 10 with the Notice of Intent Scoping meeting and audits 11 in early 2017. The draft Environmental Impact 12 Statement was issued in April 2018 and the final 13 Environmental Impact Statement in April of this year, 14 with the last area being the hearing. In July 2018 15 all contentions were dismissed or denied and the 16 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board terminated, hence we 17 are here today for the mandatory hearing.
18 Next slide, please. In summary, SMRs have 19 the potential to provide a resilient and reliable 20 energy source with advanced safety features that can 21 benefit the nuclear industry and help achieve multiple 22 Federal Government objectives. TVA and NRC staff 23 support the Clinch River site as suitable for future 24 construction and operation of SMRs based on rigorous 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 evaluations and resulting conclusion that the 1
applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic 2
Energy Act and Commission regulations are satisfied.
3 TVA has the operational experience and 4
technical qualifications to engage in any NRC-5 authorized activities at the Clinch River site and a 6
staff of nuclear professionals will ensure safe, 7
reliable and environmentally-sound construction and 8
operation of SMRs should TVA make a decision to do so.
9 The early site permit application, NRC 10 staff's final Safety Evaluation Report and final 11 Environmental Impact Statement fully support the NRC 12 findings required for issuance of the early site 13 permit application. NRC staff have concluded that 14 issuance of the early site permit for the Clinch River 15 will not be inimical to the common defense and 16 security or health and safety of the public. Thank 17 you.
18 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much 19 for that presentation. I will be recognized first for 20 the TVA Overview Panel for questions, so let me begin.
21 The first question is one of 22 clarification. And if the audio-visual folks can be 23 putting back up TVA's slide 10, which is an aerial 24 view of the Clinch River site. You mentioned -- 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
30 of course for those of us who have been around nuclear 1
issues for a while, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor 2
Project is rather legendary, but you mentioned that as 3
a result of that project the site has some level of 4
disturbance. And it's more my eyesight than any fault 5
of the photo. You mentioned that roads are there and 6
some drainage.
7 Could you just describe specifically, is 8
that the extent of what we see here, because I know 9
the site had some development. Looks like there's 10 some areas where the vegetation is disturbed there as 11 well. I just -- I can't see very clearly. Are there 12 are structures on the site?
13 MR. STOUT: So the structures you can see 14 near the center: a small parking lot and two trailers 15 for work and a trailer for core borings, there is a 16 road, kind of an inner loop --
17 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Yes.
18 MR. STOUT: -- that was there that we have 19 improved slightly for the purpose of conducting 20 additional site characterization. There's a circle on 21 the -- more on like the toe of the boot. That's where 22 the meteorology tower was located.
23 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay. Thank you.
24 MR. STOUT: And you can see a right-of-way 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 for power line cutting from the west to the east at 1
the top. That's the 500-kilovolt transmission line.
2 And going from the southeast to the north, that's a 3
161-kilovolt transmission line.
4 Stormwater retention is very difficult to 5
see on this, but there are several stormwater 6
retention areas on the site.
7 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay. Thank you. And 8
I assume this is a relatively recent photo. This is 9
not a historic photo.
10 MR. STOUT: Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay. Thank you very 12 much.
13 Shifting a little bit now, you mentioned 14 that in 2014 TVA shifted to -- its approach to a 15 technology-neutral application. Were there some 16 central factors that contributed with your decision to 17 do that? You mentioned that there were generally kind 18 of four SMRs under development at the time. Could you 19 describe at a high level what the pivot in thinking 20 was there?
21 MR. STOUT: TVA was very interested in the 22 attributes of the small modular reactors, and advanced 23 reactors, in terms of smaller cost increments, more 24 flexibility in terms of operation, but at that time in 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 2014 there were no applications in -- submitted to the 1
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So the level of 2
information was very preliminary. It was even more 3
preliminary for the advanced reactor developers at 4
that time. And TVA was considering the schedule and 5
the timeline for advanced reactor community's 6
development plans and focused on light water reactor 7
SMRs to form the basis behind the plant parameter 8
envelope that was established.
9 Now the plant parameter envelope is the 10 basis and TVA can consider reactors that fit within 11 that, whether they be light water or non-light water.
12 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you for that.
13 And my final question is you noted the minimal number 14 of requests for additional information. If I 15 understood you correctly on slide 14, you attributed 16 some of that limited number of RAIs to the extensive 17 pre-submittal engagement that went on between TVA and 18 the NRC staff.
19 Were there any topical areas that were 20 particularly emphasized in your pre-submittal 21 engagement with the NRC staff or would you 22 characterize that the nature of the benefit of that 23 was just familiarizing the staff with your overall 24 approach?
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 MR. STOUT: So preapplication engagement 1
did focus a lot on emergency planning as well as 2
environmental aspects. Was effective at achieving 3
alignment and clarity on the content of the 4
application, but the primary benefit came associated 5
with the audits. And it was the information needs in 6
advance of the audits, identifying all of the comments 7
and information needs that the staff had as they 8
entered into the audit. And TVA had enough time to 9
prepare in advance the -- not only a response to the 10 staff, but to draft language within an application 11 supplement and see if any of the issues were addressed 12 by a solution, and that led to the constructive 13 dialogue during the audit. And then rather than wait 14 for a request for additional information, we could 15 supplement the application soon after the audit and 16 obviate the need for an RAI.
17 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much 18 for that.
19 Now I will recognize Commissioner Baran 20 for his questions. Thank you.
21 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks.
22 Well, thank you for your presentations.
23 I don't have any questions for this panel, so I'll 24 reserve my time.
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 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much.
1 Next we will turn very quickly then to 2
Commissioner Caputo.
3 Please proceed.
4 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Good morning. I 5
would like to start with sort of a high-level question 6
about your pursuit of small reactors and the multiple 7
designs that you have considered.
8 So you anticipate a level of safety 9
inherent in these designs that surpasses existing 10 reactors. Could you just describe that in a little 11 more detail, please?
12 MR. STOUT: Sure. There are design 13 features that improve
- safety, things such as 14 underground construction, substantially more cooling 15 water present in the reactor. These are designs that 16 are post-9/11. They can take into account features, 17 security by design and they lead to slower accident 18 progression. They lead to fewer accidents, fewer 19 components that are being relied on for safety so that 20 there are less safety systems. And so there are fewer 21 accidents. The accidents happen slower allowing for 22 more time for response.
23 MR. SHEA: And I think that reflects the 24 current generation of designers taking into account 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 the Commission's expectation that advanced designs 1
will be inherently safer at the plant level and then 2
thus allowing for the margins to public health and 3
safety to be really enhanced in the design itself.
4 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. Thank you.
5 In conducting a review like this the NRC 6
interacts with a wide range of federal, state, tribal 7
and local governments and agencies, some in a formal 8
role and some in a consulting role. Would you please 9
describe some of TVA's outreach to state, tribal, and 10 local government and agencies?
11 MR. STOUT: Yes, TVA had multiple 12 interactions at the state, tribal and local levels, 13 not only with elected officials, but also with local 14 residents. There were opportunities for local elected 15 officials, government agencies to review sections that 16 were relevant to the application.
17 We also conducted some public outreach.
18 One example, we sent letters to neighbors of the site 19 and invited them to a barbecue. And we gave them 20 tours of the site. We had a room set up with visual 21 images. And we got to hear concerns of the locals 22 that can be factored into design of a future facility.
23 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you. One last 24 quick question. So you discuss the use of audits 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
36 how that led to some improvement in efficiency of the 1
review. I assume all of the material that was 2
provided to the staff was made publicly available on 3
the record?
4 MR. STOUT: Yes.
5 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much, 7
Commissioner Caputo.
8 Next we will recognize Commission Wright.
9 Please proceed.
10 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you very much.
11 Good morning. Thank you for your 12 presentations. So the NRC has issued five early site 13 permits. So when you were preparing the application 14 did you look to the other early site permits to kind 15 of look to gain some efficiencies? And if so, could 16 you share maybe a couple with me?
17 MR. STOUT: Yes, PSEG was the most recent 18 early site permit application before ours, and so we 19 had benchmarking trips with PSEG staff. We involved 20 them in a readiness review in advance of our 21 application and we reviewed other ESPs. And so we did 22 our best to address all issues that were addressed in 23 all the prior applications prior to submittal.
24 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. So if 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 the early site permit is issued, are there some 1
factors that may affect your decision I guess to apply 2
for a construction permit or a combined license 3
referencing this ESP in the future?
4 MR. SHEA: Well, certainly as we prepared 5
the application we put together the approach with the 6
emergency planning, and in large part to -- as an 7
initiative to recognize that future advanced designs 8
with inherently safer by-design elements to them might 9
provide a basis for changes in the structures around 10 emergency planning.
11 And in -- with a focus on the bottom line 12 of protecting public health and safety assured through 13 those defense-in-depth mechanisms we certainly looked 14 for the opportunity to address issues like future O&M 15 costs associated with the entire operation, and 16 certainly emergency planning is an element of that, 17 again looking to ensure that through all of those 18 barriers public health and safety is assured.
19 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So do you have any 20 idea or any sense of when you might make those 21 decisions and --
22 MR. STOUT: So TVA recently issued an 23 Integrated Resource Plan and it contained an element 24 that TVA will continue to evaluate emerging nuclear 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 technologies including SMRs as part of our technology 1
innovation efforts. The demand for power over the 2
next couple of decades is relatively flat. There will 3
be some retirements anticipated and the need for some 4
additional generation.
5 Alternatives such as combined-cycle gas 6
and solar appear to be more cost-competitive than 7
small modular reactors at this point, however, our 8
Integrated Resource Plan did recognize that we have an 9
interested customer in the Department of Energy and 10 that there's the potential that the Department could 11 partner with TVA in a manner that would share in the 12 costs and risks of initial deployment.
13 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. My last 14 question for you is going to be -- so are there any 15 NRC actions or decisions out there that may affect 16 your decision?
17 MR. SHEA: Well, certainly as we're 18 looking at the design certification application that's 19 pending we're watching carefully the issues that are 20 novel that are being reviewed by the staff and in some 21 cases brought to the Commission's attention to 22 understand will that proposed design achieve all that 23 it's intended to in terms of both safety improvement, 24 but also construction, operation, cost improvements as 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 well and looking at the totality of that. And that 1
will absolutely inform our decision about that 2
technology and other similar new technologies.
3 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you so much.
4 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI:
Thank
- you, 5
Commissioner Wright. And, again, my thanks to the TVA 6
witnesses on this particular panel. I will now ask 7
the NRC overview panel witnesses to take their seats 8
with us here at the table.
9 In this panel, the staff will provide an 10 overview of the NRC staff review of the application 11 and a summary of their regulatory findings.
12 And as they take their seats, I will ask 13 each of them before speaking to please introduce 14 themselves. And I will begin with Mr. Fred Brown.
15 Fred, please proceed.
16 MR. BROWN: Frederick Brown. Thank you, 17 Chairman. Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.
18 If we could have Slide 2, please. As I 19 have indicated, I am Fred Brown, the director of the 20 Office of New Reactors. And with me on this panel is 21 Anna Bradford, who is the permanent deputy director 22 and currently the acting director of our Division of 23 Licensing, Siting and Environmental Analysis.
24 On behalf of the NRC staff that reviewed 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 the early site permit application for the Clinch River 1
Nuclear Site, we are pleased to address the Commission 2
at this mandatory hearing.
3 The team here today will present the 4
results of the staff's review of the application for 5
the early site permit, or ESP, at the Clinch River 6
Nuclear Site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. And as you know 7
and just heard the application was submitted to the 8
NRC by the Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA.
9 The staff's final Safety Evaluation 10 Report, or SER, was completed in June of 2019, and the 11 final Environmental Impact Statement, or final EIS, 12 was completed in April of 2019.
13 These documents are the culmination of a 14 two and a half year review effort by the staff and 15 represent the results of coordinated activities and 16 efforts by scientists, engineers, attorneys and 17 administrative professionals from multiple offices 18 within the Agency as well as the efforts or other 19 agencies and our contractors.
20 Within the NRC, the main offices that 21 contributed to the review include the Office of 22 Nuclear Security and Incident Response, which reviewed 23 the emergency preparedness and security areas.
24 The Office of the General Counsel reviewed 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 the SER and the EIS. The Advisory Committee on 1
Reactor Safeguards, or ACRS, reviewed and reported on 2
the safety aspects of the application in accordance 3
with 10 CFR 52.23. In addition, the NRC Region II 4
office supported public meetings in the community near 5
the Clinch River Nuclear Site.
6 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 7
Department of Homeland Security also contributed to 8
the review. Specifically, the Corps of Engineers was 9
a cooperating agency in the environmental review.
10 And, as the Chairman pointed out at the beginning of 11 this morning's
- hearing, the Federal Emergency 12 Management Agency was consulted regarding emergency 13 planning.
14 Slide 3, please. For this panel, I will 15 give an overview of the ESP application, and Ms.
16 Bradford will summarize the staff's safety review and 17 findings as well as giving an overview of the 18 environmental review and findings.
19 After
- that, I
will close out the 20 presentation with an overview of the panel 21 presentations that follow us.
22 Slide 4, please. In May of 2016, TVA 23 submitted an application for an ESP at the Clinch 24 River Nuclear Site. Following interactions with 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
42 NRC staff, TVA provided supplemental information in 1
support of that application.
2 Consistent with NRC guidance, the NRC 3
staff completed its acceptance review to determine 4
whether the ESP application as supplemented contained 5
sufficient technical information in scope and depth to 6
allow the NRC staff to conduct its detailed safety and 7
environmental reviews within a predictable time frame.
8 The staff determined in December of 2016 9
that the application with the supplemental information 10 was sufficient for docketing and issued a Federal 11 Register notice to that effect on January 12, 2017.
12 During the review, the staff has expended 13 approximately 40,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> on the safety and 14 environmental reviews associated with this ESP and our 15 contractors, working in collaboration with us, devoted 16 approximately 6,000 additional hours to support the 17 environmental and safety reviews.
18 This effort has involved over 72 19 engineers, scientists, technical specialists and 20 attorneys. During this time, the staff conducted 12 21 public meetings and public conference calls in support 22 of the ESP application as was mentioned by the 23 previous panel.
24 The applicant responded to 13 requests 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
43 additional information comprising 51 staff questions 1
and 12 of those RAIs were associated with the safety 2
review, one with the environmental review.
3 In addition, the staff considered over 4
2,500 letters and emails containing comments on the 5
draft Environmental Impact Statement. The review of 6
this application was a very thorough effort and was 7
focused on protecting public health, safety and the 8
environment.
9 Slide 5, please. The ESP application 10 specifically proposes that the duration of the permit 11 before a 20 year term, as allowed by 10 CFR 52.26(a).
12 The ESP application is unique in that rather than 13 using the standard 10 mile plume exposure pathway 14 emergency planning zone, or EPZ, TVA proposed first a 15 plume exposure pathway EPZ sizing methodology, 16 second, two major features emergency plans, one plan 17 for a site boundary plume exposure pathway EPZ and a 18 second plan for an approximately two mile radius plume 19 exposure pathway EPZ, and third, the associated 20 exemption request associated with those EPZ plans.
21 The specific analysis that was performed 22 in reviewing these unique details will be discussed in 23 detail in the safety review panel that follows.
24 The ESP application request does not 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 request approval of a specific plume exposure pathway 1
EPZ size at this time. Instead a future combined 2
license or construction permit applicant referencing 3
the ESP would use the sizing methodology to determine 4
the plume exposure pathway EPZ size that is 5
appropriate for the selected reactor technology.
6 Slide 6, please. If the ESP is issued, 7
the NRC would be approving the Clinch River Nuclear 8
Site as a suitable site for the potential construction 9
and operation of two or more small modular reactors 10 that are bounded by the specified plant parameter 11 envelope.
12 As the Chairman indicated, an ESP does not 13 authorize actual construction or operation of a 14 nuclear power plant. I will now turn the presentation 15 over to Anna Bradford.
16 MS. BRADFORD: Next slide, please. Thank 17 you, Fred, and good morning, Chairman Svinicki and 18 Commissioners. As Fred mentioned, I am the acting 19 director of the Division of Licensing, Siting and 20 Environmental Analysis in the Office of New Reactors.
21 And the safety review evaluated the 22 characteristics of the proposed site, the plant 23 perimeter envelope, or PPE, the major features 24 emergency plans and the plume exposure pathway EPZ 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 size methodology for use by a future combined license 1
or construction permit applicant.
2 Next slide, please. TVA has not selected 3
a specific reactor designed for this site. To approve 4
an ESP site without a selected reactor technology, an 5
ESP applicant can propose a PPE with values that bound 6
a variety of reactor technologies rather than one 7
specific technology.
8 The PPE represents a surrogate nuclear 9
plant for the purposes of evaluating an ESP 10 application. TVA's plant perimeter envelope was 11 developed based on four potential small modular 12 reactor, or SMR, designs.
13 The safety panel will discuss in more 14 detail the development of the PPE.
15 TVA's PPE assumes the construction and 16 operation of two or more SMRs at the Clinch River 17 Nuclear Site with a
combined maximum nuclear 18 generating capacity of 2,420 megawatts thermal or 800 19 megawatts electric.
20 Next slide, please. A combined license or 21 construction permit application referencing an ESP 22 would identify a specific technology. During the 23 combined license or construction permit review, the 24 PPE values and the ESP would be compared to those 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
46 the selected technology.
1 If the design characteristics of the 2
selected technology exceed the bounding ESP PPE 3
values, additional reviews would be conducted to 4
ensure that the site remains suitable from a safety 5
and environmental standpoint for construction and 6
operation of the selected technology.
7 Next slide, please. The ACRS examined the 8
staff safety review of the ESP application. Between 9
May and November of 2018, the staff presented its 10 results in four subcommittee meetings. The staff 11 presented the results of the safety review to the ACRS 12 full committee in December 2018.
13 Following the full committee meeting, the 14 ACRS issued a report in January 2019 concluding that 15 there is reasonable assurance that SMRs with design 16 characteristics that fall within the PPE, used by TVA 17 in its ESP application, can be built and operated at 18 the Clinch River Nuclear Site without undue risk to 19 public health and safety.
20 This ACRS report recommended issuance of 21 the Clinch River Nuclear Site ESP. And the staff 22 issued the final Safety Evaluation Report on June 14, 23 2019.
24 Next slide, please. The staff prepared 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 SECY-19-0064 dated June 21, 2019, to support this 1
mandatory hearing. In that paper, the staff 2
summarized the basis to support a
Commission 3
determination that the staff's reviews were adequate 4
to support the findings necessary to support the 5
findings necessary to support the ESP.
6 The required safety and environmental 7
findings are in 10 CFR 52.24(a), and I will now 8
summarize the staff's basis supporting each finding.
9 First, the applicable standards and 10 requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 11 amended, and the Commission's regulations have been 12 met.
13 The staff reviewed and evaluated the 14 application against the applicable criteria in the 15 Commission's regulations.
16 Second, any required notifications to 17 other agencies or bodies, including Federal Register 18 notices, have been duly made as documented in SECY 19 0064.
20 Third, there is reasonable assurance that 21 the site is in conformity with the provisions of the 22 AEA and the Commission's regulations. The staff 23 concluded that all applicable site-related regulatory 24 requirements were satisfied and that the site 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 characteristics in the ESP application are acceptable.
1 Next slide, please. Fourth, the applicant 2
is technically qualified to engage in the activities 3
authorized. The technical qualifications of the 4
applicant are summarized in the SECY paper and in 5
Chapter 1 of the FSER.
6 Fifth, issuance of the permit will not be 7
inimical to the common defense and security or to the 8
health and safety of the public. The staff largely 9
bases this conclusion on the applicant's compliance 10 with the pertinent regulations. Also, as stated in 11 the SECY paper, the staff is not aware of any 12 information presenting any locality concerns.
13 And sixth, the findings required by 14 Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been made.
15 Finally, the staff did not address the 16 findings in 10 CFR 52.24(a)(5) and (a)(7). These 17 findings are not applicable to the Clinch River review 18 because first, TVA did not propose inspections, test 19 analyses and acceptance criteria as permitted by 10 20 CFR 52.17(b)(3). And, second, TVA did not request a 21 limited work authorization under 10 CFR 52.17(c).
22 Now I will be discussing the environmental 23 review and provide an overview of the process we used 24 in conducting the review, the draft summary record 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
49 decision and the staff's recommendation as a result of 1
that review.
2 I will also discuss the findings that need 3
to be made under 10 CFR 51.105 before the permit can 4
be granted.
