ML19350A010
| ML19350A010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/15/2019 |
| From: | Lawrence Burkhart Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Dennis Andrukat NRC/NMSS/DREFS/RRPB |
| Andrukat D | |
| References | |
| NRC-2017-0090; RIN 3150-AK04 | |
| Download: ML19350A010 (5) | |
Text
From: Burkhart, Larry To: Andrukat, Dennis Cc: Malave-Velez, Yanely; Andrukat, Dennis; Soto Lugo, Soly; Berrios, Ilka; Moore, Scott
Subject:
Re: ACRS Review confirmation l ABWR DC Renewal Rule and NuScale DC Rule Date: Friday, November 15, 2019 11:50:28 AM
- Dennis, I believe that you are correct that since the ACRS reviews the designs are provides the required report on the design reviews that it is unnecessary for the ACRS to review the rule making certifying the design.
Do you know how this was handled in the past?
I will discuss with my staff about what was done in the past.
But one thing is for sure, there should be no reason for the ACRS to review such a rule making.
Let me get back to you next week on this.
Larry On: 15 November 2019 11:37, "Andrukat, Dennis" <Dennis.Andrukat@nrc.gov> wrote:
Hello Larry, We have two new design certification rulemakings (for new reactors under Part 52) that just started, ABWR DC Renewal and NuScale. The staff does not believe ACRS review (for the rulemaking portion only) is necessary for either rulemaking, based on the following:
ACRS has been involved on the APR1400 licensing review The regulations under Part 52 do not require the ACRS to review DC rulemaking packages; it only requires that the staff provide a copy of the DC application and that the ACRS then provide a report to the Commission of its recommendation.
ACRS agreed that the previous DC rulemaking (APR1400) did not need to be reviewed by the ACRS.
However, we still wanted to reach out to confirm that ACRS did not want to review either rule on their own accord.
REQUEST: Can you please confirm that ACRS will waive the review of the APR1400 DC Rule? Would you prefer a formal memo requesting the review waiver?
Lead Rulemaking PM, NuScale Yanely Malave Lead Rulemaking PM, ABWR Renewal Dennis Andrukat Many thanks,
D Dennis Andrukat Project Manager Division of Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-415-3561 l T-4A22 Yanely Malavé-Vélez Project Manager US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material and Safeguards Division of Rulemaking
+ yanely.malave@nrc.gov
' 301-415-1519
From: Cupidon, Les To: Andrukat, Dennis Cc: Malave-Velez, Yanely
Subject:
RE: CRGR Review confirmation l ABWR DC Renewal Rule and NuScale DC Rule Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019 4:38:13 PM Attachments: ML16070A214 (5).pdf ML16075A364 (2).pdf
- Dennis, The process for engaging the CRGR is contained in the May 23, 2016 SECY 0064, CRGR Response to Staff Requirements-SECY-15-012 Commission Involvement in Early Stages of Rulemaking (ML16075A365). The memo and enclosure are attached.
The criteria that triggers the staff to engage the CRGR is when one or more of the following are met:
- 1. The rulemaking may have issue finality concerns or possible backfitting.
- 2. Qualitative factors were used to justify a rulemaking with significant costs.
- 3. Substantial statistical uncertainty exists in the quantitative benefit determination in the backfit analysis.
- 4. The staff relied on the compliance exception or the adequate protection exceptions to justify backfitting.
- 5. The EDO directed the review, or stakeholder or NRC staff concerns regarding the backfit or regulatory analysis has been raised.
It is the staff that is required to make this determination. Based on your email it is presumed that you have applied the criteria and believe that none of these have been met, if so then the staff is not required to engage the CRGR other than FYI.
I will be out tomorrow, Friday (12/05). You can email me if you have further questions.
Thanks Les From: Andrukat, Dennis Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 3:21 PM To: Cupidon, Les <Les.Cupidon@nrc.gov>
Cc: Malave-Velez, Yanely <Yanely.Malave-Velez@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: CRGR Review confirmation l ABWR DC Renewal Rule and NuScale DC Rule Hi Les,
Checking in to see if the CRGR has had a chance to review this request.
- Cheers, D
From: Andrukat, Dennis Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 11:38 AM To: Cupidon, Les <Les.Cupidon@nrc.gov>
Cc: Malave-Velez, Yanely <Yanely.Malave-Velez@nrc.gov>; Andrukat, Dennis
<Dennis.Andrukat@nrc.gov>; Soto Lugo, Soly <Soly.SotoLugo@nrc.gov>; Berrios, Ilka
<Ilka.Berrios@nrc.gov>
Subject:
CRGR Review confirmation l ABWR DC Renewal Rule and NuScale DC Rule Hello Les, We have two new design certification rulemakings (for new reactors under Part 52) that just started, ABWR DC Renewal and NuScale. The staff does not believe a CRGR review is necessary for either rulemaking, based on the following:
Does not constitute a requirement being imposed on any current licensees No back-fit issues or concerns Future applicants may choose to reference either of these designs, at their choice There have been no stakeholder issues raised related to the codifying of either DC into the regulations CRGR agreed that the previous DC rulemaking (APR1400) did not need to be reviewed by the CRGR.
However, we still wanted to reach out to confirm that CRGR did not want to review either rule on their own accord.
REQUEST: Can you please confirm whether or not CRGR will want to review either rule?
Lead Rulemaking PM, NuScale Yanely Malave Lead Rulemaking PM, ABWR Renewal Dennis Andrukat Many thanks, D
Dennis Andrukat Project Manager Division of Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-415-3561 l T-4A22
Yanely Malavé-Vélez Project Manager US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material and Safeguards Division of Rulemaking
+ yanely.malave@nrc.gov
' 301-415-1519