5 Next slide, please. The NRC's proposed 6
action related to the TVA application is the issuance 7
of an ESP for the Clinch River Nuclear site approving 8
the site as suitable for the future construction and 9
operation of two or more SMRs with characteristics 10 that fall within the PPE.
11 As Fred stated earlier, an ESP does not 12 authorize construction and operation of a nuclear 13 power plant. However, the ESP site suitability 14 determination requires the consideration of the 15 environmental impacts from construction operation at 16 the proposed and alternative sites.
17 Therefore, the staff prepared an 18 Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, for the Clinch 19 River Nuclear Site ESP application. The EIS was 20 prepared in accordance with the National Environmental 21 Policy Act of 1969, or NEPA, and 10 CFR Part 51.
22 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nashville 23 District, or the Corps, participated with the staff as 24 a cooperating agency in preparing the EIS under 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
50 terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the NRC 1
and the Corps for the review of nuclear power plant 2
applications.
3 As a member of the environmental review 4
team, the Corps participated in site visits and in the 5
development of the draft EIS and final EIS.
6 Next slide, please. This diagram outlines 7
the environmental review process for preparing an EIS 8
for an early site permit. TVA submitted an 9
environmental report as part of its ESP application 10 and subsequently submitted supplemental information 11 leading up to the docketing of the application.
12 The staff conducted a scoping process, 13 including a scoping meeting near the site. During the 14 scoping period, the staff contacted federal, state and 15 local agencies, along with federal recognized Indian 16 tribes, to solicit comments.
17 During its preparation of the draft EIS, 18 the staff received additional information from TVA as 19 a result of audits and public meetings. The staff 20 also used independent sources in its analyses.
21 A draft EIS was issued in April 2017 for 22 a 75 day public comment period. Two public meetings 23 were also held near the site during the comment 24 period.
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 The staff also met with tribes and other 1
federal and local agencies regarding their comments 2
and questions on the draft EIS. Over 2,500 letters 3
and emails containing comments were received on the 4
draft EIS, the vast majority of which were form 5
letters through the website of two environmental 6
advocacy groups.
7 Comments on the draft EIS were considered 8
in preparing the final EIS, which was issued in April 9
2019. The comments and the responses are included in 10 Appendix E of the final EIS.
11 As stated in the final EIS, the staff's 12 recommendation related to the environmental aspects of 13 the proposed action is that the ESP should be issued.
14 The staff based its recommendation on the ESP 15 application and environmental report, consultation 16 with federal, state, tribal and local agencies, the 17 review team's independent review, the consideration of 18 public comments received on the environmental review 19 and the assessment summarized in the EIS, including 20 the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER 21 and the EIS.
22 This recommendation also rests on the 23 staff determination that none of the alternative sites 24 assessed as obviously superior to the Clinch River 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 Nuclear Site.
1 Next
- slide, please.
Per 10 CFR 2
51.50(b)(2), an environmental report for an early site 3
permit does not need to include an assessment of the 4
benefit or cost of the proposed action, including need 5
for power, or a consideration of alternative energy 6
sources.
7 As TVA did not address these topics in its 8
application per 10 CFR 51.75(b), the EIS also did not 9
address these topics.
10 If a
future combined license or 11 construction permit application references the ESP, 12 the ER and EIS for that application would address 13 these topics.
14 Next slide, please. The staff included a 15 draft summary record of decision as a reference in 16 SECY-19-0064. This document states the decision being 17 made, identifies all alternatives considered in 18 reaching the decision and discusses the preferences 19 among those alternatives.
20 The draft summary record of decision also 21 states whether the Commission has taken all 22 practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid 23 or minimize environmental harm from the alternative 24 selected.
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 Next slide, please. This slide and the 1
next lists the environmental findings pursuant to 10 2
CFR 51.105(a) that the Commission must make to support 3
the issuance of the ESP for the Clinch River Nuclear 4
Site.
5 The staff believes that the scope of the 6
environmental review, the methods used to conduct the 7
review and the conclusions reached in the EIS are 8
sufficient to support a
positive Commission 9
determination regarding these findings.
10 For the first finding, in accordance with 11 NEPA Section 1022A, the staff's environmental review 12 uses systematic interdisciplinary approach to 13 integrate information from many fields, including the 14 natural and social sciences as well as the 15 environmental sciences.
16 In accordance with NEPA Section 1022C, the 17 EIS for the Clinch River Nuclear Site ESP addresses 18 the environmental impact of the proposed action, any 19 unavoidable adverse environmental
- affects, 20 alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship 21 between local, short-term uses of the environment and 22 the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 23 productivity and any irreversible and irretrievable 24 commitments of resources that would be involved in 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
54 proposed action should it be implemented.
1 Also, as documented in correspondence 2
presented in Appendix F of the EIS, the staff met the 3
requirement in NEPA 1022C that it consult with and 4
obtain comments from other federal agencies with 5
jurisdiction by law or special expertise.
6 In accordance with NEPA Section 1022E, the 7
staff concludes that Chapter 9 of the final EIS 8
demonstrates that the staff adequately considered 9
alternatives to the proposed action. The alternatives 10 considered in the EIS include the no action 11 alternative, site alternatives and system design 12 alternatives.
13 For all these reasons, the staff's review 14 also comports with NRC's requirements in Subpart A of 15 10 CFR Part 51. The staff concludes that the 16 environmental findings in the EIS constitute the hard 17 look required by NEPA and have reasonable support in 18 logic and fact.
19 For the second required finding by 10 CFR 20 51.105(a), the staff considered the final balance 21 among conflicting factors for site suitability in the 22 staff's comparison of alternative sites.
23 The staff found that none of the 24 alternative sites considered were environmentally 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
55 preferable to the Clinch River Nuclear Site.
1 Next slide, please. As previously stated, 2
TVA was not required to, and did not, address the 3
balance of benefits and costs in the ESP application.
4 Accordingly, the EIS also did not address the balance 5
of benefits and costs as provided by 10 CFR 51.75(b).
6 Should the NRC issue this ESP for the 7
Clinch River Nuclear Site and a construction permit or 8
combined license application that references the ESP 9
is submitted, these matters will be considered in the 10 EIS prepared in connection with that application.
11 In the final EIS, the staff considered 12 reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and 13 determined that none were obviously superior. Based 14 on that analysis, the staff recommends that the ESP be 15 issued.
16 For the fourth finding under 10 CFR 17 51.105(a), the staff believes that the Commission will 18 be able to find after this hearing that the NEPA 19 review performed by the staff has been adequate.
20 As will be discussed in more detail during 21 the environmental panel later today, the staff 22 performed a thorough and complete environmental 23 review, sufficient to meet the requirements of NEPA 24 and adequate to inform the Commission's action 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
56 request for the ESP.
1 Thank you. And I will now return the 2
presentation back to Fred.
3 MR. BROWN: Thank you, Anna. Slide 19, 4
please. During this hearing, the staff will be 5
presenting information on the issues listed in this 6
table.
7 During the safety panel, the staff will 8
present an overview of its safety review and discuss 9
the TVA EPZ sizing methodology and associated 10 exemptions.
11 The environmental panel will provide a 12 summary of the process for developing the EIS, the 13 identification and analysis of alternatives, a summary 14 of the environmental impacts at the preferred site and 15 the conclusions and recommendations in the final EIS.
16 This concludes the staff's opening 17 remarks, and we are prepared to respond to any 18 questions. Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Mr. Brown, Ms.
20 Bradford, thank you very much for your presentations.
21 We will begin the questions for this panel with 22 Commissioner Baran.
23 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thank you both. I'll 24 continue to reserve my time for the subsequent panels 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
57 you mentioned. Thanks.
1 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you. And with 2
that, we recognize Commissioner Caputo.
3 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: And I just have one 4
quick question. TVA opted to defer consideration for 5
the need for power in evaluation of energy 6
alternatives. Since they haven't stated an intent to 7
pursue a license immediately or construction in the 8
near-term, this is unusual to defer the consideration 9
of need for power and energy alternatives given that 10 those may change with the passage of time. Correct?
11 MS. BRADFORD: I'm sorry. Did you ask if 12 it is unusual?
13 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Unusual.
14 MS. BRADFORD: It's not unusual for an ESP 15 applicant that doesn't plan to build right away. It's 16 not unusual --
17 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Great.
18 MS.
BRADFORD:
to defer a
19 consideration of those issues to COL states.
20 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. Thank you.
21 That was my only question.
22 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI:
Thank you.
23 Commissioner Wright.
24 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Good morning. Thank 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
58 you for your presentations. In the first panel you 1
heard me ask about, you know, the efficiencies that 2
possibly could have been gained by looking at the 3
previous ESPs that have been issued.
4 Did you do the same thing? Did you go 5
through that process? And if you did, did you find 6
some efficiencies that were gained and could you share 7
them with me?
8 MS. BRADFORD: Sure. I think one thing 9
was that we had several staff that had previously 10 worked on ESPs that also worked on this ESP. So 11 obviously they brought that experience and they were 12 familiar with what we had done in previous ESPs.
13 And we were able to say, hey, here's one 14 way we can do something different or one way that 15 worked really well last time or didn't work so well 16 and apply that now. So I think definitely just in a 17 practical way we learned from that.
18 We're also going to do a lessons learned 19 review of this ESP. Once it's completed, actually we 20 were waiting until after this mandatory hearing to see 21 how everything goes so we can go back and look at the 22 entire process and see -- make sure we understand what 23 went well, what didn't, why were we able to be a 24 little bit ahead of schedule and make sure that that's 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
59 documented for future reviews.
1 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. Fred, by 2
the time -- if this ESP is issued and then they apply 3
for a construction permit or whatever, the merger will 4
have happened. And if that does happen, do you 5
anticipate any knowledge management issues or internal 6
challenges due to the merger for staffing or anything 7
like that?
8 MR. BROWN: So in relation to the general 9
turnover and staff, generational turnover, we do have 10 a challenge in front of us. And we've worked to 11 mitigate that.
12 The leadership team that would be 13 responsible for this functional area will have a great 14 deal of continuity, Robert Taylor, Anna Bradford and 15 at the branch chief level and the new Center of 16 Expertise for Environmental Reviews for the 17 environmental part. And it's part of what the 18 transition team, the reunification team, is working on 19 for continuity of individual staff reviewer and 20 supervisor work in the future.
21 So it is a challenge, and we believe we're 22 mitigating that challenge effectively.
23 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay. Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well, I have a couple 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
60 of questions, but Fred, I wanted to reflect on your 1
long involvement in many of the new reactor activities 2
under Part 52, which is new in an NRC sense, kind of 3
a new regulation. And there are certain provisions 4
that have not even yet gone through our proof of 5
concept.
6 Of course, the Vogtle construction, the 7
construction of Vogtle Units 3 and 4 continues. But 8
there are some regulatory provisions that we will be 9
doing for the first time even though this regulation 10 has been on our books for quite some time. And I know 11 you've had a very direct and substantive involvement 12 over the last years in working through a lot of this.
13 As a result, I think you and I may have a 14 special place in our heart for what we call the Part 15 52 lessons learned activity and the rulemaking there.
16 I know that Anna responded that there will be a 17 lessons learned specifically for this Clint River ESP 18 review.
19 But there is a broader set of lessons 20 learned as we move through Part 52 that the Agency, I 21 make no presumption about activity levels in the 22 future, but our culture is that when we learn lessons 23 and we want to manage that knowledge for our 24 successors and make certain that if we learned 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
61 fundamental things about that regulation that could 1
improve upon it, that we want to put those in place.
2 This wasn't an SMR related technology.
3 Were there any uniquenesses, Fred, that you think came 4
out of this Clint River ESP review that would have a 5
unique place in the Part 52 lessons learned rulemaking 6
that we may ultimately do or was it basically 7
validation of the same fortification of the same 8
issues and lessons we've been learning?
9 MR. BROWN: So I do think in terms of the 10 Part 52 rulemaking, we did solicit from TVA their 11 prospectus on lessons learned.
12 And the Commission will soon receive a 13 paper that lays out all of the proposed changes to 14 Part 50 and 52, which should, in my view, reflect 15 improved opportunity to provide reasonable assurance 16 of adequate protection in an open, transparent, 17 predictable, reliable way with clarity of expectation.
18 The Commission should get that in the very near-term.
19 I do also think that in terms of the self-20 assessment that Anna mentioned that you referred to, 21 we, as an office, fundamentally need to look at in 22 2007 when we set up systems for the number of draft 23 safety evaluations that we prepare, how we prepare 24 them, how we review them, how we engage with ACRS, it 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
62 was done in an environment where there would be 22 1
concurrent projects.
2 And the fidelity of not missing anything 3
was critically important. I don't believe we focused 4
on efficiency. And I believe we have an opportunity 5
with this lesson learned to re-evaluate our internal 6
processes as well as the rules that govern these 7
reviews going forward. And that should benefit any 8
future COL applicant under Part 52 or CPL applicant.
9 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well, thank you for 10 that. I look forward to any of the staff's 11 recommendations in that regard. And I thank you for 12 the care and attention.
13 You know, I think there are things we do 14 in the course of our career that we do for posterity 15 in our successors. So I appreciate, Fred, your and 16 your whole team's focus on this issue of making sure 17 that we take the opportunity to enshrine the knowledge 18 we have not just in the rulemaking as I proposed but 19 in office processes and procedures. So thank you for 20 that.
21 And with that, I thank this panel. And we 22 are scheduled now for a break. We're a little bit 23 ahead of schedule so I am going to use my discretion 24 to give us 10 whole minutes.
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
63 We will reconvene at 10:20. There's going 1
to be excitement on my side of the table. So please 2
be back in the room prepared at about 20 minutes 3
after. Thank you.
4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 5
off the record at 10:11 a.m. and resumed at 10:23 6
a.m.)
7 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well, thank you 8
everyone for reconvening so promptly. I call the 9
hearing back to order.
10 Now we will conduct what we are terming 11 the safety panel. The parties will address relevant 12 sections of the application and the final safety 13 evaluation report.
14 With particular focus on the proposed 15 exemptions from certain emergency planning 16 requirements and the risk informed dose-based and 17 consequence-oriented methodology for determining the 18 appropriate plume exposure pathway emergency planning 19 zone at the Clinch River site.
20 In terms of the witnesses for this panel, 21 we will begin with the TVA witnesses. I would ask you 22 to proceed.
23 And prior to presenting, please introduce 24 yourself. And particularly, if you have not presented 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
64 on an earlier panel. So, would the TVA panel please 1
proceed?
2 MS. MANOHARAN: Good morning, Chairman, 3
and Commissioners. I'm Archie Manoharan, I'm TVA 4
licensing engineer.
5 Today Alex Young and I'll be presenting 6
the emergency preparedness information in the ESP for 7
the Clinch River site.
8 Next slide please. Three parts of the 9
ESPA describe the emergency preparedness approach for 10 SMR at the Clinch River site.
11 Slide 18 shows these three parts in the 12 structure of my presentation today. Starting with the 13 big picture, Part 5 of the application describes two 14 distinct major features emergency plans.
15 Part 5A describes the major features 16 emergency plan for a site boundary plume exposure 17 pathway emergency planning zone. And Part 5B 18 describes the major features emergency plan for a two-19 mile plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone.
20 As a reactor technology has not yet been 21 selected, only major features emergency plan, with the 22 information available during the ESP development have 23 been described.
24 TVA will include SMR design specific 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
65 information in a future application to create a 1
complete and integrated emergency plan.
2 TVA developed two emergency plans for two 3
reasons. First, TVA expects that the four SMR designs 4
that inform the plant parameter envelope, PPE, would 5
meet the applicable dose criteria requirements at the 6
two-mile distance.
7 And at least one design is expected to 8
meet the applicable dose criteria requirements at the 9
site boundary distance.
10 Second, to optimize licensing review and 11 provide potential options for a future application.
12 Both plans are based on the generic part of the TVA 13 nuclear power radiological emergency plan, which is 14 approved by the NRC and currently used for the TVA 15 nuclear fleet.
16 Once TVA selects a reactor technology, it 17 will evaluate the appropriate EPZ size based on the 18 distance at which the regulatory dose criteria are 19 met. If the dose criteria are met at the site 20 boundary, the information in Part 5A will be used to 21 develop a complete and integrated emergency plan.
22 If the dose criteria are met at two-mile 23 EPZ distance, then the information in Part 5B will be 24 used to develop a complete and integrated emergency 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
66 plan.
1 It is important to note that the ESPA does 2
not determine a final EPZ size for the Clinch River 3
site. This information will be provided in a future 4
application.
5 TVA submitted a set of exemption requests 6
in the ESPA as the emergency plans in Part 5 deviate 7
from the NRCs current ten-mile emergency planning zone 8
requirements. These exemption requests are described 9
in Part 6 of the application.
10 One set of exemption requests support the 11 site boundary information in Part 5A. And the others 12 support two-mile information in Part 5B.
13 Part 2
of the ESPA describes and 14 establishes the technical basis for the emergency 15 preparedness approach. In section 13.3, a dose base 16 consequence-oriented methodology for determining the 17 appropriate size of a plume exposure pathway EPZ size 18 for SMR is described.
19 Next slide please. TVA is committed to 20 protecting public safety and health. For the Clinch 21 River site, TVA will maintain agreements with 22 surrounding emergency response agencies and support 23 organizations and continue to work with state and 24 local governments and support organizations to ensure 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
67 the emergency preparedness capabilities are 1
commensurate with the potential risk to the public.
2 During the ESPA development, TVA reached 3
out to the local counties and cities to discuss the 4
unique emergency preparedness approach. As a result 5
of these numerous discussions, letters of support from 6
the state of Tennessee, Roane County, Anderson County 7
and city of Oak Ridge were received. These letters 8
were subsequently submitted to the NRC to support the 9
review of the ESPA.
10 Next slide please. The figure on Slide 20 11 shows, in red, the site boundary EPZ for the Clinch 12 River site.
13 If TVA selects SMR technology that meets 14 the regulatory dose criteria at the site boundary 15 distance, a future application would use information 16 in Part 5A to develop a complete and integrated 17 emergency plan for NRC's review.
18 Next slide please. The figure on Slide 21 19 shows the exact size and configuration of the two-mile 20 EPZ for Clinch River site.
21 The blue circle shows a two-mile radius 22 from the center of the site and the red is the actual 23 two-mile EPZ boundary. TVA developed this boundary 24 based on local emergency needs and capabilities.
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
68 It accounts for conditions such as 1
demography, topography, planned characteristics and 2
access routes. It TVA selects an SMR technology that 3
meets the regulatory dose criteria at the two-mile 4
distance, a future application would use part 5B 5
information to develop a complete and integrated plan 6
for the NRC's review.
7 Next slide please. As noted earlier, Part 8
6 of the ESPA describes TVA's EPZ related exemption 9
requests. For the two-mile EPZ emergency plan, the 10 approach is similar to a ten-mile EPZ in that we 11 recognize a formal offsite plants and support from 12 offsite response organizations will be required.
13 Therefore, only a request to deviate from 14 the ten-mile EPZ size is being requested. For the 15 site boundary EPZ, in addition to the request to 16 deviate from the ten-mile EPZ size requirement, 17 exemptions from various elements of a formal offsite 18 emergency plan, requirements for evacuation time 19 estimates and certain elements of offsite exercises 20 are being requested.
21 If these exemption requests are granted, 22 they could be used in a future application referencing 23 a specific SMR technology, as long as the selected 24 technology demonstrates the regulatory dose criteria 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
69 are met at site boundary or two-mile distance.
1 In either case, TVA would confirm that 2
there would be no radiological consequences outside 3
the EPZ from any credible events in excess of the dose 4
criteria consistent with the risk informed dose-based 5
methodology.
6 Next slide please. Part 2 of the ESPA 7
describes a risk informed dose-based consequence-8 oriented methodology for determining an appropriate 9
plume exposure pathway EPZ size.
10 The approach takes into consideration 11 various SMR safety and design advancements. For 12 example, SMR, as compared to large light water 13 reactors, have smaller cores, their source terms are 14 expected to be several magnitudes lower, which results 15 in reduced accident consequences.
16 SMRs are also expected to have several 17 magnitudes reduced, likelihood of accidents and much 18 slower accident progressions. Which gives more time 19 to take mitigative actions if needed.
20 The dose-based methodology is consistent 21 with a NUREG-0396 approach. And if approved, will be 22 implemented in a future application to determine the 23 plume exposure pathway EPZ size for the Clinch River 24 site.
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
70 Similar to the analysis in NUREG-0396, the 1
methodology determines the EPZ size based on dose 2
consequences analysis for a spectrum of potential 3
accidents, including design basis and severe 4
accidents. And has the same dose criteria as NUREG-5 0396.
6 I will now turn over the presentation to 7
Alex, who will discuss the technical criteria of the 8
EPZ sizing methodology, and the example analysis 9
conducted to demonstrate the methodology.
10 MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Archie. Next slide 11 please. My name is Alex Young, design engineer for 12 Tennessee Valley Authority.
13 The EPZ sizing methodology is broken down 14 into three technical criteria. The first refer to as 15 Criteria Alpha. Is that the EPZ should encompass 16 those areas in which projected dose from design basis 17 accidents could exceed the EPA early phase protective 18 action guide of one rem TEDE.
19 The second criteria, referred to as 20 Criteria B, is that the EPZ should encompass those 21 areas in which consequences of less severe core melt 22 accidents could exceed the EPA early-phase PAG. Less 23 severe core melt accidents include intact containment, 24 beyond design basis accident scenarios with a main 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
71 core damage frequency greater than one times ten to 1
the negative six or one in one million per reactor 2
year.
3 The third criteria, referred to as 4
Criteria Charlie, is that the EPZ should be of 5
sufficient size to provide for substantial reduction 6
and early severe health effects in the event of more 7
severe core melt accidents. More severe core melt 8
accident scenarios include postulated containment 9
failure or bypass accidents, with a main core damage 10 frequency greater than one times ten to the negative 11 seventh or one in ten million per reactor year.
12 To provide insurance of substantial 13 reduction early health defects, the conditional 14 probability of those exceeding 200 rem whole body for 15 more severe core melt accidents, is less than one 16 times ten to the negative third or one in 1,000.
17 Next slide please. To respond to staff 18 RAIs, an example analysis demonstrating the technical 19 criteria was developed. The example analysis is a 20 design specific analysis based on the potential 21 deployment of a NuScale power plant at the Clinch 22 River site.
23 This example analysis demonstrates that 24 TVA can implement the risk informed 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
72 consequence-oriented methodology used in the ESPA and 1
that TVA anticipates at least one design considered 2
within the PPE meets the criteria for both EPA early 3
phase PAGs and the substantial reduction early health 4
effects with margin.
5 Next slide please. Here on this slide 6
I'll briefly discuss the EPZ plant parameter. As a 7
result of staff RAIs and audits, a need for a plant 8
parameter was communicated to ensure the exemption 9
requests are applied appropriately in the future.
10 This plant parameter is similar to those 11 documented in the Chapter 2 of the site safety 12 analysis report. In that, in a future application, it 13 will have to be evaluated to ensure that the selected 14 design is bounded by the plant parameters established 15 in the ESPA.
16 In a future application, to apply the EPZ 17 exemptions, TVA would compare source terms from 18 selected SMR designs to those established in the EPZ 19 plant parameter.
20 To establish an EPZ plant parameter, TVA 21 developed a composite four-day atmospheric release 22 source term with margin. This allowed TVA to account 23 for various SMR designs and accident types and the 24 total four-day release that the EPA early phase PAG 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
73 doses are based on. Back to Archie.
1 MS. MANOHARAN: Thank you, Alex. Next 2
slide please.
3 This last slide is an overview of the 4
emergency preparedness information described in TVA's 5
ESPA for the Clinch River site. In Part 5, TVA 6
requests that NRC approve the major features emergency 7
plan for site boundary and two-mile EPZ.
8 A future application would include the 9
remaining elements of either the site boundary or two-10 mile EPZ to develop a complete and integrated 11 emergency plan. If the selected technology does not 12 meet the dose criteria at site boundary or two-mile, 13 then TVA would need to develop a new emergency plan.
14 Part 6 requests the NRC grant the 15 exemptions to support the site boundary and two-mile 16 EPZ major features emergency plan.
17 Part 2 describes TVA's risk informed dose-18 based methodology for determining the appropriate 19 plume exposure pathway EPZ size, which takes into 20 account the safety and design advancements of the SMR 21 designs considered within the PPE.
22 TVA seeks NRC's approval to use this 23 methodology for a design specific implementation in a 24 future application. That concludes TVA's safety panel 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
74 presentation. Thank you for your time today.
1 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much to 2
the TVA witnesses. I will now call the NRC Staff 3
safety panel witnesses to please occupy the seats 4
behind their name cards.
5 And proceed, when they are ready, in the 6
order that they've agreed to. And again, this is just 7
the uniqueness of the room setup that they have to be 8
called mid-panel like this, but thank you.
9 MR. FETTER: Slide 2 please. Good 10 morning, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Allen 11 Fetter, senior project manager. And with me is Ms.
12 Mallecia Sutton, also senior project manager from the 13 Office of New Reactors.
14 With us is Bruce Musico, senior emergency 15 preparedness specialist from the Office of Nuclear 16 Security and Incident Response, or NSIR.
17 Michelle Hart, senior reactor engineer 18 from the Office of New Reactors.
19 And Mike Scott, the director of the 20 division of preparedness and response in NSIR.
21 We will briefly describe the ESP review 22 process, including the concept of plant parameter 23 envelope, or PPE, and summarize the results of the 24 Staff safety review.
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
75 We also discuss the staff's review of 1
emergency planning, plume exposure pathway, EPZ sizing 2
methodology and the associated exemption request.
3 Slide 3 please. As discussed in the 4
overview panel, the Applicant used a PPE to bound the 5
characteristics of the plant that might be located at 6
the site. The Staff used this information to support 7
the safety review.
8 TVA's PPE is based on construction and 9
operation of two or more small module reactors, or 10 SMRs, at the Clinch River Nuclear site. Where a 11 single unit may not exceed 800 megawatts thermal for 12 the reactor core. And the total capacity for the site 13 is not to exceed 2,420 megawatts thermal or 800 14 megawatts electric.
15 Slide 4 please. In the development of the 16 PPE, an applicant typically draws data from a number 17 of plant technologies under consideration to construct 18 the bounding envelope. It is important to note that 19 when issuing the permit, the NRC approves the PPE 20 rather than a specific technology that the PPE was 21 drawn from.
22 As such, any plant technology that can be 23 demonstrated to be bounded by the PPE is suitable for 24 use in a combined license or construction permit 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
76 application. In TVA's case, they used preliminary 1
information. The four SMR designs are indicated on 2
this slide. Or the slide that was up there.
3 Slide 5 please. A combined license or 4
construction permit application then incorporates the 5
ESP by reference, must identify the chosen SMR 6
technology for the Clinch River Nuclear site, address 7
COL action items and permit conditions, and provide 8
other information necessary to support combined 9
license or construction permit issuance.
10 Slide 6 please. The Staff's safety review 11 included five audits and one inspection, 12 requests 12 for additional information comprising 50 questions.
13 The final safety evaluation report 14 included 41 COL action items and seven permit 15 conditions.
16 Slide 7 please. The Staff reviewed the 17 following technical areas, seismology, geology, 18 hydrology, meteorology, geography, demography, which 19 includes population distribution, site hazards 20 evaluation, radiological effluent
- releases, 21 radiological dose consequences, emergency 22 preparedness, security plan feasibility and quality 23 assurance.
24 I will now turn the presentation over to 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
77 Ms. Mallecia Sutton.
1 MS. SUTTON: Thank you, Allen. Good 2
morning. My name is Mallecia Sutton. As Allen said, 3
I'm a senior project manager in the Office of New 4
Reactors.
5 The Staff proposes to include seven permit 6
conditions that would require actions from the 7
combined license construction permit applicant 8
referencing the EPS.
9 Permit conditions one and two relate to 10 potential facility hazards. Permit conditions three 11 and four relates to site investigation and improvement 12 activities associated with the excavation and safety 13 related structures.
14 Permit condition five and six relate to 15 emergency planning. Permit condition seven provides 16 that references in the ESP SSAR, to the terms combined 17 license, combined license applicant or combined 18 license application, will include and apply to a 19 construction permit, construction permit applicant and 20 construction permit application respectively, unless 21 the content indicates otherwise.
22 Next slide please. Slide 9. Based upon 23 the Staff review, the Staff made the following 24 conclusions.
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
78 First, the ESP application satisfies 1
applicable regulations. Second, issuance of the ESP 2
will not be inimical to the common defense and 3
security to the public health and safety.
4 Next slide please. Slide 10. Third, two 5
or more SMRs can be safely cited on the Clinch River 6
Nuclear site if they, one, have design characteristics 7
following within the design parameters for the site.
8 Two, have site parameters following within 9
the site characteristics for the site. And three, 10 meet the ESP terms and conditions.
11 Next, Bruce Musico, Michelle Hart and I 12 will discuss the staff's review of the emergency 13 planning, the plume exposure path rate, EPZ size and 14 methodology and associate exemptions request.
15 Michael Scott will discuss our 16 interactions with the Federal Emergency Management 17 Agency, FEMA.
18 Next slide please.
The TVA ESP 19 application is unique in its approach to emergency 20 planning. In that it proposes a methodology to 21 determine the appropriate plume explosion path for EPZ 22 for a particular site.
23 TVA is risk informed, dose-based and 24 consequence-oriented approach is consistent with 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
79 current emergency planning framework. The NRC is not 1
being asked to approve a specific EPZ size at this 2
time.
3 A combined license or construction permit 4
applicant referencing the ESP were used in methodology 5
to determine the appropriate plume explosion pathway 6
EPZ size.
7 There are also exemption requests 8
associated with the TVA's proposal to deviate from the 9
current ten-mile plume explosion pathway EPZ 10 requirement.
11 In the safety evaluation report, the Staff 12 found that TVA's methodology and associated exemption 13 requests are acceptable. Now, we'll turn the 14 presentation to Bruce.
15 MR. MUSICO: Thank you. Good morning. My 16 name is Bruce Musico and I'm a senior emergency 17 preparedness specialist in NSIR. I and Michelle Hart 18 reviewed the emergency planning information in the ESP 19 application.
20 Can I have Slide 12 please. This slide 21 shows the three key areas of review associated with 22 emergency planning. They include, first, the two 23 major features, emergency plans that TVA requested us 24 to review and approve.
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
80 Second, the 25 exemptions, which are 1
associated with the two major features, emergency 2
plans, and third, a plume exposure pathway EPZ sizing 3
methodology, which would be used in the combined 4
license or construction permit application to 5
determine the size of the EPZ for the Clinch River 6
Nuclear site.
7 Slide 13 please. Part 5 of the ESP 8
application included two major features and emergency 9
plans. Both of which consists of limit aspects of the 10 proposed onsite emergency plan for the Clinch River 11 Nuclear site.
12 The first plan, ESP application Part 5A, 13 reflects the site boundary plume exposure pathway EPZ.
14 While the second plan, EPZ application 5B reflects a 15 two-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ.
16 The two-miles is measured from the center 17 point of the site. The two-mile EPZ emergency plan 18 also includes an evacuation time estimate, or ETE.
19 Which characterizes evacuation from the two-mile EPZ 20 area surrounding the site.
21 A combined license or a construction 22 permit applicant referencing the ESP would use one of 23 these major features emergency plans. The selection 24 of which depends on the outcome of the combined 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
81 license or construction permit applicants EPZ sizing 1
analysis.
2 Slide 14 please. In Part 6 of the ESP 3
application, TVA provided two sets of requested 4
exemptions from NRC's emergency planning requirements.
5 These exemptions applied to both major 6
features and emergency plans and reflected the 7
associated plume exposure pathway EPZs.
8 For the major feature emergency plan that 9
could be used in connection with the two-mile plume 10 exposure pathway
- EPZ, TVA requested only two 11 exemptions from the requirements in 10 CFR 50.33(g) 12 and 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), that the plume exposure 13 pathway EPZ, for nuclear power plants, consist of an 14 area about ten-miles in radius. All of the remaining 15 EPA requirements for a nuclear reactor site would 16 still apply to it.
17 For the major feature emergency plan that 18 could be used in connection with the site boundary 19 plume exposure pathway
- EPZ, TVA requested 25 20 exemptions from NRC EPA requirements. These include 21 two exemptions from the ten-mile plume exposure 22 pathway EPZ requirement in, again, 10 CFR 50.33(g) and 23 50.47(c)(2), along with 23 additional exemptions from 24 various parts of 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E, to 10 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
82 CFR part 50.
1 These additional exemptions deal with such 2
offsite emergency planning areas as state and local 3
emergency plans, public alert and notification and 4
evacuation time estimate and offsite emergency 5
preparedness exercises.
6 Acceptability of the requested exemptions 7
depends on the acceptability of TVA's proposed plume 8
exposure pathway EPZ size methodology. Michelle Hart 9
will now address the Staff's review of this 10 methodology.
11 MS. HART: Next slide please. Thank you, 12 Bruce. Good morning, my name is Michelle Hart and I'm 13 a senior reactor engineer in the Office of New 14 Reactors.
15 I evaluated TVA's proposed methodology for 16 EPZ sizing for the plume exposure pathway. Which I 17 will call the EPZ sizing methodology for short.
18 In the following presentation I will 19 discuss two related topics. First, TVA's EPZ sizing 20 methodology and second, a related permit condition.
21 For the EPZ sizing methodology I will 22 describe general features of the analysis method and 23 the supporting technical criteria. Then I will 24 describe the dose criteria used to determine the plume 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
83 exposure pathway EPZ size. And finally, I will 1
describe the basis for the Staff's review and finding.
2 Next slide please. Slide 16. The Staff 3
has not previously evaluated a plume exposure pathway 4
EPZ sizing methodology for a specific power reactor 5
site as a part of a licensing application.
6 While there is no applicable guidance for 7
EPZ sizing on a site-by-site basis, there is guidance 8
on performing accident consequence analysis that is 9
generally applicable. Such as Reg Guide 1.183 for 10 design basis accident dose analyses.
11 To help in its determination of the 12 proposed methodologies acceptability, the Staff looked 13 at the technical basis for the current regulations in 14 10 CFR Part 50 that require a plume exposure pathway 15 EPZ of about ten-miles in radius for power reactors.
16 This technical basis is provided in staff 17 technical report NUREG-0396, which describes the 18 considerations used, including analysis of the 19 potential offsite consequences of a range of accidents 20 for large light water reactors.
21 The general concept that SMRs may propose 22 a site-specific EPZ size has been previously approved 23 by the Commission. The Staff's intent to develop a 24 technology neutral dose-based consequence-oriented 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
84 emergency planning and preparedness framework for 1
SMRs, including EPZ size, was described in SECY 2
110152.
3 The Staff requirements memorandum for SECY 4
150077, which provided Commission approval for the 5
Staff to initiate a rulemaking on emergency planning 6
for SMRs and other new technologies, directed that the 7
Staff be prepared to the adapt of an approach, to 8
EPZs, for SMRs under existing exemption processes in 9
parallel with its rulemaking efforts.
10 Next slide please. There are three 11 technical criteria that TVA use to develop the EPZ 12 sizing methodology.
13 TVA based these three technical criteria 14 on the discussion in NUREG-0396. The first criterion 15 is that the plume exposure pathway, EPZ, should 16 encompass those areas in which the projected dose from 17 design basis accidents could exceed the environment 18 protection agency, or EPA, early phase protective 19 action guide, or PAG, that would indicate that early 20 protective actions be taken to protect the public 21 health and safety.
22 The second criterion is that the plume 23 exposure pathway, EPZ, should encompass those areas in 24 which the consequences of less severe core melt 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
85 accidents could exceed the EPA early phase PAG.
1 Next slide please. The third criterion is 2
that the plume exposure pathway, EPZ, should be of 3
sufficient size to provide for substantial reduction 4
and early health effects in the event of more severe 5
core melt accidents.
6 Next slide please. Slide 19. Now I will 7
describe the steps in TVA'S methodology for 8
determining the plume exposure pathway EPZ size.
9 TVA'S application describes the 10 methodology that a combined license or a construction 11 permit applicant would use, along with the chosen 12 design specific accident release information, to 13 provide the technical basis for the final plume 14 exposure pathway EPZ size, for the Clinch River 15 Nuclear site.
16 In the first step, the applicant would 17 select the appropriate site and design specific 18 accident scenarios to determine the consequences of 19 accidents. For the evaluation of design basis 20 accident consequences, the methodology uses the 21 bounding design basis accident, which is the design 22 basis accident in either the combined license or 23 construction permit application, that has a release to 24 the environment that results in the highest doses at 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
86 the exclusionary boundary and low population zone.
1 The site and design specific probabilistic 2
risk assessment, or PRA, will be used to categorize 3
the severe accident scenarios by frequency, for use in 4
the EPZ size determination.
5 The severe accident scenarios are 6
separated into two categories. The more probable, 7
less severe core melt accidents within intake 8
containment are in one category.
9 The less probable, more severe core melt 10 accidents with postulated containment failure or 11 bypass, are in the other category.
12 Next slide please. In the second step, 13 the applicant would determine the source term 14 radionuclide releases to the atmosphere as a function 15 of time for the selected accident scenarios.
16 Step 3 is the calculation of dose 17 consequences at a distance from the plant. And the 18 final step is to determine the appropriate plume 19 exposure pathway EPZ size that meets the dose 20 criteria.
21 I will describe the dose criteria next.
22 Next slide please. Slide 21. The dose 23 criteria relate to dose to an individual from exposure 24 to the airborne plume during its passage into 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
87 groundshine.
1 As a predictive model, the analysis uses 2
the average atmospheric dispersion characteristics for 3
the site. For the design basis accidents and the more 4
probable less severe core melt accident categories, 5
the dose criterion is one rem total effective dose 6
equivalent from an exposure duration of 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />.
7 This dose quantity is at the lower end of 8
the dose range given in the EPA PAG manual as a 9
protective action guide for such early protective 10 actions as evacuation and sheltering of the public.
11 For the less probable, more severe core 12 melt accidents category, those with containment 13 failure or bypass, the dose criterion used to verified 14 substantial reduction in early health effects, is that 15 the conditional probability is less than ten to the 16 negative three per reactor year of it exceeding an 17 acute dose of 200 rem whole body from a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 18 exposure, beyond the outer boundary of the plume 19 exposure pathway EPZ.
20 Next slide please. The staff found that 21 the features of TVA's EPZ sizing methodology are 22 consistent with the features of the analysis described 23 in NUREG-0396. Which is the technical basis for the 24 current ten-mile EPZ size requirement for power 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
88 reactors.
1 Similar to what was done in NUREG-0396, 2
TVA's methodology considers a range of accidents, 3
performs accident consequence analyses to determine 4
dose to an individual at distance and then determines 5
an area outside of which early protective actions are 6
not likely to be necessary to protect the public from 7
radiological releases.
8 Finally, TVA's technical criteria are 9
essentially the same as the criteria used in NUREG-10 0396.
11 Next slide please. A plume exposure 12 pathway, EPZ, determined by the proposed methodology 13 will maintain the same level of radiation protection 14 in the environs of the Clinch River Nuclear site. In 15 other words, dose savings to members of the public.
16 That is provided by the regulatory 17 requirement of a plume exposure pathway EPZ of about 18 ten-miles in radius for large light water reactors.
19 Based on this review, the Staff concludes that TVA's 20 proposed methodology for determination of a site-21 specific plume exposure pathway EPZ size is reasonable 22 and consistent with the analyses that form the 23 technical basis for the current regulatory 24 requirements.
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
89 Next slide please. Slide 24. Now I move 1
to a different but related topic. The permit 2
condition related to the combined license or 3
construction permit, applicants use of the requested 4
emergency planning and exemptions.
5 Permit condition five requires that the 6
combined license or construction permit applicant to 7
demonstrate that the design specific accident release 8
source term used in the EPZ sizing analysis is bounded 9
by the non-design specific source term developed by 10 TVA and included in permit condition five.
11 Next slide please. The accident release 12 source term is a bounding four-day integrated release 13 that meets TVA's EPZ sizing methodology dose criteria 14 at the site boundary.
15 The source term for the permit condition 16 envelops potential SMR designs that may be selected 17 for the combined license or construction permit 18 application. This is the same general idea as the ESP 19 plant parameter envelope for design basis accidents.
20 The combined license or construction 21 permit applicant must satisfy permit condition five to 22 use the emergency planning exemptions if granted in 23 the ESP. Unless a variance is requested and approved.
24 Now I turn the presentation back to Bruce, 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
90 to discuss the Staff's review of the exemption 1
request.
2 MR. MUSICO: Thank you, Michelle. Slide 3
26 please. The review of the exemption request is 4
governed by 10 CFR 50.12, which states in part that 5
the Commission may grant exemptions from the 6
requirements of the regulations, which are authorized 7
by law, will not present an undue risk to the public 8
health and safety and are consistent with the common 9
defense and security.
10 In addition, the Commission will not 11 consider granting an exemption unless special 12 circumstances are present.
13 Slide 27 please. The staff determined 14 that the request exemptions are not contrary to the 15 Atomic Energy Act or other legal requirements. The 16 staff also determined that the requested exemptions 17 will not present an undue risk to the public health 18 and safety and are consistent with the common defense 19 and security.
20 TVA's methodology maintains the same level 21 of protection that is dose savings, surrounding the 22 Clinch River Nuclear site as that which currently 23 exists at the ten-mile plume exposure EPZ, excuse me, 24 ten-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ for large light 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
91 water reactors. Also, the requested exemptions 1
present no security issues.
2 Slide 28 please. For TVA's requested 3
exemptions, the applicable special circumstance is in 4
10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), which states in part that 5
application of the regulation in the particular 6
circumstances is not necessary to achieve the 7
underlying purpose of the rule.
8 The staff reviewed all of the requested 9
exemptions against this standard and agrees with TVA 10 that the special circumstance in 10 CFR 11 50.12(a)(2)(ii) applies to the requested exemptions.
12 Slide 29 please. As a result of the 13 detailed review of the requested exemptions, the staff 14 finds that the establishment of a plume exposure 15 pathway EPZ, in a combined license or construction 16 permit application, will maintain the same level of 17 protection that is dose savings surrounding the Clinch 18 River Nuclear site, as that which currently exists at 19 the ten-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ for large 20 light water reactors.
21 As such, TVA's approach will serve the 22 same underlying purpose as the current regulations, 23 with regard to public health and safety. Therefore, 24 special circumstances are present in all criteria 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
92 the proposed exemptions are satisfied.
1 I will now turn the presentation over to 2
3 MR. SCOTT: Good morning. I'm Mike Scott, 4
the director of the division of preparedness and 5
response in NSIR.
6 In that position I am the primary senior 7
management interface with FEMA's technical hazards 8
division which is the part of FEMA most closely 9
involved in consultation in NRC's licensing actions 10 with potential emergency planning implications.
11 Over the next few slides I will address 12 the NRC Staffs interactions with FEMA on the Clinch 13 River ESP application and review. The NRC coordinated 14 its review of the ESP application with FEMA, pursuant 15 to the requirements of 10 CFR 52.17 and 52.18. And 16 the most recent memorandum of understanding between 17 FEMA and the NRC.
18 Slide 31 please. FEMA's review of the ESP 19 application was limited because, first, the ESP 20 application did not include any offsite emergency 21 plans. Although it did include an evacuation time 22 estimate for the two-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ 23 that could be used to support development of those 24 plans if the two-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ is 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
93 justified at the combined license stage.
1 Second, both major features of emergency 2
plans only address limited aspects of the proposed 3
onsite emergency plans for the Clinch River Nuclear 4
site. The limited extent of the areas reviewed in the 5
ESP application for the emergency plans is permitted 6
by the major features approached in our regulations.
7 Slide 32 please. In its January 24th, 8
2018 letter, FEMA provided the NRC its findings 9
associated with its review of the TVA ESP application.
10 The findings addressed the two application areas that 11 required FEMA's review, consisting of first, whether 12 there are significant impediments to the development 13 of emergency plan and, second, the major features of 14 the emergency plan.
15 For the first finding, FEMA stated that it 16 did not identify any physical characteristics of the 17 proposed Clinch River Nuclear site that could pose a 18 significant impediment to the development of emergency 19 plans. Including evacuation from the proposed two-20 mile plume exposure pathway EPZ.
21 Slide 33 please. For the second finding, 22 FEMA stated that the boundary established for the 23 proposed two-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ, was 24 established relative to local emergency response needs 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
94 and capabilities, as they are effected by such 1
conditions as demography, topography, land 2
characteristics, access routes and jurisdictional 3
boundaries.
4 FEMA added that it had worked with the 5
Tennessee emergency management agency to come to this 6
determination.
7 Slide 34 please. In its January 24th, 8
2018 letter, FEMA also stated in part that its 9
findings do not endorse or determine the adequacy of 10 a proposed two-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ for the 11 Clinch River site.
12 FEMA stated in its January 28th, and more 13 recent July 2019 letter, that as the licensing process 14 moves forward, FEMA looks forward to providing 15 continued consultative support to the NRC, including 16 during a future combined license application review.
17 Slide 35 please.
Valuing FEMA's 18 perspective on emergency planning for SMRs and being 19 aware of some differing views, the NRC Staff suggested 20 that FEMA provide written comments. They did so in a 21 letter dated July 8th, 2019.
22 The letter expressed concerns about the 23 approach to EPZ sizing contained in TVA's ESP 24 application and accepted by the NRC 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
95 Slide 36 please. The NRC Staff's views on 1
the concerns expressed by FEMA are provided in the 2
Staff's responses to questions posed by the 3
Commission. The Staff also plans to respond to FEMA.
4 The issues raised by FEMA represent 5
differing perspectives on emergency planning that have 6
arisen in the last several years and not just on this 7
licensing action. The Staff has held numerous 8
interactions with FEMA to attempt to reach accord.
9 Some progress has been made, but some 10 differences remain. The Staff's differences with FEMA 11 on this action focus in large part on the degree of 12 reliance the Staff proposes to place on risk 13 assessment in support of decision making for emergency 14 preparedness. And on the extent to which planning 15 includes worst-case scenarios.
16 The NRC regulations are risk informed, not 17 focused on the worst conceivable case. Said another 18 way, the NRC's regulatory framework is founded on 19 safety objectives that require the risk of nuclear 20 energy to be very small, not zero.
21 The risk assessment that supports 22 emergency planning includes a wide spectrum of 23 initiating scenarios. The dose outcome, and input to 24 EPZ sizing for human induced events that we evaluate, 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
96 is similar to the outcomes of other events.
1 The Staff's approach to the EPZ sizing 2
review suits the protection to the risk, which factors 3
in probability as well as consequence. For the TVA 4
application, the Staff's approach to the EPA sizing 5
review is consistent with the approach taken when the 6
EPZ regulations were developed.
7 Slide 37 please. FEMA's letter states 8
that local authorities must determine offsite 9
radiological emergency planning requirements.
10 The NRC Staff values and sought the views 11 of our government partners on this licensing action 12 and has involved, and will involve, local authorities 13 on emergency planning in the context of the rules that 14 govern emergency planning.
15 But EPZ sizing is ultimately based on an 16 assessment of the nuclear risk. The NRC is tasked 17 with making such assessments and determining what the 18 appropriate requirement should be.
19 That said, the NRC Staff does not object 20 to licensees working with state and local authorities 21 to develop capabilities beyond those that we require.
22 FEMA and the NRC Staff disagree on the use of the EPA 23 PAGs in support of EPZ sizing.
24 The 2017 update to the PAG manual states 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
97 "the size of the EPZ is based on the maximum distance 1
at which a PAG might be exceeded." This is exactly 2
how the NRC proposes to use the PAGs to determine EPZ 3
sizing in a risk informed manner.
4 FEMA's letter indicates that FEMA believes 5
that the NRC Staff assumes a massive immediate and 6
coordinated federal response absent formal offsite 7
radiological emergency planning. However, the NRC 8
Staff doesn't assume a rapid and coordinated response.
9 Rather, it would be highly unlikely that 10 such a response would be needed for the slowly 11 developing and relatively low-level hazard posed by 12 the type of facility that could demonstrate the PAGs 13 would not be exceeded offsite.
14 A
site boundary
- EPZ, in such 15 circumstances, is analogous to the approach to 16 emergency planning for other facilities posing very 17 small offsite risk, including non-power reactors.
18 To summarize this discussion, the NRC 19 Staff respects FEMA in their role as our partner in 20 emergency response. We actively sought their views on 21 subjects under discussion today.
22 As is clear, we don't agree on the 23 approach to EPZ sizing. The NRC Staff has considered 24 FEMA's views carefully, but we believe that 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
98 Staff's conclusions on EPZ sizing, as presented today, 1
appropriately align the protection to the risk and are 2
consistent with Commission direction on risk informing 3
NRC's activities.
4 Slide 38 please.
In addition to 5
discussing these matters extensively with FEMA, and in 6
addition to public meetings held on the EPS licensing 7
action, the NRC Staff has reached out to, and sought 8
views of, numerous stakeholders on EPZ sizing for 9
SMRs.
10 For example, we held two meetings with the 11 Tennessee emergency management agency. And we 12 encourage that agency to share their views by letter, 13 which they have done.
14 The Staff has also met with a conference 15 on radiation control program directors, the national 16 emergency management association and the federal 17 radiological preparedness coordinating committee, to 18 inform those organizations of the Staff's work on the 19 emergency planning subjects presented today and to 20 hear their views.
21 I will now turn the presentation back to 22 Mallecia.
23 MS. SUTTON: Thank you, Mike. Next slide 24 please. If the EPS is issued, the Applicant will have 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
99 approval, with conditions, on TVA's plume exposure 1
pathway for EPZ size methodology, the two major 2
features emergency plans and 25 request exemptions to 3
emergency planning requirements.
4 Next slide please. Slide 40. A combined 5
license of construction permit applicant that 6
incorporates, by reference, the ESP, must demonstrate 7
the implementation of TVA's plume exposure pathway for 8
EPZ size methodology, using the design specific input 9
for the chosen SMR technology supports either the site 10 boundary EPZ or the two-mile EPZ. And satisfies the 11 permit condition for use of the emergency planning 12 exemptions.
13 In addition, with respect to emergency 14 planning, the combined license of construction permit 15 application must address the 16 COL action items, must 16 satisfy the two permit conditions and must provide any 17 other emergency planning information necessary for 18 issuance of the combined license of construction 19 permit.
20 Next slide please. Slide 41. The Staff 21 concludes that TVA has presented an acceptable 22 methodology for determining the size of the plume 23 exposure path for EPZ, for the Clinch River Nuclear 24 site because the methodology is consistent with 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
100 technical bases for the current ten-mile plume 1
exposure pathway for EPZ size requirement for power 2
reactors.
3 Slide 42 please. The Staff also concludes 4
that the two major features emergency plans provided 5
in the ESP application meet the applicable 6
requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E, to 10 CFR 7
Part 50.
8 And finally, the Staff concludes that the 9
exemption request are acceptable because they are 10 authorized by law, would not present an undue risk to 11 the public health and safety, are consistent with the 12 common defense and security and special circumstances 13 are present.
14 With that, the Staff's presentation for 15 the safety panel is complete. We're happy to take any 16 questions you may have. Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well thank you to the 18 NRC witnesses on the safety panel. Again, we will 19 have Commissioner questions now.
20 And I appreciate the NRC witness's 21 cooperation, if a question is being answered by the 22 TVA witness directly behind you, if you can help by 23 shifting to one side or another. And I appreciate 24 your indulgence in 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
101 And we will begin the questions for this 1
panel with Commissioner Caputo.
2 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Good morning. Thank 3
you all for being here.
4 I think the majority of my questions are 5
probably going to be directed at Michael, and perhaps 6
Bruce, but I'll start with Michael.
7 So, you've already stated the emergency 8
planning zone sizing methodology described in the FSER 9
uses the same technical criteria and provides the same 10 level of protection as the ten-mile EPZ does for 11 existing large light water reactors.
12 Our Advisory Committee on Reactor 13 Safeguards, with their significant severe accident 14 expertise, concurred with these conclusions, correct?
15 MR. SCOTT: That is correct.
16 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you. And 17 TVA's methodology uses the same EPZ rational as in 18 NUREG-0396 based on "a full spectrum of accidents and 19 corresponding consequences tempered by probability 20 considerations," correct?
21 MR. SCOTT: That's also correct.
22 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: I'm going to quote 23 from the Staff's response to one of the pre-hearing 24 questions. "After September 11th, 2001, the NRC 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
102 conducted vulnerability studies that revealed that the 1
timing and magnitude of releases related to hostile 2
action would be no more severe than in other accident 3
sequences considered in the emergency preparedness 4
basis.
5 For credible attack sequences, the 6
initiating even may change how the accident starts, 7
including terrorists, insider threats, cyber, et 8
cetera, but it does not change the source term, how 9
fast the fuel melts or potential offsite 10 consequences."
11 So, the full spectrum of threats is 12 encompassed in the EP basis by accounting for a range 13 of accident scenarios, including those with the 14 shortest timing and the largest magnitude, correct?
15 MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
16 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Also, in response to 17 the pre-hearing questions, the Staff noted, "if a COL 18 or CP applicant demonstrates that a site boundary 19 plume exposure pathway EPZ is justified, however, then 20 the need for offsite actions would be highly 21 unlikely."
22 And by highly unlikely, we mean an 23 accident scenario that has a likelihood of less than 24 a million years, correct?
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
103 MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
1 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So if a highly 2
unlikely release of radioactive material, and once 3
again quoting the Staff, "of a highly unlikely release 4
of radioactive material occurs, an offsite response is 5
necessary, the NRC Staff acknowledges that such a 6
response would occur in the context of an all hazards 7
framework, consistent with how such a release would 8
currently be handled for NRC licensees other than 9
power reactors," correct?
10 MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
11 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: And, Michael, you 12 already stated earlier that the NRC did not rely on 13 offsite response actions from local or federal 14 response teams in its analysis?
15 MR. SCOTT: That's correct, Commissioner.
16 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: FEMA's comprehensive 17 preparedness guide
- entitled, "developing and 18 maintaining emergency operations plans
- states, 19 planning considers all hazards and threats while 20 causes of emergencies can vary greatly, many of the 21 effects do not."
22 The guide also recognizes that while each 23 hazards characteristics are different, the general 24 task for conducting an evacuation and shelter 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
104 operations are the same.
1 So, to be clear, to the extent that the 2
NRC would rely on an all hazards approach to planning 3
would be in the context of accident scenarios with a 4
likelihood of less than one in a million years and 5
that the public would be adequately protected existing 6
emergency response plans, correct?
7 MR. SCOTT: Essentially that's correct.
8 I'd just like to add that the Staff based its 9
conclusions on evaluation of the method that the 10 licensee, or the applicant, proposes with regard to 11 comparison of the offsite doses with the EPA PAGs.
12 And
- that, therefore our reasonable 13 assurance finding, from based on that, and not about 14 any assumptions about the effectiveness of all hazards 15 planning.
16 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay.
17 MR. SCOTT: I just want to make sure 18 that's clear.
19 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay, thank you. In 20 response, once again, to pre-hearing questions, the 21 Staff provided some insights on the history of the EPZ 22 concept.
23 "The EPZ concept was developed in response 24 to a request by the conference of radiation control 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
105 program directors in 1976 to establish bounds on 1
planning so that offsite response organizations could 2
understand the extent of necessary planning for cases 3
where doses exceed the protection action guides, and 4
protective actions are thus required.
5 If the offsite doses do not exceed the 6
PAGs, then no specific protective actions would be 7
necessary and offsite planning would therefore not be 8
necessary. The NRC and EPA both support this use of 9
the PAG method as a threshold, as documented by the 10 joint NRC EPA taskforce in the NRCs NUREG-0396 and 11 EPA's companion document 520. As well as in the 1992 12 EPA manual of protective action guides and protective 13 actions for nuclear incidents."
14 So, just to continue, the EPA's 2017 15 update to the PAG manual states, "the size of the EPZ 16 is based on the maximum distance at which a PAG might 17 be exceeded." The manual also states, "when dose 18 projections are at levels less than one rem over the 19 first four-days, evacuation is not recommended due to 20 the associated risks of moving large numbers of 21 people."
22 So, just to summarize, the NRC and EPA 23 work together to develop the EPZ concept using the EPA 24 PAGs to set an EPZ distance recognizing 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
106 appropriate balance between the risk of exposure and 1
the risks associated with evacuations. Is that 2
accurate?
3 MR. SCOTT: I believe that is accurate, 4
yes.
5 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Another point of 6
clarification. We don't use EPA PAGs to establish an 7
acceptable level of risk for normal, non-emergency 8
conditions. We have separated more conservative 9
standards for normal operation, correct?
10 MR. SCOTT: Correct.
11 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: All right. And I'm 12 going to shift gears to a separate question on 13 flooding.
14 According to TVA's flooding analyses, the 15 probable maximum flood level at the Clinch River site 16 would be feet mean sea level. That the planned 17 finished grade elevation of the Clinch River site is 18 feet higher than the maximum water elevation.
19 Given this significant margin, would 20 safety related structure systems and components be 21 susceptible to flooding or is this considered a dry 22 site?
23 MS. SUTTON: Hi, my name is Mallecia 24 Sutton. So the height, so for the evaluation 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
107 hydrology, the system would be safe. If you need more 1
technical information, I can have Joe Giacinto, the 2
hydrologist, come to the stand.
3 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay --
4 MS. SUTTON: Okay.
5 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: -- thank you.
6 MS. SUTTON: You're welcome.
7 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: I guess would the NRC 8
witness please come to the podium?
9 And while you're making your way there, if 10 when you reach the podium, could you please introduce 11 yourself?
12 And would you please verify that you have 13 been sworn and are reflected on the witness list?
14 MR. GIACINTO: Hi, my name is Joe 15 Giacinto, Office of New Reactors and I have been sworn 16 in.
17 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you. Do you 18 need the question to be repeated for you?
19 MR. GIACINTO: Please. Yes.
20 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: According to TVA's 21 flooding analyses, the probable maximum flood level at 22 the Clinch River site would be feet mean sea 23 level. And that the planned finished grade elevation 24 of the Clinch River site is feet higher than 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
108 maximum water elevation.
1 So given this significant margin, would 2
safety related structure systems and components still 3
be susceptible to flooding or is this considered a dry 4
site?
5 MR. GIACINTO: It would be considered a 6
dry site at this point. Yes.
7 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: And so, what does 8
that entail?
9 MR. GIACINTO: Well, a dry site indicates 10 that there is no danger from flooding. And so, given 11 the large margin of the site above the Clinch River, 12 which is about 80 feet about the Clinch River normal 13 water level, and the height that the site above the 14 maximum flood level, which is over feet. That 15 would be considered a dry site.
16 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay, thank you.
17 And sorry, one more, one last question.
18 For Michael.
During the NRC's 19 interactions with FEMA on this application, or on the 20 reactor EPZ rulemaking that's ongoing, did FEMA 21 representatives offer any technical basis that would 22 call into question the NRC Staff's conclusions 23 regarding the safety of SMRs and the methodology for 24 corresponding EPZ size?
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
109 MR. SCOTT: None that I'm aware of.
1 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay, thank you. I 2
have no further questions.
3 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO:
Thank
- you, 4
Commissioner Caputo.
Next we will recognize 5
Commissioner Wright. Please proceed.
6 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Good morning. Yes, 7
it's still morning.
8 So I'm going to ask a question that's 9
going to be for both panels, so we'll, I guess, first 10 jump in, whoever wants to do it.
11 So, I'm interested in hearing about the 12 interactions and discussions that the Staff and TVA 13 had regarding the proposed permanent conditions. How 14 did those discussions go, do you feel you engaged on 15 the subject earlier enough in the process here?
16 And I guess, did the draft conditions 17 evolve based on these discussions?
18 MR. FETTER: So hi, this is Allen Fetter.
19 The Staff were writing their individual SEC sections 20 and they used what they considered their own 21 engineering and technical judgment to develop 22 permanent conditions, what they thought would be 23 important to address for the COL.
24 And those were not done in a vacuum, those 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
110 were presented to management, and also discussed with 1
TVA before the SE's were issued.
2 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Any comment?
3 MR. STOUT: And TVA was made aware of the 4
permit conditions and we understood them. We see that 5
a future application can meet those requirements.
6 On occasion it appears that the permit 7
conditions are already existing regulatory 8
requirements, however, there is no impediment to us 9
meeting them.
10 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Were there any 11 proposed conditions that were removed during the 12 discussions that had been there previous? Or earlier?
13 MS. SUTTON: Yes. So, after we presented 14 some of the permit conditions to TVA and discussion 15 with the Staff, some of the permit conditions were 16 removed or revised, appropriately.
17 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay. Anything 18 specific we'd be interested in knowing about?
19 MS. SUTTON: Not at this time. Well, 20 we've had fruitful discussions with the Staff and 21 management and management, there is a lot of proposed 22 conditions and permit conditions that we proposed.
23 Some of the management, before even the 24 applicant saw them, asked us to go back to look 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
111 through the regulatory basis and then we revised them, 1
removed them or made appropriate changes. So there 2
was nothing that was glaring that we thought was 3
necessary moving forward. That wasn't presented now.
4 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay. I'm going to 5
stay with the NRC Staff here with the next couple of 6
questions.
7 So, were there any unexpected challenges 8
that you encountered during your safety review of the 9
ESP application, and if there were, can you maybe 10 briefly tell me how you overcame those challenges?
11 MS.
SUTTON:
As stated in our 12 presentation, de novo issue of evaluating the EPZ size 13 methodology was a challenge for the staff. We worked 14 together with our counterpart, NSIR, came up with a 15 process to evaluate the deviation from the current 16 ten-mile EPZ and how the Staff will provide the 17 technical basis to justify if the exemptions could be 18 approved and granted per the Commissions regulations.
19 And so, as we went through the process and 20 got management input and guidance, we felt like we 21 were able to provide the necessary, meet their 22 necessary regulations to say that the exemptions could 23 be granted.
24 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So, considering, I 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
112 guess, exemptions that maybe have been previously 1
granted from the general requirement of that ten-mile 2
EPZ, can you describe to me where maybe you've done 3
that before?
4 And how were those circumstances maybe 5
different or similar in this case?
6 MR. SCOTT: So, I'll address that if I 7
could. So, the rules do allow for reactors that are 8
smaller or, in the case of the high temperature gas 9
coolant reactor, setting the EPZ size on a case-by-10 case basis.
11 So that's already written in there. And 12 there were several very small reactors sometime back 13 that had five mile EPZ.
Those are since 14 decommissioned. And there was of course a Fort St.
15 Vrain HTGR that also had a five mile EPZ.
16 So, it has been done in the past for 17 different type power reactors. They weren't by 18 exemption though, to my understanding, because it was 19 in the rules.
20 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay, very good.
21 Thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well, let me add my 23 thanks again for all the presentations. A number of 24 subject matter areas have been covered already.
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
113 Maybe this is a kind of broad, and for any 1
TVA witness whose appropriate, but if the exemptions 2
that are sought were granted, and again, the Staff has 3
recommended approval of the EPZ sizing methodology, so 4
assuming that all of that were put in place and 5
assuming, there's a lot of ifs with this question, 6
assuming that TVA came back in with a request for a 7
construction permit or a COL application, would it be 8
the planning to continue to have some measure of 9
coordination with offsite emergency response and 10 municipal and local officials, and if so, could you 11 give a general description of what that kind of 12 coordination offsite might look like? I realize this 13 is a bit speculative.
14 MR. STOUT: Yes, it is our intent to 15 continue to communicate and coordinate with the state 16 and the local emergency preparedness officials. We're 17 also a neighbor to the Department of Energy.
18 They have emergency planning. Our site is 19 in their emergency planning zone. So there would be 20 offsite coordination on the appropriate emergency 21 plant preparedness response for any type of 22 application going forward. Whether it meets site 23 boundary or it meets two-mile.
24 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you. 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
114 although Commissioner Wright's question was not 1
directed to the TVA witnesses, are you aware, was 2
there any study of the historic five mile EPZs for say 3
Fort St. Vrain or maybe Big Rock Point, I think was 4
another that had a smaller EPZ, did that history form 5
any foundation for your proposal or was it at least 6
studied?
7 MR. STOUT: We did consider all the past 8
precedence, but we chose a unique approach and a 9
specific dose-based methodology thinking that that's 10 in the best interest of TVA and the country as we go 11 forward and take advantage of the improvements in our 12 tools and analysis capabilities.
13 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you. And I 14 appreciate you mentioning the advances and modeling in 15 simulation some of which this very proudly developed 16 right there at Oak Ridge, near you. So they have 17 al0ot of computational tools that are available to 18 modern applicants, such as yourself, that were not 19 historically available.
20 I wanted to turn now, I think this is for 21 TVA, but I'll have a variation of this question for 22 the NRC Staff as well. And it is in the consideration 23 of alternative citing.
24 I know that there is a lot already in 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
115 record. The staff witnessed, Ms. Bradford testified 1
that in the Staff's view, none of the alternative 2
sites, to the Clinch River site, were obviously 3
superior in the environmental context.
4 Just as an aside, she mentioned that none 5
of the other sites were environmentally preferable.
6 I know this is the safety panel but I just thought I'd 7
mention, those are the Staff's kind of parallel 8
conclusions there in validating the Clinch River site.
9 Those are obviously pretty high bars.
10 Obviously superior means they're not kind of neck-and-11 neck, but could one of the TVA witnesses give me any 12 sense of what were the dispositive, what were the 13 highest most major contributors to finalizing around 14 the Clinch River site, in comparison to the 15 alternatives that you looked at?
16 MR. STOUT: There is the environmental 17 considerations that you just mentioned. But also on 18 a technical side, there was an excavation performed 19 for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.
20 And we were able to use that information.
21 And --
22 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI:
In in-site 23 characterization, you had that available to you?
24 MR. STOUT: Absolutely. And so 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
116 informed us on the suitability at the site in 1
particular. So, we had less uncertainty as it relates 2
to the geotechnical.
3 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay. And I would 4
note though, it's always kind of a give and take in 5
life because now some of that site disturbance of 6
course would be factors that you would have to 7
characterize more fully if you went forward with a COL 8
application.
9 Staff noted in response to some pre-10 hearing questions that there are some things not yet 11 established about the extent of some of those things.
12 And so, I know part of the answer for both the Staff 13 and for the Applicant are that there would be a fuller 14 characterization of those excavations and their 15 effects on any particular proposal to locate a 16 facility there.
17 Just a thought, I would note that as well.
18 And I think, so, I guess for the Staff, the variation 19 on that question is, in terms of no other sites being 20 obviously superior, where there factors you weighed?
21 I don't know if you have any request for 22 additional information regarding this. Is there 23 anything that comes to mind?
24 MR. FETTER: This is more in the area 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
117 the environmental review.
1 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay, sure.
2 MS. SUTTON: But just to ask you a 3
question. There is no additional --
4 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: But from the safety 5
and the --
6 MS. SUTTON: There is no additional 7
environment RAIs associated with the --
8 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay.
9 MS. SUTTON: And there was none on the 10 safety side.
11 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: The safety side 12 either, okay.
13 MS. SUTTON: Okay. Yes.
14 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: I think, again, the 15 cite, alternative citing always has two prongs.
16 Safety, which tends not to be the largest set of 17 considerations, and the environmental as well, which 18 I will pursue this with the next panel.
19 And with that, that concludes my questions 20 for this panel and I turn it over to Commissioner 21 Baran.
22 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thank you. Well, 23 thank you all for your hard work on this review. I 24 have some questions on emergency preparedness.
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
118 These questions, I think, are all for the 1
NRC Staff, but you all can decide who wants to chime 2
in on any given question.
3 I guess just to briefly summarize, I think 4
where we are. As part of the early site permit the 5
NRC Staff recommends approving TVA's methodology for 6
determining plume exposure pathway emergency planning 7
zone, or EPZ size, for the Clinch River site.
8 The early site permit wouldn't establish 9
a specific EPZ at this time. Instead, the staff 10 recommends issuing exemptions now that could result in 11 a two-mile or site boundary EPZ for the site if a 12 combined license or construction permit is later 13 issued.
14 To be clear, the regulations say that the 15 EPZ should extend about ten-miles out from the site, 16 but the exemptions would allow the EPZ to stop at two-17 miles or at the boundary of the site, as long as the 18 dose criteria are met. Is that right?
19 MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
20 COMMISSIONER BARAN: The dose criteria 21 come from EPA's protection action guides, or PAGs as 22 we've heard. The methodology results in a EPZ large 23 enough to encompass the areas where the projected dose 24 from design basis accidents could exceed one rem.
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
119 Does this essentially adopt the 1
methodology of the NRC Staff's draft proposed rule for 2
emergency preparedness for small module reactors, 3
which is currently pending before the Commission?
4 MR. SCOTT: So, the approach taken in this 5
licensing action is similar to that in the rule.
6 COMMISSIONER BARAN:
Is there any 7
difference between this approach and the approach in 8
the rule?
9 MR. SCOTT: I am not aware of any 10 substantive differences with regard to plume exposure 11 pathway EPZs --
12 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay.
13 MR. SCOTT: -- because the rule addresses 14 ingestion pathway and this action does not because the 15 Applicant chose not to go there.
16 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay.
17 MR. SCOTT: Can I just interject one 18 thing, I wanted to add to my answer --
19 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Sure.
20 MR. SCOTT: -- to your previous question?
21 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Yes.
22 MR. SCOTT: So as what, I think your 23 remarks refer to it, but I want to make sure mine did 24 as well. So we're not in the EPS stage approving any 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
120 EPZ. Not two-miles from outside boundary, nothing.
1 What we're proposing to approve is the 2
method that could lead to that at the combined license 3
stage.
4 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Right. Under this 5
methodology, the quantitative dose formula determines 6
the size of the EPZ, right?
7 So using the small type step formula you 8
plug in factors that someone discussed on earlier 9
slides, which is the reactors design features and 10 characteristics, the source term, the site conditions, 11 exposure and dose estimates.
12 And the formula spits out EPZ size, is 13 that how it works?
14 MS. HART: The methodology results in dose 15 distance that you would use then to determine if the 16 EPZ size is supported.
17 COMMISSIONER BARAN: That sounds like a 18 purely quantitative risk-based determination rather 19 than a risk informed decision that accounts for expert 20 judgement, defense-in-depth or public confidence. Is 21 this a purely risk-based methodology for determining 22 the EPZ size?
23 MR. SCOTT: As you know, the NRC licenses 24 a large variety of facilities, from very large 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
121 reactors down to individual sources. And most of 1
those facilities don't require offsite planning.
2 So, at some point in the hazard spectrum, 3
a decision needs to be made that the formal offsite 4
radiological emergency planning is not needed anymore.
5 And so, the Applicant proposes, and the Staff 6
proposes, to accept that an appropriate place to draw 7
that line to where the offsite formal planning is not 8
needed anymore is when the EPA PAGs will not be 9
exceeded offsite.
10 And Staff believes that is consistent with 11 the Commission's guidance on risk informing EPZ 12 sizing. It's consistent with the earlier, the EPA PAG 13 discussion that we had earlier. It's also consistent 14 15 COMMISSIONER BARAN: My question is a 16 little different than that.
17 MR. SCOTT: Okay.
18 COMMISSIONER BARAN: My question is, is 19 the methodology itself risk informed or is it risk-20 based?
21 MR. SCOTT: We believe it is risk 22 informed. Do you want to add to that?
23 MS. HART: There is consideration on 24 certainty and on consideration of defense-in-depth in 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
122 the methodology. Of course, it's not been practiced 1
yet. It would be evaluated in the implementation.
2 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Well, is anyone 3
exercising any judgment about how large the EPZ should 4
be or is it a mathematical calculation? Under the --
5 MS. HART: As far as the methodology 6
itself it just determines the distance at which the 7
EPA PAG is maybe exceeded. And also evaluates the 8
substantial reduction in early health effects for 9
those very severe accidents.
10 COMMISSIONER BARAN: This seems to be a 11 significant departure from how NRC has always approach 12 emergency preparedness. When NRC established the ten-13 mile EPZ for the existing fleet of large light water 14 reactors, it wasn't based on the likelihood of an 15 accident occurring.
16 In 1978 NUREG-0396, which has been cited 17 several times today as being consistent with a 18 proposed methodology, stated that "emergency planning 19 is not based on quantified probabilities of incidents 20 or accidents, but on the public perception of the 21 problem, what can be done to protect health and 22 safety."
23 In the 1986 safety goal policy statement 24 the Commission said that emergency response 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
123 capabilities are mandated to provide additional 1
defense-in-depth, protection to the surrounding 2
populations.
3 When the agency was working through 4
advance reactor issues in 1993, the NRC Staff wrote 5
that it views the inclusion of emergency preparedness 6
by advance reactor licensees as an essential element.
7 The NRC's defense-in-depth philosophy.
8 Four years later, now in the late '90s, 9
the Staff emphasized the importance of getting the buy 10 in and acceptance of federal state and local emergency 11 response agencies, for any emergency response changes 12 relating to new potentially safer reactor designs.
13 Is the Staff throwing all that out the 14 window with this proposed methodology and these 15 proposed exemptions?
16 MR. SCOTT: So, I don't believe so. In 17 the sense that if an Applicant cannot show that their 18 facility is a particularly low hazard facility, akin 19 to what we've licensed in the past without site 20 boundary EPZ, without offsite emergency planning, then 21 they will not get the offsite, the site boundary EPZ.
22 So we believe it's consistent with past practice.
23 Again, this is a different type of 24 facility then some of those that have been considered 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
124 earlier. A very low risk facility.
1 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Well, with the site 2
boundary EPZ, there would be no dedicated offsite 3
radiological emergency planning, right?
4 So that element of defense-in-depth would 5
be dropped completely?
6 MR. SCOTT: The Staff acknowledges that 7
for site boundary EPZ case, if an offsite emergency 8
response was needed, it would be in the context of all 9
hazards planning.
10 COMMISSIONER BARAN: I want to ask about 11 FEMA's views, as you all did a good job I think 12 discussing those during your presentation. FEMA has 13 a key role in determining whether the emergency 14 planning for nuclear power plant site is adequate.
15 Under NRC's regulations, no early site 16 permit can be issued unless the NRC makes a finding 17 that the major features of the emergency plan meet the 18 regulatory requirements. And NRC is supposed to base 19 its finding on FEMA's determinations as to whether the 20 onsite and offsite emergency plans are adequate and 21 whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be 22 implemented.
23 In fact, under our regulations, in any NRC 24 licensing proceeding a FEMA finding will constitute 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
125 rebuttable presumption on questions of adequacy and 1
implementation capability. FEMA has this prominent 2
role in our licensing process because of its 3
undisputed expertise in this area. They are the 4
federal emergency management agency after all.
5 In its August 11th, 2017 letter to NRC, 6
FEMA says that it "did not review or analyze the 7
feasibility of a site boundary EPZ for Clinch River."
8 Did the Staff ask FEMA to review the 9
proposed major features of the site boundary EPZ 10 emergency plan?
11 MR. SCOTT: No, we did not because given 12 what the Applicant submitted, there was no scope for 13 FEMA to review that particular piece. Now they --
14 COMMISSIONER BARAN: It wasn't required 15 that FEMA review it?
16 MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
17 COMMISSIONER BARAN: But you still could 18 have asked for FEMA's views and recommendations, 19 right?
20 MR. SCOTT: Well, in effect we did ask for 21 FEMA's views and they provided them in their July 8th, 22 2019 letter.
23 COMMISSIONER BARAN: But not onsite 24 boundary EPZ only on a two-mile EPZ?
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
126 MR. SCOTT: We sought FEMA's views on all 1
aspects of this action. Now, there's a separate, 2
there's a difference between a consultation required 3
by the rules and good practice of reaching out to our 4
partner and asking for their views on these matters.
5 And so, although FEMA's views on site 6
boundary EPZ were not required because offsite 7
planning would not be required, we sought their views.
8 And those are reflected in that July 8th, 2019 letter.
9 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay. And FEMA more 10 formally reviewed the two-mile EPZ plan. In the 11 August 27 letter FEMA stated, "FEMA cannot support any 12 determination that a two-mile EPZ is adequate for 13 their Clinch River Nuclear site at this time."
14 Two years later, FEMA's position hadn't 15 changed. In a July 8th, 2019 letter, FEMA explained 16 that it "does not currently endorse the establishment 17 of a site boundary plume exposure pathway EPZ or a 18 two-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ for any small 19 modular reactor or other new technology, absent the 20 integration of the full spectrum of threats and their 21 associated impacts into the accident analyses and the 22 probabilistic risk analysis."
23 So to be clear, as we sit here today, FEMA 24 does not support a site boundary EPZ or a two-mile EPZ 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
127 for Clinch River, is that right?
1 MR. SCOTT: Based on their July 8th, 2019 2
letter, I believe that's correct.
3 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay. And FEMA 4
disagrees with the NRC staff position that the 5
applications EPZ size methodology is acceptable?
6 MR. SCOTT: I don't believe that they put 7
it in their letter that way, but you quoted text from 8
their letter that expresses some level of 9
disagreement, given where we are.
10 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay. I want to ask 11 about some of FEMA's specific concerns, based on their 12 letters, I think FEMA is clearly concerned that design 13 basis accidents aren't the only thing that could go 14 wrong in a nuclear power plant.
15 And they want a future licensee, as well 16 as state and local emergency responders, to be ready 17 for low probability, high consequence events.
18 The Staff's proposed risk methodology for 19 determining EPZ size doesn't factor in security risks, 20 does it?
21 MR. SCOTT: Yes, it does, in a sense. And 22 we talked about that earlier that for security risks 23 within the full spectrum that we consider, that has 24 been evaluated.
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
128 And the way that type of accident would 1
play out in terms of offsite release would be very 2
similar to other initiators.
3 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Well, and this 4
follows up, I guess on what Commissioner Caputo was 5
asking about earlier. After 9/11, the NRC Staff 6
reviewed the emergency planning for nuclear power 7
plants in light of potential hostile actions and 8
concluded that the emergency planning basis remained 9
valid.
10 But that conclusion was based on their 11 being a ten-mile EPZ with dedicated radiological 12 emergency planning, wasn't it?
13 MR. SCOTT: So, the presence or absence of 14 a ten-mile EPZ does not reflect the security outcome 15 of an event. For example, even if a site boundary EPZ 16 is approved, the Applicant is required to establish 17 and maintain communication capabilities with offsite 18 response people. Security type people who would 19 respond to a security event.
20 And, again, from an EPA perspective, the 21 Staff sees a little difference in how these events 22 would play out.
23 COMMISSIONER BARAN: But in terms of the 24 post-9/11, when the Staff looked at, in light of 9/11, 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
129 the events of that day, when the Staff looked at our 1
emergency planning and said, is this adequate or does 2
this need to be updated for potential hostile actions, 3
the Staff's conclusion that it did not need to be 4
updated was based on a ten-mile EPZ with dedicated 5
emergency planning, right? Dedicated radiological 6
emergency planning.
7 MR. SCOTT: Again, I'm not aware that the 8
Staff's considerations on that subject considered ten-9 mile EPZ in particular. I'd be happy to look into 10 that and get back to you to verify that answer.
11 That's my understanding of the situation.
12 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay. If Clinch 13 River ended up with a site boundary EPZ, as we've 14 said, then no dedicated offsite radiological emergency 15 planning would be required, emergency responders would 16 be left with all hazards planned, as you mentioned.
17 FEMA's concern that all hazards planning 18 is not adequate for these types of emergencies. In 19 FEMA's July 8th, 2019 letter to NRC FEMA states, 20 "radiological emergency planning is not sufficiently 21 addressed within the all hazards framework.
22 Radiological emergency planning is unique.
23 In a worst-case scenario, our offsite 24 response organizations could be challenged to 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
130 effectively protect the health and safety of the 1
public, using an ad hoc emergency planning construct."
2 That's pretty strong stuff. FEMA goes on 3
to say that advance planning, such as provided by an 4
EPZ reduces the complexity of the decision making 5
process during an incident. And FEMA states, we which 6
to stress that the proven best way to ensure offsite 7
readiness is to develop, exercise and assess offsite 8
response, organization, radiological capabilities, as 9
it now done throughout the offsite EPZ.
10 Does the Staff believe that all hazards 11 planning would be just as effective as dedicated 12 radiological emergency planning in an actual 13 radiological emergency?
14 MR. SCOTT: As I said in the testimony, 15 the Staff reached its conclusions based on the 16 comparison of the Applicant's proposed methods with 17 the EPA PAGs.
18 We did not make any particular assumption 19 about the effectiveness of the all hazards plan. We 20 just don't believe that any facility that can 21 demonstrate a source term low enough to support a site 22 boundary EPZ.
23 The situation, the question of the 24 effectiveness of all hazards response would not come 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
131 into play because the situation would not occur that 1
would require that.
2 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay. Well, separate 3
from your findings, what is the Staff's view on this, 4
is all hazards planning just as effective as dedicated 5
radiological emergency planning?
6 MR. SCOTT: There is documentation out 7
there that the Staff is aware of that supports that 8
offsite authorities will take needed actions when 9
required in various context.
10 We can provide you those references if 11 you're interested in those, Commissioner.
12 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Yes, but that's not 13 really answering my question. There's dedicated 14 radiological hazards planning, which is currently 15 required for the existing fleet, there is something 16 else, which is all hazards planning, plans for all 17 kinds of different hazards not just radiological, it's 18 not focused on radiological.
19 Does the Staff believe that all hazards 20 planning is just as effective in an actual 21 radiological emergency planning as dedicated 22 radiological emergency planning?
23 MR. SCOTT: So, if I might, I'd like to 24 call upon a member of the NRC Staff to provide 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
132 additional response to that question.
1 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Is this one --
2 MR. SCOTT: Patricia Milligan.
3 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: -- one of the NRC 4
witnesses?
5 MR. SCOTT: Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Yes, would you please 7
come --
8 MR. SCOTT: Trish Milligan.
9 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI:
And just for 10 completeness for the transcript, would you state your 11 name and just confirm that you were sworn in earlier 12 this morning?
13 MS. MILLIGAN: Yes. My name is Patricia 14 Milligan and I work for Mike Scott in the Office of 15 NSIR. And yes, I was sworn in.
16 So, to your question --
17 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Yes.
18 MS. MILLIGAN: -- just to recap really 19 quickly, again for me, sir?
20 MR. SCOTT: Sure. Does the Staff believe 21 that all hazards planning would be just as effective 22 as dedicated radiological emergency planning in an 23 actual radiological emergency?
24 MS. MILLIGAN: That's an interesting 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
133 question. If you look at --
1 COMMISSIONER BARAN: I thought so, thanks.
2 MS. MILLIGAN: Yes, it is.
3 (Laughter.)
4 MS. MILLIGAN: If you look at FEMA's 5
guidance, which is called CPG 101, developing and 6
maintaining emergency operations plans, they don't 7
call out radiological planning as separate. Indeed, 8
part of this guidance addresses radiological hazards.
9 What FEMA does in this particular guidance 10 is suggest that if you are ever in a community where 11 there's a radiological plan, you include this in your 12 all hazards planning.
13 So, to answer your question, I think this 14 particular guidance would say, yes, they believe that 15 it's all part of all hazards. And indeed, in FEMA's 16 guidance, which is CPG 101 right here.
17 They say that while there is uniqueness 18 hazards, and clearly a chlorine gas release is very 19 different from a radiological release, it is very 20 different than a natural gas release. We know that.
21 But there are so many commonalities in response.
22 That was also addressed to NUREG-0396 23 where the taskforce there recognized that the response 24 is very similar in many types of events. A train 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
134 derailment with chlorine gas, that sorts of things.
1 Evacuation and sheltering is common to all hazards.
2 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Well, the reason I'm 3
asking this specific question is, it seems to be 4
central to the concern that FEMA is stating in their 5
letter when they say radiological emergency planning 6
is not sufficiently addressed within the all hazards 7
framework.
8 And I'm trying to understand, does the NRC 9
staff disagree with that?
10 I mean, FEMA is saying they don't think 11 all hazards is good enough and the Staff's response is 12 what?
13 MR. SCOTT: The Staff's response is that 14 the effectiveness of that offsite capability is not 15 central to the determinations we made here. Again, 16 once the hazard is low enough, then you don't need 17 that capability.
18 And that's been demonstrated in NRC 19 licensing practice, for example, for research reactors 20 for many years.
21 COMMISSIONER BARAN: But on a couple 22 different slides, and in various documents that are 23 part of this docket, the NRC Staff has made a finding 24 that the proposed methodology maintains the same level 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
135 of protection as a ten-mile EPZ.
1 MS. HART: And let me clarify.
2 COMMISSIONER BARAN:
If dedicated 3
radiological emergency planning is superior to all 4
hazards planning, I don't understand how the NRC Staff 5
could make that determination.
6 If a site boundary EPZ does not have 7
dedicated radiological emergency planning and two-mile 8
or ten-mile EPZ does, what's the basis of concluding 9
that those offer equal protection --
10 MR. SCOTT: Different level of hazard.
11 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Say it again?
12 MR. SCOTT: Different level of hazard.
13 Again, I mean, we wouldn't propose a ten-mile EPZ for 14 research reactor, we don't have those because the 15 hazard is lower.
16 In effect, you have to draw the line 17 somewhere. The Staff believes that drawing it at the 18 site boundary, if the facility will support that, is 19 supportive of protection of public health and safety 20 without the need for formal offsite radiological 21 emergency preparedness.
22 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Is the NRC Staff 23 finding that the proposed methodology maintains the 24 same level of protection as a ten-mile EPZ necessary 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
136 for the issuance of the EPZ exemptions?
1 MR. SCOTT: It's consistent with it. I'd 2
have to think about whether it's absolutely necessary.
3 I would, we'll think about that question.
4 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay. Let me ask a 5
slightly different issue about a slightly different 6
issue.
7 Is there anything about the logic of the 8
proposed methodology that couldn't be applied to the 9
existing fleet of large light water reactors?
10 MR. SCOTT: If they would need to be, it 11 would need to be considered under potential exemptions 12 to 10 CFR Part 50 because the existing rules wouldn't 13 permit it.
14 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Existing rules don't 15 permit it here either, we're talking about exemptions.
16 So my question is, is there anything about the logic 17 of the methodology that couldn't be applied to the 18 existing large light water reactor fleet?
19 MR. SCOTT: No. So an applicant, or a 20 licensee, could come in and ask for exemptions and the 21 Staff would consider those.
22 COMMISSIONER BARAN: If an existing 23 nuclear power plant ran the numbers through this 24 methodology and found that an eight mile or a five 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
137 mile EPZ would meet the dose criteria, what would be 1
the basis for NRC concluding that the plant should 2
keep a ten-mile EPZ?
3 MR. SCOTT: We have to consider that 4
application when it came in, Commissioner. Obviously 5
we didn't get that kind of application in this case.
6 And we haven't gone there because an applicant has not 7
come in and requested that.
8 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Well, I wanted to 9
understand what the implications would be if this 10 methodology were applied to the existing fleet of 11 large light water reactors.
12 And to figure that out, the Commission 13 asked pre-hearing Question 22. And the Staff 14 responded that it didn't have sufficient information 15 to apply the proposed methodology to operating units.
16 To be clear, the staff has no idea how 17 this methodology would impact the EPZ size of 18 currently operating plants if were applied to them?
19 Is that right?
20 MS. HART: We have not done any scoping 21 analyses or anything like that to determine. I think 22 the severe accident information is the information 23 that we don't have in-house to be able to do that 24 effectively at this time.
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
138 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Isn't that something 1
we want to know before setting this precedent?
2 MS. HART: This is a specific exemption 3
for this specific site and so, it --
4 COMMISSIONER BARAN: The methodology that 5
is acknowledged doesn't really confine itself to this 6
site or to small modular reactors.
7 MR. SCOTT: So the Staff proposes to make 8
this decision based on the information put in front of 9
us with regard to whether it's protective of public 10 health and safety. And that's the basis of the 11 conclusion that we reached.
12 COMMISSIONER BARAN: To issue the EPA 13 exemptions, NRC would need to find that there were 14 special circumstances. In its application, TVA stated 15 that special circumstance exist at Clinch River 16 because the enhanced safety features and the design of 17 SMR significantly enhance nuclear safety and provide 18 considerable additional confidence in the protection 19 of public health and safety.
20 Did the NRC Staff rely on that rationale 21 to find that special circumstances are present here?
22 MS. HART: The Staff acknowledges that 23 statement, and we did ask TVA to provide additional 24 information, like what kind of things that they were 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
139 talking about. And they did respond, an RAI response 1
with that information.
2 However, our determination is made on the 3
methodology itself in that it would be evaluated at 4
the time with specific information for the specific 5
reactor at the time of the COL or CP application.
6 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Well, we don't know 7
what reactor design would be used at the site, and the 8
NRC hasn't yet approved or determined the safety of 9
any of the reactor designs that were used to set up 10 the plant parameter envelope.
11 How could the staff conclude that there 12 are special circumstances based on the assumed safety 13 features of an unknown, unapproved design?
14 MS. HART: The special circumstances 15 determination was not only based on that information, 16 the special circumstances were based on the fact that 17 there is a methodology that would be used by the COL 18 or the CP applicant to determine an area outside of 19 which protective, early protective actions may not 20 have to be taken.
21 COMMISSIONER BARAN: So, to make a special 22 circumstance is fine and its based purely on the 23 methodology here, it's not based on any presumed 24 characteristics of, safety characteristics of small 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
140 module reactors?
1 MS. HART: Because we cannot verify those 2
presumed characteristics at this time.
3 COMMISSIONER BARAN: If the ESP is issued, 4
as currently proposed, would SMR construction at 5
Clinch River need to have the specific attributes 6
assumed in the Staff safety evaluation report in order 7
to get the EPZ exemption?
8 MS. HART: So, what they would have to do 9
is use the TVA sizing methodology to show that their 10 EPZ size is supported, that they choose. And also 11 meet permit condition five, the source term that's in 12 that.
13 So, the specific discussion about slower 14 and smaller cores, they don't need to specifically 15 provide findings for that. Those statements.
16 COMMISSIONER BARAN: So permit condition 17 five just focuses on source terms size, not these 18 other attributes of small --
19 MS. HART: Correct.
20 COMMISSIONER BARAN: -- reactors?
21 Okay. I'm just trying to figure out 22 whether this is, kind of a circular reasoning 23 situation where the reason you can go down potentially 24 a two-mile or site boundary EPZ is that SMRs are 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
141 much safer and the hazards are so much lower.
1 We don't know what SMR would actually be 2
placed there, we don't know what the design would look 3
like. Nothing has been approved by NRC, yet we're 4
depending on some presumption about what that SMR 5
would be to decide now that special circumstances 6
exist to issue an exemption. Am I missing something?
7 MS. SUTTON: Okay, so the bounding 8
parameters of the PPEs, 2,420 megawatts thermal. So, 9
for any design that fits within that parameter, so the 10 Staff is just not making a blanket statement that 11 justifies size methodology, they are the PPE limits 12 that COL or the CP applicant has to meet to be able to 13 use the exemption request.
14 And also, they have to meet the permit 15 condition five. There's all these parameters that are 16 put in place for the COL or the CP applicant to meet.
17 So, I think -- so, keep in mind that it's 18 not just like carving this one piece out, it's the 19 totality of other information the Staff use as we 20 evaluated TVA's request to come up with a parameters.
21 But it's based on the 2,420 megawatt 22 thermal and how to, it doesn't matter what reactor it 23 is, what the source term is, it has to fit within 24 those boundaries for the PPE construct.
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
142 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay. In response to 1
pre-hearing Question 18, the Staff stated that 2
depending on the plant design, multiple reactor 3
accidents, multiple reactor accidents for multiple 4
module designs may or may not be included in the 5
spectrum of accidents used for the plume exposure 6
pathway EPZ size determination.
7 Why wouldn't we consider the cumulative 8
risks of multiple modules when setting EPZ size? Is 9
that a basic lesson of Fukushima?
10 MS. HART: So, in general, the GDCs that 11 would be used would prevent common cause failures and 12 multiple unit accidents. And so, looking at their PRA 13 that they would provide at the time, and the 14 information on the plants at the time a determination 15 would made, whether multiple module or multiple unit 16 accidents, would be a credible event to include in the 17 EPZ size methodology.
18 COMMISSIONER BARAN: My understanding is 19 that we need to make a determination on whether to 20 approve the proposed EPZ methodology now rather than 21 waiting until a combined license or construction 22 permit application, because this early site permit 23 could not be issued at all with the EPZ exemptions, 24 and that's because the application didn't address 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
143 ten-mile EPZ. So the application depends on EPZ 1
exemptions being issued.
2 Is there any legal barrier to the 3
Commission approving only the exemptions for a two-4 mile EPZ at this stage? And not the exemptions for a 5
site boundary EPZ.
6 MR. SCOTT: There's no legal barrier to 7
it. The Staff looked at that. Should you approve 8
two-miles and not the site boundary.
9
- And, again, we're talking about 10 methodology here.
11 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Yes.
12 MR. SCOTT: Then the application would 13 need to be revised. It could be approved but with a 14 revised application. Because the application requests 15 all of this.
16 So if the Commission, our understanding is 17 that if the Commission were to choose to give it only 18 part of it, then the application would have to be 19 revised to reflect that. The part that's actually 20 going to be approved by the Commission.
21 COMMISSIONER BARAN: The record of 22 decision and the permit couldn't just specify which 23 parts were being granted and which parts weren't?
24 MR. SCOTT: OGC advises us that 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
144 application would have to be revised.
1 MS. SUTTON: So, based on the Staff's 2
review, based on our regulations, the Staff has to 3
review what has been presented to them. So what was 4
presented to the Staff was a exemption request looking 5
at the size and methodology for approval.
6 So the Staff evaluation and findings are 7
based on what was presented to us in application. So 8
if the Commission chooses to carve out a piece of the 9
application, then the application would have to be 10 amended so the Staff can provide their findings to the 11 Commission so they can make a decision.
12 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Hmm.
13 MS. SUTTON: So, right now we are looking 14 at an entire application as it was presented, for the 15 Staff evaluation.
16 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay. Well, that 17 might be more of a post-hearing question to delve more 18 into that, I probably don't have time to do that 19 today.
20 MS. SUTTON: Okay.
21 COMMISSIONER BARAN: It sounds like it's 22 maybe a fairly complex legal question. But I'll stop 23 there. Thank you.
24 MS. SUTTON: Okay. You're very welcome.
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
145 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much.
1 And since we will pivot aware from safety after this, 2
and a lot of ground was covered, I don't have anything 3
additional for this panel to use any more of my time, 4
but do either of my colleagues?
5 Or with that, we're up against lunch hour, 6
so that works well. And we are just slightly ahead of 7
schedule, but I would prefer, for purposes of the 8
webcast, to reconvene at the previously established 9
time, which means we would recess now for two hours 10 for lunch and reconvene at 2:00 p.m.
11 Thank you. And I will see those who need 12 to come back this afternoon, later this afternoon.
13 Thank you.
14 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 15 off the record at 12:01 p.m. and resumed at 2:00 p.m.)
16 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well, good afternoon 17 everyone. I call the hearing to order once again.
18 We will now conduct what we term the 19 Environmental Panel. The parties will address the 20 environmental review performed in connection with the 21 early site permit application, including relevant 22 sections of the final environmental impact statement.
23 I just remind the witnesses that they 24 remain under oath. And that the Commission is 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
146 familiar in general with all the pre-hearing filings.
1 We're going to begin the Environmental 2
Panel with the TVA witnesses. Please proceed, and 3
prior to presenting, please introduce yourself. Thank 4
you.
5 MR. PERRY: Good afternoon Chairman and 6
Commissioners. I am Jeff Perry, TVA Senior Project 7
Manager with the Clinch River Site, SMR Project.
8 Today Ruth Horton and I, TVA Program 9
Manager for Environmental Support and I will be 10 presenting the environmental information and the early 11 site permit application for the Clinch River Site.
12 TVA is responsible for a wide variety of 13 environmental management services in the TVA power 14 service area, which it undertakes in accordance with 15 the mandate of the TVA Act.
16 In order to implement a comprehensive 17 environmental management approach, TVA works with 18 numerous state and federal agencies in its seven state 19 region. TVA's environmental responsibilities include 20 management of the rivers and reservoirs, public land 21 and shoreline, and provision of recreation 22 opportunities in the Tennessee River Water Shed. Next 23 slide, please.
24 As you heard earlier, TVA's ESPA had 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
147 addressed the site suitability for potential 1
construction and operation of an SMR. And is based on 2
a plant parameter envelop approach.
3 When preparing the environmental report, 4
Part Three of the ESPA, TVA developed a set of 5
bounding values to use in determining potential 6
environmental impacts. TVA used the approaches and 7
methods contained in NRC regulatory guidance to 8
analyze the environmental impacts of potential SMR 9
deployment at the site as required by 10 CFR Part 51.
10 NRC's final environment impact statement 11 for issuing an early site permit was published in 12 April 2019, consistent with the National Environmental 13 Policy Act. Should TVA decide to pursue further 14 licensing and deployment of SMRs at the site, we have 15 performed our own environmental review as a part of 16 that decision making process.
17 Now I'd like to turn the remainder of the 18 presentation over to Ruth Horton, who will discuss the 19 content of the environmental report.
20 MS. HORTON: Good afternoon. My name is 21 Ruth Horton, Environmental Program Manager for the 22 early site permit application development.
23 To analyze environmental impacts required 24 by 10 CFR 51 and the National Environmental Policy 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
148 Act, TVA used the approaches and methods contained in 1
the body of the NRC regulatory guidance listed on this 2
slide.
3 NUREG 1555 was the primary guidance used 4
to inform the content of our environmental report.
5 Next slide, please.
6 The TVA site selection process conducted 7
in accordance with the EPRI siting guide and NUREG 8
1555 first bounded the project's region of interest as 9
TVA's power service area due to limitations stated in 10 the TVA Act.
11 TVA identified six large federal direct 12 served customers in the power service area as the 13 potential candidate areas shown here. The regional 14 screening process then eliminated four of the six 15 areas, leaving the Oak Ridge Reservation and Redstone 16 Arsenal as the two candidate areas that best satisfied 17 the siting criteria.
18 Fifteen potential sites were identified 19 between the two candidate areas. The next level of 20 screening further narrowed the list of 15 potential 21 sites down to three sites on or near the Oak Ridge 22 Reservation, and one site on the Red Stone Arsenal for 23 consideration as alternative sites in the ESPA.
24 None of the alternative sites were 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
149 determined to be environmentally preferable to the 1
proposed Clinch River site. Therefore, TVA identified 2
the Clinch River site as preferred. Next slide, 3
please.
4 The Clinch River site is located on the 5
Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir. And is 6
within the City of Oak Ridge in Roane County, 7
8 It is a 935-acre parcel of TVA land 9
adjacent to the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge 10 Reservation. In addition to the Clinch River site, a 11 196-acre area adjacent to the site entrance could be 12 disturbed for access improvements.
13 The site was previously characterized in 14 past studies performed in the 1970s and 1980s when it 15 was the location of the proposed and later cancelled 16 Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project.
17 As noted earlier
- today, existing 18 transmission lines and some basic infrastructure such 19 as roads and storm water retention structures, remain 20 from the site's previous use.
21 Although the Atomic Safety and Licensing 22 Board issued a limited work authorization in May 1983, 23 the Breeder Reactor was never built. And the site is 24 not currently used for power generation. Next slide, 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
150 please.
1 Having selected it as the preferred site, 2
TVA undertook a comprehensive environmental review of 3
the Clinch River site. TVA worked closely with the 4
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 5
and the State Historic Preservation Officer within the 6
Tennessee Historical Commission, federally recognized 7
Indian Tribes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 8
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other stakeholders 9
in preparing the environmental report.
10 In doing so, TVA was able to leverage 11 numerous existing agreements and relationships, to 12 ensure a thorough and comprehensive approach. For 13 example, TVA has established protocols with state --
14 with the State Historic Preservation Offices from each 15 of the seven states that make up the TVA power service 16 area.
17 For the Clinch River SMR project, TVA 18 established a
programmatic agreement with the 19 Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office for 20 management of the resources on the Clinch River site, 21 through the completion of plant construction.
22 TVA also currently maintains relationships 23 with each of the federally recognized Indian Tribes 24 that have been identified as having an interest in 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
151 TVA power service area.
1 These ongoing relationships, which 2
encompass all TVA activities, ensure a thorough and 3
comprehensive approach to the management of these 4
cultural and historic tribal resources. Next slide, 5
please.
6 TVA's environmental review of the direct, 7
indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed 8
project in onsite and offsite areas potentially 9
affected by the project, identified no critical 10 habitats. Most of the impacts were determined to be 11 small, because they either would not be detectable, or 12 would be minor.
13 Two areas showed small to moderate 14 impacts. These areas are socioeconomic impacts, 15 primarily from increased traffic during construction, 16 and stresses on public infrastructure during both 17 construction and operations. And cultural resources, 18 because potentially eligible archeological sites and 19 the Melton Hill Dam immediately upstream of the site, 20 which is listed on the National Register of Historic 21 Places, maybe impacted by construction. Next slide, 22 please.
23 In order to complete the various 24 environmental and cultural resource reviews, 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
152 analysis required for the relevant portions of the 1
ESPA, TVA communicated and interacted frequently with 2
the NRC staff. These multiple interactions, which 3
included site visits, public meetings, a readiness 4
review, an environmental audit, were critical to the 5
integrity of the process and its results.
6 NRC staff issued its final EIS for the 7
Clinch River site in April 2019. TVA's own 8
environmental review process, as briefly described 9
today, and set forth in detail within the ESPA, 10 supports the NRC staff's conclusions and 11 recommendation that the NRC issue an early site permit 12 for the Clinch River site.
13 This concludes our presentation.
14 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you to the TVA 15 witnesses for this panel. I will now as the NRC staff 16 witnesses for the Environmental Panel to please come 17 and occupy the chairs behind their name tents.
18 And then please proceed in the order in 19 which you've decided amongst yourselves to begin.
20 I'll continue to talk while you open your binders.
21 And not have awkward silence.
22 (Laughter) 23 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: And while you pour 24 yourself water.
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
153 (Laughter) 1 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Having a cold myself, 2
I have sympathy for that. Okay. All right, please 3
proceed.
4 MS. DOZIER: Good afternoon Commissioners.
5 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Oh, there you go.
6 MS. DOZIER: We can go ahead and move to 7
slide two, please. My name is Tamsen Dozier from the 8
Division of Licensing, Siting, and Environmental 9
Analysis of the Office of New Reactors.
10 I managed the environmental review of the 11 TVA's application for an ESP at the Clinch River 12 Nuclear Site. With me today is Kenneth Erwin, the 13 Chief of the Environmental Review Branch, in the same 14 division.
15 On behalf of the Environmental Review 16 Team, Ken and I will present to you this afternoon a 17 summary of the process used for developing the 18 environmental impact statement, or
- EIS, the 19 identification and analysis of alternatives, a summary 20 of the environmental impacts at the proposed site, any 21 additional notable information regarding the review, 22 and the conclusions and recommendations presented in 23 the final EIS. Next slide, please.
24 As was stated in this morning's overview 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
154
- panel, the proposed federal action for TVA's 1
application is the issuance of an ESP for approval of 2
the Clinch River nuclear site as suitable for the 3
future demonstration of the construction and operation 4
of two or more SMRs that fall within the PPE.
5 The purpose and need for the NRC's 6
proposed action of issuing an ESP is the early 7
resolution of the environmental and site safety 8
issues. The purpose and need for the Agency's action 9
is further informed by the Applicant's purpose and 10 need for the project.
11 The National Environmental Policy Act, or 12 NEPA, requires federal agencies to use a systematic 13 approach to consider environmental impacts of major 14 agency decisions. The NRC has determined that 15 issuance of an early site permit is a major federal 16 action that requires an EIS.
17 In addition, the staff's environmental 18 review addresses requirements of the Endangered 19 Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, 20 and other environmental statutes.
21 Detailed guidance for conducting the 22 environmental review is found in NUREG 1555, the 23 Environmental Standard Review Plan, and in numerous 24 regulatory guides and interim staff guidance 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
155 documents. Next slide, please.
1 TVA anticipates the use of two or more 2
SMRs at the site with a maximum total electrical 3
output of eight hundred megawatts electric to 4
demonstrate the capability of small modular reactor 5
technology.
6 Reactor design features that were 7
considered by the staff and their environmental impact 8
analysis are described by the PPE presented by TVA, 9
and evaluated by the staff.
10 The primary source of cooling water would 11 be the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir.
12 And TVA proposes using mechanical draft cooling towers 13 to dissipate heat to the atmosphere.
14 Chapter Three of the EIS fully describes 15 other elements of TVA's proposed project, which would 16 be expected to have an interface with the environment, 17 including transmission
- lines, and information 18 regarding planned building activities.
19 TVA has proposed several objectives for 20 their proposed demonstration project. The only TVA 21 project objective that was considered by the review 22 team in its generation of alternatives, was the 23 objective to provide reliable power to a mission 24 critical DOE or DoD facility.
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
156 Other TVA objectives for future 1
demonstration of SMR technology were not considered at 2
the ESP
- stage, because the necessary design 3
information was not yet available, or the objective 4
was related to a review area which TVA has chosen to 5
defer to the COL or CP review.
6 Ken Erwin will provide additional 7
discussion regarding the factors considered in the 8
generation of alternatives, a bit later in this panel.
9 Next slide, please.
10 As we heard from TVA earlier today, the 11 Clinch River nuclear site, located ten miles south of 12 the Oak Ridge urban center comprises 935 acres. And 13 is not currently used for power generation.
14 The site is the location of the now 15 terminated Cinch River Breeder Reactor Project. And 16 had been partially developed for that project.
17 Ground disturbance had affected 18 approximately 240 acres before the project was 19 terminated in 1983. The disturbance was redressed.
20 And the site has not been noticeably disturbed in the 21 interim. Next slide, please.
22 To prepare the EIS, we assembled a team of 23 environmental experts with backgrounds in the 24 necessary scientific and technical disciplines to 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
157 conduct a review. The NRC contracted with Pacific 1
Northwest National Laboratory to assist in preparing 2
the EIS.
3 If a COL or CP is submitted, the permits 4
from the Corps of Engineers maybe necessary to perform 5
activities that affect water bodies. The Nashville 6
district of the Corps therefore is a cooperating 7
agency with the NRC on this review to verify that the 8
information presented in the EIS is adequate to 9
support a Department of the Army permit application 10 should TVA submit such an application at a future 11 date.
12 The NRC staff, its contractors, and staff 13 from the Corps make up the environmental review team.
14 Next slide, please.
15 The environmental review team followed a 16 systematic approach to evaluate the impacts expected 17 to occur at the proposed and alternative sites as a 18 result of building and operating two or more SMRs.
19 The NRC published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS 20 in the Federal Register in April 2017, which initiated 21 a 60 day scoping period.
22 The NRC staff conducted two public 23 meetings near the proposed site. In addition to 24 comments captured from those meetings, the NRC 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
158 received an additional 74 pieces of correspondence 1
with comments during the scoping period, which were 2
considered in the preparation of the draft EIS.
3 In conducting its environmental review, 4
the review team carried out independent analysis and 5
evaluations based on information provided by the 6
Applicant, which included supplemental or clarifying 7
information submitted during the review in response to 8
interactions during one full scope environmental audit 9
and public meetings.
10 The review team made visits to the 11 proposed and alternative sites. And interviewed 12 stakeholders near the area, including but not limited 13 to, community organizations and local governments.
14 The NRC staff consulted with federal, 15 state, and local authorities, including the U.S. Fish 16 and Wildlife Service, the Tennessee Historical 17 Commission, and several federally recognized Indian 18 Tribes. The review team also used information from 19 independent sources in developing the draft EIS, which 20 was issued in April 2018.
21 During the 75 day comment period, the NRC 22 staff held two public meetings in Kingston, Tennessee 23 to present its preliminary findings and accept 24 comments on its draft document. Approximately 115 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
159 people attended these public meetings.
1 In addition to oral comments at the public 2
meetings, the NRC received over 25 hundred letters and 3
emails containing written comments. Comments received 4
were considered in preparing the final EIS, which was 5
issued in April of this year. Appendix E of the final 6
EIS describes how comments received on the draft EIS 7
were dispositioned.
8 I will now turn to Ken Erwin, who will 9
present a summary of the staff's environmental 10 evaluations and the various resource areas that we 11 considered in this review.
12 MR. ERWIN: Thank you Tammy and good 13 afternoon everyone. As Tammy mentioned, my name is 14 Kenneth Erwin. I'm the Branch Chief of the 15 Environmental Technical Review Branch in the Office of 16 New Reactors. Next slide, please.
17 The staff evaluated, in detail, reasonable 18 alternatives that could meet the purpose and need of 19 the proposed project. The staff evaluated the no 20 action alternative, alternative sites, and alternative 21 system designs.
22 The Applicant chose not to evaluate energy 23 alternatives in its environmental review for this 24 early site permit, which is permitted by 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
160 Therefore, the NRC staff did not evaluate energy 1
alternatives in its environmental impact statement.
2 If TVA applies for a future license, the 3
environmental review of that application would include 4
an assessment of energy alternatives. Next slide, 5
please.
6 The purpose and need for an early site 7
permit is the early resolution of issues. It is 8
informed by the Applicant's purpose and need, 9
specifically TVA's objective to demonstrate the 10 capability of SMR technology to provide reliable power 11 on or near a mission critical facility.
12 There would be no environmental impacts 13 associated with not issuing the ESP. However, this 14 would not accomplish any of the intended benefits 15 either. Next slide, please.
16 This slide shows the process for 17 identifying alternative sites. The process starts by 18 defining and identifying a region of interest, in this 19 case, TVA's power service area.
20 Next, candidate areas within a region of 21 interest were selected by applying exclusionary 22 criteria based on TVA's project objective to provide 23 reliable power to a mission critical DoD or DOE 24 facility.
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
161 This resulted in six candidate areas, 1
which were then evaluated using criteria that might 2
make the licensing and permitting of SMRs impractical, 3
which as cooling water availability and proximity to 4
targeted customers. As a result, four of these 5
candidate areas were eliminated.
6 Next, possible alternative sites were 7
identified within the two remaining areas, using 8
criteria such as land availability and land use plans.
9 This resulted in four alternative sites for 10 evaluation.
11 The NRC staff evaluated the methodology 12 TVA used in selecting the alternative sites. And then 13 evaluated the environmental impacts that would result 14 if two or more SMRs were constructed and operated at 15 each of the four alternative sites. Next side, 16 please.
17 The candidate areas and alternative sites 18 are shown on this figure. Ultimately, three candidate 19 areas were selected from the Oak Ridge Reservation, 20 including TVA's proposed site, and one additional 21 candidate site was selected from the Department of 22 Defense Red Stone Arsenal site.
23 These sites are circled in black on the 24 figure shown. In this figure, the three sites on Oak 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
162 Ridge are within the one circle in the upper right of 1
the figure. Next slide, please.
2 The review team concluded that TVA 3
employed a reasonable process consistent with the NRC 4
guidance in the SRP to identify and consider potential 5
alternative sites in the region. The review team 6
visited each of the alternative sites, including the 7
proposed site to gather information.
8 The review team then compared the 9
environmental impacts at each alternative site, with 10 the proposed site. While there were slight 11 differences in impacts to various resource areas 12 between the site and the alternative sites, none of 13 the alternative sites were environmentally preferable 14 to the proposed site.
15 The review team also evaluated design 16 alternatives, including alternative intake and 17 discharge designs, alternative heat dissipation 18 systems, and alternative circulating water supply 19 systems.
20 The alternative system designs evaluated 21 were either obviously unsuitable or were not 22 environmentally preferable to the proposed design.
23 Next slide, please.
24 Many resource areas at the proposed site 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
163 were studied and assigned an impact level by the staff 1
subject matter experts. This slide illustrates 2
physical resource areas commonly analyzed in an 3
environmental review.
4 For a small impact, the effects are not 5
detectable or too small to destabilize or noticeably 6
alter any important attributes of the resource. For 7
a moderate impact, the effect is sufficient to alter 8
noticeably, but not destabilize important attributes 9
of the resource.
10 And for an impact to be considered large, 11 the effect must be clearly noticeable and sufficient 12 to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
13 In
- addition, the staff evaluated 14 postulated acts and impacts to the environment for 15 three different emergency planning zone boundary 16 assumptions, the site boundary, the two mile, and ten 17 mile, and determined that the difference between 18 exposure levels from all three distances were similar.
19 These analyses were based on the exemption requests 20 and current regulations. Next slide, please.
21 This slide shows the impact associated 22 with the proposed project on each resource area where 23 the impact was small or none. As you can see, many 24 resource areas were small or none. Next slide, 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
164 please.
1 This slide shows the resource areas with 2
moderate or large impacts associated with the proposed 3
project. In its evaluation of these potential 4
impacts, the review team relied on TVA's compliance 5
with mitigation measures and controls that would limit 6
adverse environmental impacts including
- one, 7
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local 8
laws, ordinances, and regulations.
9 Two, compliance with other applicable 10 requirements of permits or licenses required. Three, 11 compliance with existing TVA processes and procedures.
12
- Four, incorporation of environmental 13 requirements in construction contracts. And five, 14 identification of environmental resources and 15 potential impacts during the ESP process and TVA's 16 environmental report.
17 Next, I will discuss the staff's findings 18 in two areas that were moderate too large. Next 19 slide, please.
20 Section 106 of the National Historic 21 Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider 22 the effects of undertakings on historic properties 23 that are listed or eligible for listing on the 24 National Register of Historic Places.
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
165 If historic and cultural resources are 1
present, staff determines that resource's eligibility 2
for listing in consultation with the State Historic 3
Preservation Office, American Indian Tribes that 4
attach cultural and religious significance to historic 5
properties, and other interested parties.
6 The NRC coordinated its Section 106 7
consultation through NEPA pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8.
8 The EIS contains NEPA conclusions and NHPA Section 106 9
conclusions.
10 The NRC consulted with 20 American Indian 11 Tribes, the Tennessee Historical Commission, and the 12 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Next 13 slide, please.
14 The staff concluded that the combined 15 impact from construction and preconstruction 16 activities would be moderate too large.
17 However, preconstruction activities are 18 not regulated by the NRC, and constitute the primary 19 contribution to this impact determination. Impacts 20 from NRC authorized construction would be small.
21 While preconstruction impacts are not 22 within the NRC's regulatory authority, NRC staff 23 reviewed TVA's NHPA Section 106 compliance activities.
24 As a federal land managing agency, TVA has section --
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
166 NHPA Section 106 compliance requirements.
1 Accordingly, TVA initiated its NHPA 2
Section 106 consultation with the Tennessee Historical 3
Commission and Tribes, and executed a programmatic 4
agreement that outlines the potential adverse effects 5
to an unknown number of registered eligible properties 6
and sites. Because specific project plans have not 7
been finalized, the PA describes TVA's ongoing NHPA 8
Section 106 compliance process.
9 Staff concluded that there would be no 10 effect on historic properties from NRC authorized 11 construction activities, because any impacts on 12 historic properties are primarily associated with 13 preconstruction activities, and wouldn't be subject to 14 TVA's PA.
15 The staff's NEPA conclusion determined 16 that impacts from NRC authorized construction 17 activities and operation and maintenance related 18 activities would be small, and would be subject to 19 TVA's cultural resource management practices. Next 20 slide, please.
21 TVA conducted a traffic impact analysis to 22 determine traffic impacts around the site. This study 23 analyzed deterioration of the level of service on 24 roads and intersections in Roane County, and indicated 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
167 that without mitigation, traffic around the site would 1
deteriorate at four intersections near the site for an 2
extended period of time when construction employment 3
was at or near its peak levels.
4 During this time, traffic delays could 5
exceed 15 minutes at some intersections during workday 6
commuting hours. With mitigation, the review team 7
expects the local impact on traffic would be reduced, 8
but adverse impacts would still be noticeable.
9 These delays could require commuters to 10 temporarily adapt to deteriorated conditions during 11 peak construction employment. Next slide, please.
12 Cumulative impacts result when the 13 environmental effects associated with the proposed 14 project are added to the effects associated with past, 15 present, and near future projects. These impacts can 16 result from the combination of effects that might have 17 been individually minor, but become collectively 18 noticeable when affecting the same resource over time.
19 The staff evaluated the direct and 20 indirect impacts from the project in Chapter Four and 21 Five of the EIS, and the cumulative impacts in Chapter 22 Seven to the resources from past, present, and future 23 projects in the same region.
24 The cumulative analysis did not change 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
168 impacts to most resources. For some resource areas, 1
the impacts increased from small to moderate due to 2
past activities.
3 Cumulative impacts were also evaluated for 4
each alternative site. The review team concluded that 5
cumulative impacts for each alternative site were 6
generally comparable.
7 And that no site is clearly preferable to 8
another from an environmental perspective. In such a 9
case, the proposed site prevails, because none of the 10 alternatives is clearly environmentally preferable.
11 I will now turn the presentation back over 12 to Tammy Dozier.
13 MS. DOZIER: Thank you Ken. Next slide, 14 please. If an ESP is issued, and a future applicant 15 references the ESP for the Clinch River site, a 16 supplemental EIS will be prepared.
17 A supplement to the ESP EIS will include 18 an evaluation of all issues deferred from the ESP, 19 such as an assessment of energy alternatives, benefits 20 and costs, and any issues not resolved in the ESP FEIS 21 such as the evaluation of severe accident mitigation 22 design alternatives, which is design specific, and an 23 evaluation of water treatment alternatives.
24 The supplement to the ESP FEIS would 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
169 include an analysis of the issues that were resolved 1
in this proceeding, for which new and significant 2
information is identified during the future review.
3 Next slide, please.
4 Chapter Ten of the EIS presents the NRC 5
staff's conclusions regarding the environmental 6
impacts at the proposed and alternative sites.
7 To summarize the staff findings, the staff 8
concluded that the environmental impacts would be 9
small for most resource areas. And that none of the 10 environmental alternative sites would be 11 environmentally preferable. Next slide, please.
12 For the reasons stated today in our 13 presentation, the staff recommendation related to the 14 environmental aspects of the proposed action is that 15 the ESP should be issued. That concludes our 16 presentation.
17 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well thank you very 18 much to the NRC witnesses for those presentations for 19 this Environmental Panel. We will begin the questions 20 with Commissioner Wright.
21 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. Thank you 22 for your presentations.
23 This question I'm going to ask probably 24 both TVA and the staff. So, one unique aspect of this 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
170 proceeding is that TVA has its own National Historic 1
Preservation Act Section 106 requirements. And that's 2
not normally the case for our applicants and 3
licensees.
4 And I understand TVA has executed its own 5
programmatic assessment or agreement with Tennessee, 6
with the Tennessee Historical Commission, and with the 7
tribes. And this agreement's going to govern the 8
process by which TVA will comply with Section 106 for 9
the project.
10 So, to TVA, have you encountered any 11 difficulties with your Section 106 consultation 12 efforts so far? And, if so, how did you deal with 13 these challenges?
14 MS. HORTON: No. We work with the 15 Tennessee SHPO routinely, on a daily basis, and this 16 programmatic agreement arrangement there was some back 17 and forth. But we worked out all the details. And 18 it's been pretty routine.
19 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Well, good.
20 Then I get back to the staff. Has this 21 unique circumstance or arrangement impacted the 22 staff's environmental review?
23 MR. ERWIN: Thank you for the question.
24 The staff did a
very extensive 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
171 consultation process. We consulted with 20 American 1
Indian tribes, the Tennessee Historical Commission, 2
and other interested parties. And I think it was very 3
extensive and it did not impact the review in any 4
negative manner.
5 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay, very good.
6 Thank you, that's all I have.
7 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much 8
again for your presentations.
9 This is a fairly general question for the 10 NRC staff witnesses. Does the approach regarding the 11 plant parameter envelope, what are the uniquenesses 12 that that poses for the environmental review? We 13 explored that quite a bit with the safety panel, but 14 what are the dimensions of that that pose any novelty 15 for you in moving forward on your environmental 16 review?
17 MS. DOZIER: So, the plant parameter 18 envelope from an environmental standpoint is not just 19 the PD. So, the PPE, if you look at it, it basically 20 defines the reactor. But there are other components 21 of the project that are described in Chapter 3 of the 22 environmental report and in the EIS, so, all of that 23 together, PPE and the other project descriptions.
24 We did not have any -- the project design 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
172 itself did not present any challenge. There were not 1
design-specific challenges for the staff. It doesn't 2
much matter if it's a PPE or an actual design.
3 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you for that 4
response.
5 And as has been referenced previously, the 6
Applicant deferred its assessments of the need for 7
power particularly. But out of that would have grown 8
an assessment of the benefits of the proposed action.
9 And so the staff, in Section 10.2 of the final EIS, 10 discusses the relationship between the short-term uses 11 and kind of the long-term productivity of natural 12 resources and other assets.
13 How did the staff approach that? Not, and 14 again, there's nothing deficient about differing on 15 the need for power and that assessment, but how did 16 you approach reaching your conclusions in Section 17 10.2?
18 MS. DOZIER: So, in Section 10.2 the 19 difference between the short-term use and the long-20 term productivity there were two ways we could have 21 approached it. And we, the staff chose because you 22 postulate a -- the building and operation activities 23 in order to reach impact determinations, we postulated 24 that those would occur for that balance. And then we 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
173 evaluated and looked at it.
1 So, there are aspects of the assuming that 2
there's, you know, the need for, for the project does 3
come into that. But that's the approach that the 4
staff chose to take.
5 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay. Thank you for 6
that.
7 And then I had posed to the safety panel 8
from the attributes that they look at did they have 9
any reflections on the consideration of alternative 10 sites? Or, were there any kind of close calls there?
11 And I was reminded that that comes more squarely into 12 play for the environmental review, although there can 13 be technical attributes of the site that would make it 14 preferable to host the project.
15 But is there anything? You talked about 16 it a bit, actually, in your presentation already, but 17 were there any kind of unique pros and cons you raised 18 regarding alternative sites that TVA looked at?
19 MR. ERWIN: Yes. So, the staff did look.
20 It's main criteria was proximity to its federal 21 customers, to a DoD or DOE facility. I believe TVA 22 looked at other factors related to, like, contiguous 23 land masses of 120 acres, seismology, population 24 density, availability of cooling water, things of 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
174 nature.
1 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay. But it sounds 2
like, again, Ms. Bradford offered the staff's 3
conclusion that none of the alternative sites was 4
environmentally preferable.
5 MR. ERWIN: That's correct.
6 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay. Thank you for 7
that.
8 I think that those are the questions that 9
I have for this panel. And next we will hear from 10 Commissioner Baran.
11 COMMISSIONER BARAN: But only briefly.
12 Well, thank you for your presentations. They were all 13 very informative, both sets of panelists, so I don't 14 have any questions.
15 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you.
16 Commissioner Caputo.
17 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: At this point, at 18 this point I think I really only have one on karst.
19 So, in the FSER the staff cites the 20 Applicant's statement that "for future combined 21 license application a detailed geologic mapping and 22 subsurface exploration program would be implemented to 23 characterize these excavations for safety-related 24 structures at the Clinch River site with regard to 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
175 presence or absence of karst features."
1 So, to put that, I think, a little closer 2
to layman's terms, the staff found that while the 3
Applicant provided a description of the local 4
geological hazards as part of the application, the 5
issue of karst features will be thoroughly evaluated 6
at the COL stage.
7 Why is it appropriate to defer any 8
detailed evaluation of karst features until the COL?
9 MS. DOZIER: So, did you say you were 10 reading from the EIS that says that or the SAR?
11 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: It says FSER.
12 MS. DOZIER: FSER, okay. Okay, so that was 13 the safety evaluation. However, we did look at karst 14 in that.
15 So, the EIS does do a description of 16 geology for the purposes of the groundwater 17 measurement. Okay. So, so karst is a feature that we 18 do look, and so we do heavily look at that for 19 purposes of groundwater.
20 So, since that is a -- would then be a 21 groundwater question for us I will then defer that to 22 our hydrologist Phil Meyer.
23 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Yes, as you're making 24 your way to the microphone I would just remind you to 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
176 please state your name, and please confirm that you 1
were sworn in earlier this morning.
2 MS. DOZIER: And maybe possibly repeat the 3
question since it is from the FSER, it's not something 4
we're as familiar with as the EIS.
5 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So, the question is 6
7 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well, just can you 8
state your name and confirm?
9 MR. MEYER: Yes. My name is Phillip Meyer.
10 I am a hydrologist at Pacific Northwest National 11 Laboratory. And I have been sworn in.
12 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you.
13 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you. So, the 14 question is just that while there is a description of 15 the geologic hazards in the application, a detailed 16 review of karst features is going to be deferred until 17 a license application stage. Why is that appropriate?
18 MR. MEYER: So, I won't address the safety 19 issues or specific safety issues related to the nature 20 of the subsurface.
21 From the environmental perspective we look 22 at the effects of, the potential effects of karst on 23 the reaction of the excavation and g-water, and the 24 excavation to potential transport or other water users 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
177 that might be affected by, say, dewatering of the 1
excavation.
2 So, because the subsurface is unknown to 3
some extent, you can only do so much investigation, 4
but once the site is excavated, more will be revealed.
5 And in the EIS we talk about how TVA has potentially 6
options to mitigate effects of the potential karst 7
features or fractures that might affect the flow.
8 They have chances to mitigate that during 9
the excavation from the environmental impacts. And 10 also, they can do monitoring so the extent of the 11 impacts of, say, dewatering on that would be, they 12 would be able to assess that during the excavation.
13 So, these are some things that come up 14 during the construction that you can't, you can't know 15 until you actually do that.
16 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay.
17 MR. MEYER: But I would suggest that if you 18 want, if you want the perspective of the geotechnical 19 perspective on safety of the structures, which I think 20 is what that comment or that statement addresses, you 21 should ask someone from safety review.
22 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. But the 23 description of karst that was in the application was 24 adequate for you to make your findings with regard to 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
178 groundwater?
1 MR.
MEYER:
From the environmental 2
perspective, yes.
3 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. Thank you.
4 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well, thank you very 5
much. Again, I thank all of the witnesses from this 6
panel. I will, again, speak slowly while the tables 7
are reset for the closing statements.
8 We will now recognize each party to the 9
proceeding for the purpose of making a closing 10 statement. And we're going to begin with TVA.
11 And we are slowly resetting the room here, 12 so I'll just pause while we have time to get the 13 appropriate presenters to each of the tables.
14 (Pause.)
15 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Again, we'll begin with 16 TVA's closing statement. So, Mr. Shea or Mr. Stout, 17 please proceed.
18 CLOSING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT 19 MR. SHEA: Thank you, Commissioners, for 20 the time and effort that you put forth in preparing 21 for and conducting the hearing today. We appreciate 22 the insights and the questions. And we'll ensure that 23 any follow-up information that you may want is 24 addressed properly.
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
179 I would like to recognize the work done by 1
the NRC staff. I believe this hearing has validated 2
the exhaustive review done by the staff, and enables 3
the Commission to confirm the staff's safety and 4
environmental findings.
5 We agree with the staff's conclusion that 6
the TVA early site permit application provides a 7
reasonable assurance of adequate protection for public 8
health and safety, and that the environmental 9
considerations have been addressed, and that the 10 Commission has the information necessary to make the 11 required findings for the issuance of the Clinch River 12 early site permit.
13 I'd also like to recognize the 14 professionalism and thoroughness of the TVA team in 15 preparing a quality application, addressing the 16 information needs, and addressing open items required 17 for the staff to complete the ESPA review. TVA, along 18 with its contractors, invested several hundred 19 thousand staff hours to prepare the application and to 20 complete the review.
21 An early site permit assesses a site's 22 suitability for potential construction and operation 23 of a small modular reactor, and provides TVA the 24 ability to continue its mission of technology 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
180 innovation by engaging in new nuclear technologies 1
development.
2 The ability to potentially demonstrate new 3
nuclear technology is important to TVA and important 4
to both the nuclear industry and the nation. The 5
issuance of the early site permit is the next step to 6
demonstrate that small modular reactors and other new 7
nuclear technologies at the Clinch River site are 8
viable options for future generations.
9 TVA will make a final decision on new 10 nuclear generation at the Clinch River site in the 11 future based on, among other factors, economics, and 12 the viability and maturity of new nuclear advanced 13 technologies.
14 Commissioners, thank you again for your 15 efforts. Welcome any further questions you may have.
16 And we look forward to a Commission vote and a permit 17 issuance in the near future. Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much.
19 I now recognize the NRC staff for any 20 closing statement they would like to make. Fred.
21 CLOSING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF NRC STAFF 22 MR. BROWN: Thank you, Chairman and 23 Commissioners. For the record, my name is Fred Brown.
24 And with me on this panel is Anna Bradford.
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
181 Through our SECY paper supporting this 1
mandatory hearing, our final safety evaluation report, 2
our final environmental impact statement, and our 3
presentations today, we've provided an adequate basis 4
for making the necessary findings set forth in 10 5
C.F.R. 52.94 and 10 C.F.R. 51.105 to support the 6
issuance of an early site permit for the Clinch River 7
nuclear site.
8 Our review of the Clinch River nuclear 9
site ESP application has been thorough and complete.
10 The ACRS agrees with our conclusion that the early 11 site permit for the Clinch River nuclear site should 12 be approved.
13 I would like to revise and clarify two 14 statements the staff made during the safety panel.
15 First, the proposed exemptions for the 16 plume exposure pathway EPZ depend on TVA's sizing 17 methodology, the dose criteria, and permit condition 18
- 5. The proposed exemptions do not rely on the values 19 in the PPE.
20 Secondly, in response to a question of 21 whether the NRC could issue an ESP approving 22 exemptions associated with the 2-mile EPZ but not a 23 site boundary EPZ, the staff stated that the ESP could 24 be issued but only after the application is revised to 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
182 remove those portions associated with a site boundary 1
EPZ.
2 While that is one way to proceed, the 3
Commission could also issue an ESP that specifically 4
identifies the portions of the application that are 5
not being approved. This would be a complex 6
undertaking, and the ESP would need to be very 7
specific regarding the portions of the application 8
that would not be approved but could be done.
9 Additionally, we will review the 10 transcript and provide additional information on the 11 record where we've committed to do so. I would like 12 to take one minute at the -- here at the closing to 13 discuss our use of the words "source term" during the 14 panels today and in our written response to questions.
15 We often refer to source term as though it 16 was a intrinsic value that's associated with a 17 reactor's power level. And that's not the case. A 18 better descriptor for the amount of radioactive 19 material tied to power level would be core inventory 20 where you can draw a comparison to the size of a 21 reactor and its power level.
22 When we referred to source term, however, 23 we were really referring to the output of a very 24 detailed, and thorough, and specific analysis about 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
183 potential reactor design that could be sited under the 1
methodology at the Clinch River site. And it would be 2
a very thorough review that goes beyond the licensing 3
requirements for design basis accidents. It's very 4
broad in scope, as described in the TVA analysis, to 5
evaluate what could go wrong with a reactor, how 6
likely it would be and, if it did happen, what portion 7
of the core inventory would be in a free form, how 8
much core damage there would be and how much of the 9
core inventory would be available.
10 It then goes on to evaluate how much of 11 that core inventory would be released to the 12 environment. And then that, that's the second step.
13 The third step then is a determination of 14 what the associated dose offsite would be.
15 So, when we talk about source term it's 16 not a value that's universal to any reactor of any 17 type. It's a very specific value that's the result of 18 a thorough, rigorous evaluation under the TVA proposed 19 methodology that then allows us to draw conclusions 20 that we would then compare as we've discussed 21 extensively with the emergency planning zone basis of 22 the agency over the years.
23 I hope that clarified our intent in the 24 use of those two terms. We very much appreciate 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
184 opportunity to present to you to today. And this 1
concludes the staff's presentation.
2 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well, thank you for 3
both of those closing statements and, in the case of 4
the staff, for those clarification points that were 5
just addressed.
6 Before we proceed to close, Commissioner 7
closing remarks and then some procedural matters at 8
the end, I would ask if my colleagues have any last 9
questions that they would like to pose based on that?
10 (No response.)
11 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay, hearing none, I 12 now would like to recognize folks for their actual 13 closing remarks. That was just questions on the 14 closing statements and other things.
15 So, are there closing, I would recognize 16 folks for closing statements? Commissioner Baran.
17 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Sure. I just want to 18 briefly thank the NRC staff for all of your hard work 19 throughout their review of this application. And I 20 want to thank all of today's participants for your 21 thorough preparation for this important hearing. We 22 appreciate it.
23 This is I think the ninth uncontested 24 hearing we've had during my time on the Commission.
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
185 I'd like to first state I thought today's hearing adds 1
a lot of value to the agency's decision making 2
process. So, thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much.
4 Commissioner Caputo, closing remarks and 5
thoughts.
6 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So I do have some 7
closing remarks and thoughts. And I guess, sorry, a 8
little too quick, I think, for me to our path.
9 I do have one question. In reflecting on 10 this morning's conversations about sort of the 11 precedential nature of reviewing TVA's methodology for 12 a setting in a site EPZ, one question I have for you, 13 I think in the staff's response to prehearing 14 questions there was a reflection made that the 15 methodology is consistent with previous Commission 16 decision making.
17 Is there anything you can add to provide 18 a little more context around that?
19 MS. BRADFORD: Yes. We believe it's 20 consistent for several reasons.
21 One is the rule language itself already 22 provides exceptions to the EPZ size for gas-cooled 23 reactors as well as smaller reactors. So, in our mind 24 that implies that a different EPZ size could 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
186 appropriate even for power reactors.
1 But more recently we have been 2
communicating with the Commission since at least 2011 3
about our thoughts on this type of approach. We sent 4
an information paper up in 2011 that talked about, 5
since SMRs at that time were becoming more an area of 6
interest for the industry. We sent up an information 7
paper talking about moving towards a consequence-8 oriented dose-based approach for EPZ size. That was 9
an information paper, so we did not hear back from the 10 Commission on that.
11 But we did in 2014 then send up a paper 12 about performance-based EP framework in general for 13 reactors. And the SRM we received back from that did 14 indicate that, yes, the staff should considering 15 moving towards a performance-based EP framework. And 16 it even specifically noted that there might be 17 potential benefit for SMRs specifically for 18 performance-based EP framework.
19 And then most recently in 2015, as I'm 20 sure you know, we sent up a paper asking for the 21 Commission's approval to start that EPZ rulemaking for 22 SMRs and other nuclear technologies. And we mentioned 23 in there that this would be an approach that would be 24 considered in that rulemaking.
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
187 And the SRM, again as you know, that came 1
back from the Commission told us to go ahead and 2
proceed with that.
3 So, in our mind it's consistent with 4
previous direction and communication from the 5
Commission.
6 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So, recognizing that 7
what we're dealing with today is the staff's review of 8
a particular set of questions and their conclusions 9
based on that review, there is a precedential nature 10 to it.
11 MS. BRADFORD: Yes.
12 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: And I want to sort of 13 reflect on that a little bit.
14 In particular, as the agency strives for 15 transformation and to increase our use of risk 16 information to be more risk informed, this strikes me 17 as one of those opportunities. And, you know, we'll 18 deal with this in a fuller scope in the rulemaking.
19 But my own thoughts are that if applicants 20 come to us with technologies that represent a 21 significant improvement in safety, perhaps orders of 22 magnitude in the case of advanced reactors, it seems 23 to me only right and appropriate that we would 24 consider those lower risk profiles in the context 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
188 setting an EPZ.
1 To give them, to require the same, same 2
size of an EPZ given a distinctly lower risk profile 3
I think would specifically not be risk-informed. And 4
so that I think I would just leave as a statement.
5 I also want to add my compliments to the 6
level of the staff's work in this review.
7 And I think for me one of the defining 8
moments is to have a debate about risk, the measure of 9
10 to the minus 6th, 10 to the minus 7th, I think here 10 at the NRC perhaps we get used to sort of the 11 technical nature of these discussions, and the 12 computer modeling, and using these numbers, but I do 13 think it's an amazing reflection of the capability of 14 the staff, the tools at their disposal, advanced 15 computer modeling, that allows a measure of rigor, 16 that allows us to calculate risk to that level of 17 refinement.
18 And just to put that in context, I want to 19 mention something I found courtesy of NASA and Jet 20 Propulsion Laboratory with regard to asteroid impact.
21 This is a little bit of a sidebar. But I just want to 22 put this in the context of the risk that we're 23 evaluating here.
24 An asteroid impact large enough to degrade 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
189 the global climate, leading to widespread crop failure 1
and loss of
- life, such global environmental 2
catastrophes which place the entire population of the 3
Earth at risk, are estimated to take place several 4
times per million years on average.
5 So, we are literally when we have a debate 6
about the appropriate structure for emergency 7
preparedness, whether it's an all hazards approach, or 8
whether it's tailored for a radiation release, we are 9
literally talking about a level of protection for the 10 public that exceeds an asteroid impact that could 11 destroy the planet.
12 So, I just want to sort of put that in 13 context, that it's really to me I think amazing that 14 our staff is capable of that level of rigor and has 15 that expertise. And I think it really makes me proud 16 to be part of this agency.
17 So, please, thank your team.
18 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI:
Thank
- you, 19 Commissioner.
20 Commissioner Wright.
21 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: That's a tough one to 22 follow.
23 (Laughter.)
24 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: That was very good.
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
190 I don't have a lot to say except thank 1
you. I mean, I know the staff and the people behind 2
the scenes that are helping to put it together, I 3
mean, they've put in hours after hours of prep. And 4
it doesn't go unrecognized by the commissioners here.
5 And, you know, I do thank you.
6 The same thing goes for TVA and for the 7
support team that you have as well. The interaction 8
between TVA and our staff has been good, and it shows 9
with the quality of the work product.
10 And just from my perspective I just want 11 to say thank you, and leave it there.
12 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well, thank you very 13 much.
14 For myself, in terms of closing remarks 15 and reflections I would note I didn't do a count, 16 Commissioner Baran, so I've only got, I've got a few 17 more of these under my belt than you, but not really 18 that many. But, still, that's a significant number 19 that have been done. And I don't know that I could 20 have been confident that in my time here I would still 21 be present when the Commission for these mandatory 22 hearings was looking at something that would at least 23 possibly encompass a small modular reactor or some 24 much more advanced technology.
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
191 So, I was part, as Ms. Bradford mentioned, 1
of receiving papers in 2008, I think going back to a 2
scoping of some of the novel issues that we thought as 3
an agency we would confront for small modular and 4
advanced technologies. Emergency planning was 5
definitely on that list of issues.
6 In 2011 the staff began to become a little 7
bit more particularized in terms of its approach to 8
that particular issue. But, you know, even going back 9
prior to that, the Commission that preceded me and 10 others knew that there would be novelty. And I think 11 it's just reflective of anything that evolves.
12 And, certainly, when technology evolves 13 it's generally really exciting. I was on my iPhone 14 before I came down here. And we've got colleagues at 15 the Federal Communication Commission that have dealt 16 with a lot of evolving technology and how to right-17 size the regulatory framework. But, in general, if 18 the technology as it evolves has to carry on its back 19 the legacy of all the previous versions of the same 20 technology it's really difficult for it to really move 21 forward in any kind of timely or exciting way.
22 You know, if we had to carry around mobile 23 phones that had spiral cords that came out of the 24 bottom just in case the mobile signal wasn't available 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
192 and we wanted to plug it into the wall, it would look 1
a lot different than what we have today.
2 So, the staff is now in the trenches doing 3
this hard work of confronting this novelty. So, I do 4
want to compliment you all on that. And just for the 5
continued meticulousness which you bring to this.
6 The discussion on RAIs earlier and the 7
number, it was noteworthy to me. And I would tell TVA 8
that the staff doesn't do that to do favors for 9
anybody. So, I want to compliment you and your team 10 in terms of the professionalism of presenting a 11 complete application, of defending it through this 12 process, because the staff makes you earn every, every 13 inch of the way. They are here and they have embraced 14 our mission of safety, environmental protection, and 15 security in a very, very solid way. So, you earned 16 every bit of whatever way, you know, fewer questions 17 or whatever it is.
18 And I appreciate the feedback on the 19 process because I think the audits were used regarding 20 this review in a very, very efficient, effective way 21 by the NRC staff. And, obviously, responded to in a 22 very thorough way by TVA as the applicant.
23 So, again, I just want to thank everyone 24 for the efforts that got us here today.
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
193 And so, as I move into a few procedural 1
matters of, certainly of interest to the parties here 2
in closing, and for the information of the parties, 3
the deadline for responses to any post-hearing 4
questions will be August 28th, 2019, unless the 5
Commission directs otherwise.
6 The Secretary plans to issue an order with 7
post-hearing questions, if there are any, by August 8
21st, 2019.
9 The deadline for transcript corrections 10 will be August 26th, 2019.
11 The Secretary plans to issue an order 12 requesting proposed transcript corrections by August 13 19th.
14 As I
mentioned this
- morning, the 15 Commission expects to issue a final decision promptly, 16 but with due regard to the complexity of the issues.
17 With that, the hearing is adjourned.
18 Thank you.
19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 20 off the record at 2:58 p.m.)
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
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
)
Docket No. 52-047-ESP (Early Site Permit Application
)
for Clinch River Nuclear Site)
)
)
(Mandatory Hearing)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Memorandum from the Secretary Providing Hearing Transcript have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Counsel for Licensee, Tennessee Valley Authority:
Christopher Chandler, Esq.
David A. Codevilla, Esq..
Ryan Dreke, Esq Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, WT 6A-K Knoxville, TN 37902 E-mail: ccchandler0@tva.gov dacodevilla@tva.gov rcdreke@tva.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of August, 2019 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop O-14A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Marcia Carpentier, Esq.
Ann Hove, Esq.
Jody Martin, Esq.
Ann Paisner, Esq.
Kevin Roach, Esq.
David Roth, Esq.
Maxine Segarnick, Esq.
Michael Spencer, Esq.
Susan Vrahoretis, Esq.
Anthony Wilson, Esq.
Megan Wright, Esq.
E-mail: marcia.carpentier@nrc.gov ann.hove@nrc.gov jody.martin@nrc.gov ann.paisner@nrc.gov kevin.roach@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov maxine.segarnick@nrc.gov michael.spencer@nrc.gov susan.vrahoretis@nrc.gov anthony.wilson@nrc.gov megan.wright@nrc.gov
[Original signed by Herald M. Speiser ]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission