ML20132A264
| ML20132A264 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/29/2020 |
| From: | Victoria Huckabay NRC/NMSS/DREFS/RRPB |
| To: | |
| Huckabay V | |
| References | |
| NRC-0886, NRC-2009-0196, RIN 3150-AI66 | |
| Download: ML20132A264 (56) | |
Text
CORRECTED Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Public Meeting on the Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing Rulemaking Docket Number: NRC-2009-0196; RIN 3150-AI66 Location: Teleconference Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 Work Order No.: NRC-0886 Pages 1-55 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 PUBLIC MEETING ON THE ALIGNMENT OF LICENSING 5 PROCESSES AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM NEW REACTOR 6 LICENSING RULEMAKING 7 + + + + +
8 WEDNESDAY, 9 APRIL 29, 2020 10 + + + + +
11 The Public Meeting convened via 12 teleconference webinar at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Jim 13 O'Driscoll, Facilitator, presiding.
14 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
15 JIM O'DRISCOLL, NMSS/REFS/RRPB 16 ANNA BRADFORD, NRR/DNRL 17 ALLEN FETTER, NRR/DNRL/NRLB 18 VICTORIA HUCKABAY, NMSS/REFS/RRPB 19 JOHN TAPPERT, NMSS/REFS 20 21 ALSO PRESENT:
22 GARY BECKER, NuScale Power 23 AMY CHAMBERLAIN, Southern Nuclear 24 PETER HASTINGS, Kairos Power 25 MICHAEL TSCHILTZ, NEI 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 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 1:01 p.m.
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Hi, everybody. My name 4 is Jim O'Driscoll. I am the lead rulemaking project 5 manager on this effort. My role is to help the 6 meeting go smoothly to achieve a common objective. My 7 approach will be to set ground rules, encourage 8 participation, and have an open dialogue and maintain 9 a respectful and professional environment.
10 I will keep the meeting focused on the 11 topic at hand and keep track of the agenda to ensure 12 time limits and that all topics are covered.
13 This is a Category 3 public meeting, which 14 means that it is structured to provide opportunities 15 for the public interaction.
16 We have provided an agenda which includes 17 time to discuss your questions on the status of the 18 rulemaking since the last public meeting on November 19 the 21st, 2019, and the specific public comments the 20 NRC staff has received since that date. Our meeting 21 is scheduled for one two-hour session with no breaks.
22 Next slide, on slide two. Before I'd like 23 to get started, I'd like to go over some logistics and 24 housekeeping items. For ground rules, one speaker at 25 a time.
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 1 Please state your name before speaking as 2 this meeting is being recorded and transcribed.
3 Please hold your questions until after the NRC 4 presentation. Please try to be concise to ensure all 5 stakeholders can share their perspectives.
6 The operator will place you in a queue to 7 ask a question. Please press star-1 to indicate that 8 you have a question at the appropriate time. If you 9 choose to speak, please speak slowly and clearly.
10 Remember to state your organizational affiliation.
11 We have an operator on the line to help 12 us. You'll be in listen only mode unless you notify 13 the operator that you wish to speak, and that's going 14 to be at certain points in the presentation. You can 15 accomplish that -- you can identify yourself if you 16 wish to speak by pressing star-1 on your phone and we 17 will remind you of that when we get to the discussion 18 part of the meeting.
19 Also, if you're at a computer and are not 20 using Skype but still would like to see the slides for 21 today's meeting, you can access them from the NRC's 22 home page, www.nrc.gov under the public meetings and 23 involvement heading.
24 Click on the link to the public meeting 25 schedule. Scroll down to today's date and meeting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 time. Find the information for this meeting and click 2 on the more link. It will bring up more details on 3 meeting.
4 At the bottom of the page under related 5 documents you'll find a link to the presentation 6 slides. Please note that a list of ADAMS accession 7 numbers to the documents referenced in the NRC staff's 8 presentation can be found at the end of the staff's 9 slide presentation.
10 Please be careful not to discuss any 11 safeguards, security-related, classified, or 12 proprietary information during this meeting. Although 13 we intend to have an open dialogue, please note that 14 the NRC will not make any regulatory commitments 15 during the meeting.
16 Question -- is the court reporter online?
17 Can you please press star-1 on your phone if you're 18 online? Okay so I guess the court reporter is not 19 online.
20 Okay. Anyway --
21 OPERATOR: Someone just queued in on star-22 1. Let me check who that is. One moment, please.
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
24 OPERATOR: And it is the court reporter so 25 your line is open.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Excellent.
2 THE COURT REPORTER: This is the court 3 reporter, I'm here, everything sounds good.
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All set. Excellent.
5 Thank you, sir.
6 All right. We will continue. Thank you.
7 We can go back to listen only mode.
8 Okay. Next slide. I'll hand it over now 9 to Allen Fetter, who's going to speak for a few 10 minutes.
11 MR. FETTER: Yes. Good afternoon. Thank 12 you, Jim. We are on slide three.
13 The purpose of today's meeting is to 14 provide an update on the staff's efforts since the 15 last public meeting the NRC held on this topic, which 16 took place on November 21st of last year.
17 A summary of that meeting can be found in 18 ADAMS under accession number 19344C768.
19 This meeting will provide an opportunity 20 to discuss specific items in the scope described in 21 SECY-19-0084 and the changes of the scope since the 22 issuance of that SECY in August of last year.
23 The purpose of today's meeting is also to 24 discuss specific public comments received since last 25 August of last year.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 Finally, we will provide an update on the 2 rulemaking and conduct a question and answer session 3 on topics of interest to stakeholders. We hope this 4 interaction will help you understand the current 5 status of the regulatory basis and the rulemaking.
6 Like previous meetings, we will take the 7 information, perspectives, and questions we hear today 8 into consideration when developing and finalizing the 9 draft regulatory basis.
10 We hope to plan additional public meetings 11 after the regulatory basis is published for comment.
12 Next slide, please.
13 I'd now like to introduce Anna Bradford, 14 Director of the Division of New and Renewed Licenses 15 in NRR for opening remarks.
16 MS. BRADFORD: Hello, everyone. This is 17 Anna Bradford. As Allen mentioned, I am the Director 18 of the Division that has the technical project 19 management lead for this rulemaking and today's 20 meeting will focus on the status of the rulemaking 21 activities to align Part 50 and 52 since the last 22 meeting. You'll be hearing a lot more details about 23 that.
24 We have received some comments from the 25 public since the November meeting on specific issues NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 being covered by the rule and we are going to address 2 those today also.
3 So we are hoping that this meeting will 4 facilitate your understanding of the current status of 5 our activities and the rulemaking. You'll hear more 6 about this also, but we plan to issue the regulatory 7 basis for comment later this year.
8 We will request formal comments on that 9 and we appreciate any and all comments that you would 10 like to submit on that regulatory basis once it's been 11 issued for public comment, and we look forward to the 12 discussion and your questions today regarding the 13 items identified in the SECY paper.
14 So, Jim, if you want to continue.
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thanks, Anna.
16 On slide five now, we will roll into the 17 staff's presentation. So I am on slide six.
18 Good afternoon. I am Jim O'Driscoll, as I 19 said, the lead rulemaking project manager on this 20 activity.
21 I am in the Office of Nuclear Materials, 22 Safety, and Safeguards in the Division of Rulemaking, 23 Environmental, and Financial Support, known as REFS.
24 Also, we have -- with me is Victoria 25 Huckabay, who's the backup project manager also in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 REFS. Also joining me today is Allen Fetter and Joe 2 Colaccino, both from the NRC's Office of Nuclear 3 Reactor Regulation. We have several other NRC staff 4 on the call as well.
5 Next slide. We are on slide seven. The 6 staff is engaging in rulemaking to better align that 7 Regulation 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 in the four areas 8 that are described on pages 4 and 5 of SECY-19-0084.
9 The staff will also address items derived 10 from lessons learned from previous new reactor 11 licensing activities described in the enclosure of 12 that SECY.
13 The purpose of the rulemaking is to 14 implement the commission's direction in SRM-SECY 15 0002. The goal of that -- of the rulemaking is to 16 better align the Part 50 and 52 licensing processes 17 such that equivalent designs submitted for NRC review 18 under each process are assessed against consistent 19 technical standards that yield outcomes with 20 equivalent demonstration of adequate safety, security, 21 and environmental protection.
22 In SECY-15-0002, issued in January 8, 23 2015, the staff made several recommendations to the 24 Commission regarding policy and regulatory updates to 25 ensure consistency in new reactor licensing reviews.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 The staff also made recommendations to 2 address staff-identified lessons learned obtained 3 through the licensing reviews completed up to July 4 2019.
5 These changes are intended to improve the 6 clarity and reduce unnecessary burden on applicants 7 and staff. As well as these, staff has addressed or 8 intends to address editorial and administrative 9 changes as well.
10 Next slide. Okay. We are on slide eight.
11 So this slide, slide eight, shows our typical 12 rulemaking process, and rulemaking, of course, is how 13 the NRC develops its regulations.
14 We are in the second box, the regulatory 15 basis box, where our present task is to develop the 16 regulatory basis. As we said at our last meeting, we 17 have completed our activities to define the scope.
18 We have communicated the scope to the 19 Commission in SECY-19-0084 and we continue to develop 20 the regulatory basis for that scope.
21 For a typical rulemaking, the development 22 of the regulatory basis takes about 12 months after 23 the scope is defined. So we anticipate publication of 24 the regulatory basis for public comment in the fourth 25 quarter of this calendar year. But the date may NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 change depending on the results of the staff's current 2 effort to align on the alternatives for each issue.
3 After we develop and publish the 4 regulatory basis there will be a 75-day public comment 5 period. The written comments we receive during that 6 comment period will go back on the docket for the 7 rule.
8 In the proposed rule we will include a 9 summary of the stakeholder interactions, comments, and 10 key messages we receive from the public on the 11 regulatory basis.
12 The next two major steps are the 13 publication of the proposed rule and the publication 14 of the final rule. We will continue to provide 15 opportunities for public comment on this process.
16 Upon a publication of the proposed rule in 17 the Federal Register you will have the opportunity to 18 review the proposed rule and provide written comments 19 to the NRC. We expect to hold a public meeting during 20 that public comment period.
21 Next slide. We are on slide nine.
22 The NRC requires a regulatory basis for 23 most of its rulemakings in order to ensure sound and 24 informed decision-making throughout the rulemaking 25 process. The regulatory basis documents the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 justification for why rulemaking is the best way to 2 resolve a regulatory issue.
3 The regulatory basis also describes the 4 technical, legal, and/or policy information that would 5 support the content of the rule.
6 The regulatory basis will include a 7 preliminary cost-benefit analysis of the proposed 8 changes. Next slide.
9 We are on slide 10. Although the staff 10 received direction to commence rulemaking in 2015, the 11 Commission directed the staff to prioritize the 12 project in accordance with Project Aim.
13 If you recall, the purpose of Project Aim 14 was to ensure the staff continues its focus on those -
15 - on those tasks seen as essential for our Commission 16 as seen in the next few years.
17 To that end, this rulemaking project was 18 deliberately budgeted to start in fiscal year 2019.
19 The staff commenced work in October of 2018. The 20 staff's first task was to clearly define the scope of 21 the regulatory basis for the rulemaking.
22 From the staff's outreach efforts inside 23 and outside the NRC, the staff collected a large 24 number of items in consideration for inclusion.
25 On January 15th of last year, the staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 held a category 3 public meeting to request feedback 2 from external stakeholders on what would be included 3 in the scope.
4 NEI arranged for a panel of industry 5 experts to attend. Using input from the staff and 6 stakeholders, the staff aligned on the scope in July 7 of last year.
8 In late August of last year, the staff 9 issued information paper SECY-19-0084, which provided 10 information to the Commission and the public for the 11 status and scope of the regulatory basis.
12 In late September, the staff briefed the 13 members of the Advisory Committee on Reactor 14 Safeguards, Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and 15 Practices.
16 The staff received views and comments from 17 the ACRS and individual members. There was no ACRS 18 letter issued on the topic. The slides and transcript 19 for that meeting are available in ADAMS at accession 20 number ML19294A009.
21 Next slide. We are on slide 11.
22 The last public meeting we had was held on 23 November 21st of last year. In that meeting, NEI and 24 other industry representatives asked questions and 25 provided comments on the scope of the rule as it was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 described in SECY-19-0084.
2 NEI expressed interest in further public 3 meetings to delve into the details of several items of 4 interest to them.
5 As Allen previously said, the slides and 6 transcript of that meeting are available in ADAMS at 7 ML19344C768.
8 In February of this year, the senior 9 technical project manager, Allen, received the first 10 drafts of the regulatory basis inputs for the -- from 11 the technical writers.
12 These have been reviewed and approved at 13 the branch chief level. Staff members on the project 14 have been instructed to keep their entire management 15 team apprised of the latest information and 16 recommendations on this topic in order to ensure that 17 the process goes smoothly during the upcoming 18 interdivision interoffice concurrence.
19 Staff and management are currently 20 reviewing and refining these inputs. The primary task 21 at hand is to have them reviewed by our cost analysts 22 in order to formulate the complete picture of the 23 impacts of the changes. Also ongoing are reviews that 24 would -- by the working group members from our Office 25 of General Counsel staff who are reviewing the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 analyses and recommendations from a legal standpoint.
2 All of these efforts are in direct support 3 of the next steps, which I'll talk about in a few 4 minutes. Next slide. Okay. We are on slide 12.
5 Here I'll try to provide a snapshot of the 6 overall project. Currently, there are 54 items in 7 scope. This is very close to the same as what was 8 communicated in SECY-19-0084. But there have been a 9 few changes which I'll -- we will discuss later.
10 Among these items is staff evaluated and 11 discussed 129 alternatives. These are primarily a --
12 primarily a no action, a rulemaking, and guidance only 13 alternatives to each item.
14 However, for several items there are 15 additional alternatives analyzed, depending on the 16 issue. Most of these are multiple different 17 rulemaking options.
18 Of the 54 items that are in scope, 46 19 items are recommended for the rulemaking option. So 20 you can see a good many items continue to be screened 21 in. Of these, 25 items will require guidance, 22 updates, or new guidance to be developed and issued 23 for comment with the proposed rule.
24 Based on my survey of the draft regulatory 25 basis document, updates to 17 different guidance NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 documents are mentioned. This will also span a large 2 number of CFR sections besides Parts 50 and 52. In 3 order to make conforming changes, these parts include, 4 but may not be limited to Parts 2, 21, 26, 50, 51, 52, 5 55, 73, and 100.
6 Next slide. We are on slide 13.
7 For the next steps of this project the 8 staff plans to complete the technical development of 9 the regulatory basis in Summer. The document will be 10 handed over to the Division of Rulemaking, 11 Environmental, and Financial Support for the 12 concurrence. It should be complete by November 2020 13 or earlier.
14 We continue to work -- look at processes 15 and efficiencies in order to improve the schedule.
16 The regulatory basis should be published for public 17 comment in December of 2020 for a 75-day public 18 comment period. During this period, about 30 days 19 after publication, we plan to hold a public meeting to 20 discuss the regulatory basis and seek public comment.
21 After the public comment period concludes, we will 22 commence drafting the proposed rule in February of 23 2021.
24 Next slide. We are on slide 14.
25 As I said, in July of last year, the staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 were aligning on the scope of the regulatory basis.
2 The scope consists of four items meant to align Parts 3 50 and 52, which are discussed in pages 4 and 5 of the 4 SECY-19-0084.
5 The scope also includes 52 lessons learned 6 items listed in closure to the SECY. Eight 7 administrative corrections were also identified during 8 the final screening process and were addressed in the 9 NRC's 2019 administrative corrections rule. The 10 citation for that final rule is 84 FR 63565, dated 11 November 18, 2019.
12 Next slide. So we are on slide 15.
13 There's a few scope changes, a few items 14 in the scope that have changed from what we have 15 described in SECY-19-0084, due to several reasons.
16 The details of all these changes are provided in the 17 supporting information slides at the end of this 18 presentation. Four items changed due to either typos 19 or small inaccuracies in the description of the item.
20 Three items were deleted from the scope.
21 For the first bullet on page 4 of SECY included --
22 it's an item on page 4 of the SECY enclosure -- we had 23 said that the staff would consider changes to 10 CFR 24 100.20(a) third paragraph that would require a site 25 safety analysis report to identify physical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 characteristics that could pose significant impediment 2 to developing our emergency plans.
3 The staff was to consider removing the 4 requirements from the paragraph. We believe that this 5 requirement was already included in 10 CFR Parts 50 6 and 52 and was therefore to be done with.
7 Very soon after the SECY issuance, the 8 staff reevaluated the item and decided that this item 9 should not be removed from the scope or developed 10 because the staff no longer believed that its 11 redudant.
12 For the second bullet on page 9 of the 13 SECY enclosure there is an item related to applying 14 the financial protection, insurance, an indemnity 15 regulations at 10 CFR 50 Part 140 subpart B and 16 appendices.
17 We have said that the staff would consider 18 revising these regulations to address challenges faced 19 during COL licensing due to ambiguous language and the 20 applicability to greenfield sites and to revise the 21 monetary amounts in the form indemnity agreements that 22 are out of date.
23 After the SECY was issued, the staff had 24 decided not to pursue or develop the items because the 25 staff did not see a net benefit to the proposed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 change.
2 For the -- for the third bullet on page 10 3 of SECY -- of the SECY enclosure, the staff said that 4 it would consider revising the application for mission 5 requirements of one or more of the paragraphs to 6 account for multi-module small modular reactors to 7 produce a mix of energy and processed steam.
8 The reason for this change is at least one 9 potential applicant for a combined license referencing 10 a small modular reactor is contemplating such an 11 arrangement at the facility and we believe that 12 changes would be beneficial.
13 However, recently a petition for 14 rulemaking covering this matter was rejected. The 15 specific petition for rulemaking submitted on November 16 the 20th, 2019, with accession number ML20008D640, 17 asked NRC to revise its regulations for operating 18 nuclear power plants to standardize the safe recovery 19 -- the safe recovery and utilization of waste heat 20 generated from power operations, including the 21 construction operation and maintenance of methods of 22 recovering and utilizing waste heat.
23 The petition was rejected because the NRC 24 regulations do not currently prohibit an applicant or 25 licensee from designing and implementing waste heat NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 recovery systems and optimizing use of waste heat is 2 not within NRC's regulatory purview.
3 Therefore, it was decided that no changes 4 to Section 52.79 would be necessary.
5 One item described in enclosure 1 page 8 6 of the SECY was expanded to include early site 7 permits. During the development of the reg basis for 8 comment and input the staff identified the need to add 9 early site permits to the issue related to changes to 10 10 CFR 50.109.
11 Certain provisions in this section address 12 design approvals and manufacturing licenses. The 13 staff is considering revising the section to clarify 14 that design approvals and manufacturing, and now, 15 early site permits, are covered by 10 CFR 52.145 and 16 52.171 finality sections, respectively.
17 This change would eliminate any confusion 18 regarding the appropriate criteria for imposing new 19 requirements to early site permits, design approvals, 20 and manufacturing licenses.
21 Next slide. We are on slide 16.
22 One item in -- described in SECY enclosure 23 1 page 1 was changed. During the reg basis for 24 comment writing process the staff decided to pursue a 25 change to 10 CFR 55.31 rather than the original NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 section identified because 10 CFR 55.31 addresses 2 operator license applicants for whom the requirements 3 would apply.
4 Next slide. I'll now pass you off to 5 Victoria to discuss the next item.
6 MS. HUCKABAY: Thank you, Jim.
7 So on this slide here I'll talk about one 8 item that was not described in the SECY paper and was 9 recently added to the scope.
10 The staff is considering revising the 11 regulations in Part 50 to include the new requirements 12 for a written notification to be submitted to the NRC 13 by the new Part 50 power reactor licensees for new 14 Part 50 COL holders upon successful completion of 15 power ascension testing.
16 This change would support the proposed 17 change to Part 171 titled "Annual Fees for Reactor 18 Licenses and Material Licenses Including Holders' of 19 Certificates of Compliance, Registrations, and Quality 20 Assurance Program Approvals and Government Agencies 21 Licensed by the NRC."
22 I will refer you to Federal Register 23 Notice Number 85 FR 9328, which was published on 24 February 18th, 2020.
25 In that proposed rule, the staff proposes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 rulemaking to amend Part 171 to require that the 2 annual licensing fee starts to be assessed on the date 3 when power ascension testing is completed.
4 I will now provide an overview of the 5 possible alternatives that are being considered by the 6 staff.
7 Next slide, please. I am on slide 18.
8 So as I just mentioned, on February 18th, 9 2020, the NRC published a proposed rule which aims to 10 modify the timing of the start of assessment of annual 11 fees for a Part 52 COL holder.
12 Specifically, the proposed rule recommends 13 changes to amend Section 171.15(a) so that the 14 assessment of annual fees for Part 52 COL holders 15 commences upon successful completion of power 16 ascension testing rather than after the Commission 17 makes a finding under Section 52.103(g).
18 In the same Federal Register notice, the 19 NRC also proposed to apply this approach to future 20 part 50 power reactor licensees.
21 This change was proposed in response to a 22 petition for rulemaking number PRM-171-1, titled, 23 "Nuclear Power Plants License Fees Upon Commencing 24 Commercial Operations."
25 In order for the NRC to be able to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 correctly identify the date when the assessment of 2 Part 171 fees is to begin, the clear and unambiguous 3 requirements should exist that would compel the 4 licensee the make a prompt notification to the NRC 5 upon conclusion of power ascension testing.
6 Similarly, if the proposed change in 7 regulations have extended to future Part 50 power 8 reactor license fees, the same or similar mechanisms 9 should be used to require that those licensees notify 10 the NRC of conclusion of power ascension testing.
11 Part 171 does not contain any notification 12 or reporting requirements. Although Parts 50 and 52 13 do contain various reporting and notification 14 requirements, there is not a specific requirement at 15 this time for licensees to notify the NRC of 16 completion of power ascension testing.
17 Only current Part 52 COL holders have a 18 standard license condition that requires a written 19 notification to be submitted to the NRC upon 20 successful completion of power ascension testing.
21 Therefore, the staff is considering the 22 following two possible alternatives. Alternative one 23 is no action. In this alternative, the staff would 24 maintain the current regulatory framework and would 25 not require a new Part 50 power reactor licensee or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 Part 52 COL holder to provide written notification 2 upon completion of power ascension testing.
3 In this alternative the staff will 4 continue to rely on the inclusion of license 5 conditions in all new licenses to ensure that timely 6 notification occurs.
7 Alternative two is rulemaking. In this 8 alternative the staff would recommend rulemaking to 9 revise Part 50, to add a new requirement in section 10 50.71 for a new Part 50 power reactor licensee or a 11 Part 52 COL holder to provide a prompt written 12 notification to the NRC of the successful completion 13 of power ascension testing.
14 And I will now turn over back to Jim.
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thanks, Victoria.
16 Going on to the next slide, slide 19. We 17 are on slide 19.
18 This item pertains to efforts to more 19 precisely define the term "essentially complete 20 design." The term is mentioned in several sections in 21 Part 52 but the term is not defined within those 22 sections.
23 The staff has observed that numerous RAIs 24 could have been avoided if there was a more precise 25 definition of this term. In addition, the existing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 ambiguity implies that a design cannot be considered, 2 quote, "essentially complete," unquote, if it omits 3 any elements that cannot specifically be identified as 4 site-specific.
5 This is not our intent. So we are looking 6 at the first alternative. Alternative one is the 7 status quo and the alternative would leave the current 8 guidance and regulations unchanged, resulting in the 9 current need to further extend into discussions and 10 pre-application activities, et cetera, with the NRC 11 staff and applicants on the proper interpretation of 12 that term.
13 Alternative two is rulemaking. This 14 alternative would modify Section 52.1 to state that 15 the term "essentially complete design" refers to, one, 16 those design elements of a plant other than site-17 specific elements, that can affect its safe operation 18 and, two, sufficient design information to allow the 19 staff to resolve all technical issues using an 20 approach rated on safety significance.
21 Next slide. We are on slide 20. We have 22 a third alternative, which is just pure guidance. The 23 alterative would be limited to modification of the 24 applicable guidance in Reg. Guide 1.206 to define 25 terms. The staff is still evaluating the benefits and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 costs between alternative two and alternative three.
2 Next slide. I'll now hand it over to 3 Allen who will discuss the next item.
4 MR. FETTER: Hello, again. Yes, so this 5 item -- we are on slide 21 -- this item pertains to 6 continuing training for operator license applicants 7 following completion of the NRC's initial operator 8 licensing examination.
9 Alternative one is the status quo. This 10 alternative would maintain the approach most -- used 11 most recently at Vogtle and Summer, which is to rely 12 on the use of regulatory exemptions as necessary to 13 support operator licensing activities at cold plants.
14 As such, no changes to the current 15 requirements in 10 CFR Part 55 and no staff efforts to 16 develop additional guidance related to these topics 17 would be implemented.
18 Alternative two would be the rulemaking 19 alternative and this alternative would use rulemaking 20 to establish a new requirement for facility licensees 21 at cold plants to maintain the knowledge, skills, and 22 abilities of operator license applicants who have 23 successfully completed the NRC initial licensing 24 examination.
25 Next slide. I will now turn it back over NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 to Jim.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Thanks, Allen.
3 So we were thinking we were going to 4 change it up a little bit here and we were going to go 5 right into discussion of the public comments, the 6 specific that we received after November.
7 But, first, we'd like to -- I think we 8 want to open the lines up for any questions on the 9 preceding, you know, half dozen slides where we 10 discussed those several items to give you a flavor of 11 what we are working on.
12 So I'll ask the operator to ask the folks 13 that are in listen only mode to indicate if they have 14 any -- if they have a question they will use star-1 on 15 the phone.
16 OPERATOR: Okay. If you do have a 17 question please unmute your line, press star-1 and 18 record your name when prompted, once again, press 19 star-1. One moment for our first question.
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: And if you could, state 21 your name and your -- again, your name and your 22 organization before asking a question. Thanks.
23 Do we have any questions?
24 OPERATOR: No.
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Say it again.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 OPERATOR: Currently there are no 2 questions holding.
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. I am going to move 4 on. We could always ask later anything that comes up.
5 So I am going to go ahead.
6 So we are right now on slide 22. We are 7 going to transition to a discussion session where we 8 will discuss the public's comments received since the 9 last public meeting.
10 After each topic we are going to open the 11 lines for questions on that particular topic. So 12 please press star-1 if you have a question.
13 Also, if you have -- in an effort to give 14 as many people as possible the opportunity the speak, 15 please ask only one question.
16 If time permits, after everyone has -- who 17 would like to speak has had the opportunity to ask 18 questions we can open up the floor for an additional 19 round of questions.
20 Next slide. I'll now hand it off to John 21 Tappert, our Director, to tell us -- discuss this 22 first bullet on this slide 23.
23 Go ahead, John.
24 MR. TAPPERT: Thanks, Jim. So, this first 25 item relates to increasing our transparency in this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 rulemaking, and I'd first like to say that as the 2 first principle we always strive to implement our 3 principles of good regulation, which includes being a 4 transparent and open regulator, and we recognize that 5 this rulemaking is of great interest to some 6 stakeholders and we are committed to active public 7 engagement, consistent with our rulemaking processes.
8 Now, as Jim outlined, there are a large 9 number of issues addressed in this activity and it has 10 taken us some time to develop the regulatory basis, 11 which is why we are providing this update today.
12 Now, when that regulatory basis is issued 13 later this year and we are working to issue that as 14 soon as possible, there will an opportunity to have a 15 more fulsome engagement on all issues of interest.
16 And, of course, when the proposed rule is 17 published there will be additional opportunities to 18 meaningfully participate in this process.
19 So at this point, would anyone on the 20 phone like to comment on this item?
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Operator, are there any -
22 OPERATOR: It looks like some questions 23 are queuing up. One moment please.
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
25 OPERATOR: And the first question comes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 1 from -- it sounds like he's saying Gary Becker. Your 2 line is open.
3 MR. BECKER: Thank you. Yes, Gary Becker 4 with NuScale Power.
5 I wanted to ask on this point regarding 6 the increased engagement after the regulatory basis is 7 published, will there be any opportunity to adjust the 8 scope of the rulemaking at that point or will it stick 9 to the, largely, to the SECY -- the documented issues 10 in the SECY that are currently being undertaken?
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: This is Jim O'Driscoll.
12 Yes, there's going to be ample time to --
13 and ample opportunity to change the scope. I mean, 14 really, what we are engaged in is a -- this scope is 15 not set in stone.
16 This is a process where we use notice and 17 comment from various sources to come up with an 18 optimal solution. So right now, you know, like I just 19 went over, you know, we have some movement on the 20 scope and we are going to have more movement on the 21 scope as we -- as we start drilling down onto these 22 items.
23 You know, the description might change.
24 What we really want to do might change and we will 25 have to, you know, keep everybody up to speed on that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 But yeah, this is going to -- this is the whole idea.
2 We want to have this -- a good discussion 3 when we have, you know, and a good solid regulatory 4 basis to base your comments on and then when we go 5 into the proposed to final rule phase you'll have a 6 good proposed rule with good language that you can --
7 you can comment on so that you can make a good final 8 rule.
9 I don't know if that answers your 10 question.
11 MR. BECKER: Yes. Yes, it does. Thank 12 you. I just want to make sure because, you know, the 13 SECY -- the scope defined by the SECY doesn't really 14 have -- you know, there's a limited opportunity to 15 have input on that. So I just wanted to make sure 16 that it's not, you know, it's still open for further 17 adjustment. I appreciate the feedback.
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Absolutely. Are there 19 any other questions on the line?
20 OPERATOR: Next question comes from Mike 21 Tschiltz. Your line is open.
22 MR. TSCHILTZ: Hello, everyone. I hope 23 everyone is doing well in these challenging times.
24 First of all, thank you to the NRC for 25 having this meeting. John, I appreciate your comments NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1 on NRC's commitment to transparency.
2 I think one of the challenges we have is 3 that the interactions on this rulemaking are so few 4 and far between it's hard to say where the rule is 5 headed in some areas, and I guess you'll probably get 6 into it more as you go into further discussion of the 7 public comments.
8 But there were several areas that were, 9 you know, kind of left open and one in particular, the 10 area of essentially complete, which you've addressed 11 somewhat in your comments, but I think in our letter 12 on March 9th to Ho Nieh we made the point that, you 13 know, the staff could benefit from public interaction 14 on trying to better define what essentially complete 15 means through interactions with the industry.
16 So I think what we are trying to advocate 17 is that, you know, staff is spending a lot of time on 18 the development of the regulatory basis and I guess 19 the industry is looking for more opportunities to 20 engage, to inform, the development of that regulatory 21 basis rather than waiting until it's all done and then 22 going through the public comment process, which is 23 lengthy as well.
24 You know, part of the reason that we are, 25 you know, advocating this is that we'd like to see the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 acceleration of the rulemaking. So I'll stop at this 2 point and turn it back over to someone else.
3 MR. TAPPERT: So this is John Tappert 4 again. So thanks, Mike. I appreciate that and, you 5 know, it's always a balancing act, right.
6 You know, we want to have input but at the 7 same time we need to produce these products to keep 8 the process moving along.
9 We think it would be the most useful way 10 going about this is for us to put the recommendations 11 on paper and put that out there and then let people 12 react to that.
13 I think we understand for the most part 14 what the issues and challenges are and we are going to 15 take our best shot at addressing them, and to the 16 extent that we need -- you know, we seek feedback in 17 order to better understand that, going forward, as 18 well.
19 So I think we are on a reasonable path.
20 We also recognize the comments about the length of the 21 -- of the process and we will talk about that a little 22 bit later.
23 But we are, particularly for internal 24 processes, we are looking for opportunities to 25 increase efficiencies and do parallel concurrences and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 what have you, in order to try and tighten it up, 2 going forward.
3 But when we do try to shorten the 4 rulemaking time frames, we are not going to shortcut 5 the public engagement portions.
6 Thank you.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. Are there any 8 other questions for us on this item before I go on to 9 the second bullet?
10 OPERATOR: No further.
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Say that again. I didn't 12 quite catch that.
13 OPERATOR: There are no other questions.
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. I am going to 15 continue. The second item on this slide relates to 16 the issue of delays to issuance of COLs due to errors 17 found in certified designs. NEI has raised this item 18 several times and it's very clear to us that this is 19 one of the issues of concerns.
20 In May 9, 2018, a letter was sent to NEI 21 where we responded -- the NRC responded that we would 22 consider this item in the scope of this rulemaking.
23 However, this issue is not in the scope of this 24 activity. We believe that the Atomic Energy Act would 25 prevent us from doing anything different here. We NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 need the resolution of all technical and safety issues 2 to be done prior to issuance of a license. Would 3 anyone like to speak or have a question on this item?
4 (No response.)
5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Is there any questions?
6 OPERATOR: No.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
8 OPERATOR: Actually, one just popped in.
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Great. Okay.
10 OPERATOR: And it's from Mike Tschiltz.
11 Your line is open.
12 MR. TSCHILTZ: Hi. This is Mike Tschiltz 13 from NEI.
14 We, too, have been trying to get this 15 issue addressed for a number of years and it's 16 involved a number of correspondences from NEI to the 17 NRC, and I think our concern is that, you know, this 18 issue will likely occur again. Certified designs are 19 fairly complicated documents and I think it's 20 unrealistic to think that we would go forward in the 21 future and not have any errors discovered in a 22 certified design at some point.
23 And in the past these have caused 24 significant economic impact without any safety benefit 25 in delaying COLs. So if the NRC doesn't intend to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 1 address this as a part of this rulemaking, how does it 2 intend to address this issue?
3 MS. BRADFORD: Mike, this is Anna Bradford 4 from the NRC and you're right, we have had several 5 letters going back and forth on this topic including 6 back with the AP1000 and the COLs that were 7 referencing the AP1000 when some issues were found 8 with that design.
9 And we have gone back and explored this 10 and, as you know, we had meetings with NEI about 11 different options -- what about a license condition, 12 what about something else -- and fundamentally, like 13 Jim just said, it does come back to the Atomic Energy 14 Act and what it does or does not allow us to do, and 15 there are certain things that we are just bounded by 16 and are not under our control, I would say, in terms 17 of rulemaking.
18 So it looks like there's really no wiggle 19 room here in terms of being able to issue a COL when 20 we know there's a safety issue with the design. So we 21 have explored this. We looked into it several times.
22 I think you just asked how will we address it.
23 I think the question is we are not going 24 to continue to look at this because we feel we have 25 looked at it several times and we are comfortable with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 1 our -- with where we are on this in terms of what we 2 are allowed to do and what we are not allowed to do 3 with the AEA.
4 MR. TSCHILTZ: So am I still on the line 5 here?
6 MS. BRADFORD: I can hear you.
7 MR. TSCHILTZ: Okay. So thank you, Anna, 8 I appreciate that response. I would appreciate it if 9 the NRC could put that in writing as an update to your 10 letter that you sent on how this issue is going to be 11 dispositioned to give us a point for our path forward 12 on this.
13 MS. BRADFORD: Yes. So we will go back.
14 You're talking about the letter from 2018, I think?
15 MR. TSCHILTZ: Yes, May 9th.
16 MS. BRADFORD: Okay. Let us go back and 17 look at that and then we will think about whether a 18 response will be helpful so that you guys have the 19 final response on that.
20 MR. TSCHILTZ: Thank you.
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Are there any other 22 questions?
23 OPERATOR: The next question comes from --
24 yes, from Gary Becker. Your line is open.
25 MR. BECKER: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 1 Yes, just a follow up. Anna, I think you 2 partially just answered my question. But I was going 3 to ask if the regulatory basis document would 4 disposition the determination not to proceed on this 5 issue so that we had a means to see the -- to, you 6 know, read the determination and potentially comment 7 on it. But, of course, it's a -- you're doing a 8 separate letter. That would potentially replace that 9 request.
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: This is Jim O'Driscoll.
11 So the item screened out prior to the --
12 putting in an activity. So it actually is not going 13 to be in the regulatory basis. Does that answer your 14 question?
15 MR. BECKER: It does. Yeah. I guess I 16 would just hope that there's some way to sort of 17 understand the reading a little bit clearer. Whether 18 that's in a letter or somewhere else would be 19 appreciated.
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. All right. Is 21 there another question for us on this?
22 OPERATOR: There are no questions holding.
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Great. I am going 24 to move on to slide 24, and this one is -- the first 25 bullet on this slide relates to several comments we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 1 received requesting more open engagement on our 2 efforts to improve or streamline the process for NRC 3 review and approval of changes during construction.
4 We have previously communicated that this 5 item could be addressed outside this rulemaking with 6 the development of a regulatory guide. We have issued 7 SECY-19-0034, which is improving design certification 8 content that partly addresses the topic. The topic is 9 in the current scope of this rule. We believe that 10 our effort to issue Draft Guide 1321 will address your 11 concern for early engagement. The draft Reg. Guide 12 will be going out for public comment in the very near 13 term.
14 MS. BRADFORD: Jim, this is Anna Bradford.
15 If I could just update. This actually just got 16 released for public comment late yesterday afternoon.
17 So it is out for public comment. We encourage 18 comments on this to help us make sure that we got it 19 right.
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thanks, Anna. So would 21 any -- does anybody have any questions on this item?
22 Operator, are there any questions?
23 OPERATOR: Yes. Our question comes from 24 Amy Chamberlain. Your line is open.
25 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Hi, this is Amy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 1 Chamberlain from Southern Nuclear. We did see that 2 the Draft Guide 1321 did come out. One thing that we 3 did notice, and I'll submit this for a public comment, 4 was that the Draft Guide it seems to be unclear on 5 Tier 2* for those licensees that have a significant 6 portion of Tier 2* in their licensing basis. I would 7 suggest making some clarifications there.
8 MS. BRADFORD: This is Anna at the NRC.
9 Thank you, Amy. That's a good comment because, 10 obviously, we want it to be as clear as possible when 11 it comes to Tier 1, Tier 2*, Tier 2. So that comment 12 would be appreciated, and then we will go back and 13 look at the wording.
14 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Thank you.
15 OPERATOR: There are no other questions 16 holding.
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Great. I am going 18 to continue.
19 The second bullet on this slide relates to 20 several times we received requesting more information 21 on how the NRC reviewed Vogtle 3 and Vogtle 4 license 22 amendment requests to discern lessons learned. At the 23 last public meeting in November we provided some 24 details on this including informing you that the staff 25 does not have a line by line adjudication of each NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 1 license amendment request as it relates to lessons 2 learned.
3 We, and, I am sure, you realize, that not 4 all LARs are related to deficiencies in the underlying 5 regulations but are requested for a variety of 6 reasons. However, staff that were involved in 7 addressing those LARs are also engaged in this 8 rulemaking and their insights from those activities 9 have informed the scope.
10 Would anybody like to -- on the phone have 11 a comment on this item?
12 (Pause.)
13 OPERATOR: And a question just came in.
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Say that again. I am 15 sorry, Operator. Go ahead.
16 MR. TSCHILTZ: Hello. This is Mike 17 Tschiltz of NEI. Can you hear me?
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, Mike.
19 MR. TSCHILTZ: Okay. Okay. So the issue 20 here, I think, gets to the issue of transparency in 21 the NRC's activities because it's difficult to make an 22 evaluation of what the NRC considered and the basis of 23 why it was included or not included, you know, based 24 upon the information we are being given.
25 So I recognize that there were a large NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 1 number of license amendments, some of which I think 2 could be screened rather quickly as to whether or not 3 they have any impact on the rulemaking. But from a 4 public transparency point of view, I think it's 5 rather, you know, unclear to us how these have been 6 dispositioned.
7 So, you know, it's hard to accept that the 8 NRC has looked at these and that they are within the 9 scope of the existing changes. There's no clarity 10 there.
11 MS. BRADFORD: This is Anna from the NRC 12 again. Mike, yeah, I understand your comment and you 13 had mentioned this at the November meeting, and I 14 think -- our thinking on this is that, you know, the 15 LARs are just one piece of why we are doing this 16 rulemaking and all the changes that are being made for 17 this rulemaking.
18 It's really a wider lessons learned type 19 of thing, and we believe that the lessons we have 20 learned from this LARs or things that repeatedly come 21 up in LARs are covered in what we are doing.
22 You know, not all of the LARs, as Jim 23 said, had to do with a regulatory issue. Some of them 24 are, you know, they wanted to change the way they were 25 constructing it or they wanted to use a different NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 1 material maybe for Vogtle 3 and 4. So not a 2 regulatory issue, per se.
3 So we believe that what needs to be 4 considered under these LARs is in the scope and I 5 think we feel like we have done our due diligence. I 6 would say that if you believe we have missed something 7 then comments along those lines about what we missed 8 when the reg basis goes out for comment would be much 9 appreciated.
10 MR. TSCHILTZ: Thanks. I appreciate that 11 response. I still don't think it gets to the issue of 12 transparency.
13 MS. BRADFORD: So I think -- I think the 14 transparency comes out of these conversations that we 15 have had in these public meetings about how we think 16 we have included these lessons learned in our rule.
17 Yeah, there won't be a specific write-up in the reg 18 basis but I think we feel like we have had 19 communications on this.
20 Like I said, if you think we missed 21 something, if you look at LARs or if Southern or 22 another stakeholder looks at them and thinks we have 23 missed something we certainly would want to hear that.
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Are there any other 25 questions on this item?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 1 OPERATOR: Yes. Our next question comes 2 from Amy Chamberlain. Ma'am, your line is open.
3 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Thank you. So this is 4 more for looking on my part. But, you know, we are 5 not finished with construction or start up or reaching 6 operations, and we are continuing to, you know, 7 exercise parts of the regulation for the first time.
8 And so this isn't -- we are not at a point where we 9 learned all the lessons, I would say. One that we 10 recently discussed with the staff was maintenance of 11 Tier 1 after operation.
12 And so this is -- not to discuss that here 13 in particular, but how does the staff plan on 14 addressing that we are still in a learning mode and 15 parts of Part 52 haven't even been exercised yet?
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: This is -- go ahead.
17 MS. BRADFORD: Jim, go ahead. Go ahead.
18 Go ahead.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I was just going to say 20 we just, in general -- you know, we are always 21 learning. I just wanted to make the point, as you 22 know, and we -- you know, this is not going to be, you 23 know, the final word on anything, and if problems come 24 up as we go into new territory, new situations, we --
25 it's our job to identify the deficiencies in our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 1 regulations and to make appropriate changes if it's a 2 rulemaking change, if it's guidance or whatever.
3 So but we think the reason why we started 4 now is that we have, certainly, a critical mass of 5 stuff to get done. I mean, in fact, there's quite a 6 lot of stuff that we -- that we are trying to do 7 because there's quite a lot of lessons learned. And 8 that being said, we are not declaring victory and, you 9 know, on anything here. We are going to just put a 10 stake in the ground and continue on and if things come 11 up, you know, they come up.
12 I don't know if that answers your 13 question. But that was just my opinion as a staff 14 member.
15 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Yeah. So this is Amy 16 again. It was less not -- there's, clearly, enough 17 here that we need to keep moving forward and I think 18 there's folks within the industry that really do want 19 to see us get to a point where some of these changes 20 are made in the regulations.
21 But my question was more of as new items 22 come up are they still going to be considered for this 23 Part 52 lessons learned activity or are you going to 24 have some other mechanism to do like a round two or 25 something like that, and how would you decide.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 1 MS. BRADFORD: So, Amy, this is Anna at 2 the -- Anna Bradford at the NRC.
3 I think what you're saying is as you move 4 along under Part 50, like you said, some of them -- 52 5 -- some of them have not been exercised. For example, 6 maybe ITAAC hearing or the 103(g) finding and maybe we 7 are going to have lessons learned from that that we 8 would want to incorporate. And I think the answer 9 goes back to maybe what Jim O'Driscoll and John 10 Tappert said earlier that as we go along we are open 11 to adding things. I am not sure we would want to 12 pause in the rulemaking in order to let Vogtle 3 and 4 13 get through the entire Part 52 startup process and all 14 that in order to incorporate those lessons.
15 In my -- my belief would be that we would 16 continue with this rulemaking, incorporate those 17 lessons that we can when it comes to the timing and 18 then the next ones might have to be kind of added to 19 our list for the next time we have to do a lessons 20 learned rulemaking. That's just my thought off the 21 top of my head.
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right. And I just want 23 to add too to my earlier comment a question about how 24 set in stone is the scope, and the answer to that is 25 that if we find out tomorrow that there's something NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 1 really, really important that we need to get in this 2 rule, we are going to get it into the scope.
3 So this is not going to be final for -- I 4 need to look at the schedule, but for a while. So, 5 you know, the process bakes in a certain amount of 6 flexibility. I mean, that's what it's all designed 7 for is for change, for adjustments based on feedback 8 from the public and things that change.
9 Are there any other questions?
10 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Thank you.
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. Sure. Are there 12 any other questions on this item?
13 OPERATOR: There are no other questions at 14 this time.
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. I am going to move 16 on to slide 25. The first bullet on this slide 17 relates to several comments we received requesting 18 more information on what the staff would do to define 19 the term essentially complete in its regulation as 20 it relates to the scope and detail of the design 21 information required for adequate staff review of COL 22 applications.
23 Our current thinking on this topic was 24 discussed earlier so but maybe folks have come up with 25 a question on that. So is there any questions on this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 1 bullet?
2 (Pause.)
3 OPERATOR: And our question comes from 4 Gary Becker. Your line is open.
5 MR. BECKER: Thank you. Gary Becker for 6 NuScale Power again. I wanted to ask, earlier you 7 mentioned one component of this rule definition would 8 incorporate the notion of design that can affect --
9 design features that can affect safe operation.
10 Do you intend to clarify that term 11 further? I mean, that's what's -- that's what's in 12 the statements of consideration for the original Part 13 52 role and, of course, its interpretation has a lot 14 of bearing on what exactly this definition means.
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So this is Jim 16 O'Driscoll. We are just starting to flesh out that 17 definition, and just a little bit of detail and how 18 this works is, you know, the reg basis is going to be 19 -- is going to have a pretty fulsome discussion about 20 the options and what the staff intends to do.
21 But at this point, you know, we are still 22 trying to figure out what's the appropriate level of 23 detail for that definition, what is the -- what's 24 going to strike the right balance between, you know, 25 giving enough guidance for a designer to provide NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 1 design information such that so we don't have to keep 2 going back and forth with questions about, you know, 3 nuts and bolts or something small.
4 And, of course, you know, the ability for 5 our staff to come to a safety finding that, you know, 6 that they are required to make on the specific areas 7 they are reviewing. So this is going to be a process 8 of, like I said, notice and comment. You're going to 9 see our initial thoughts in the reg basis and then we 10 will take your comments.
11 When we write the proposed rule you'll 12 actually see the language then. You'll actually see 13 proposed rule language that would be put into the CFR 14 if that's the way we were going to go with this one.
15 And then you'll also get a chance to comment on that, 16 and if we need to engage in a -- you know, a specific 17 breakout discussion, you know, because it's something 18 very important then, of course, that's how we manage 19 this.
20 We will do that, whatever it takes to 21 understand each other. I don't know if that answers 22 your question.
23 MR. BECKER: Yes. Thank you. I 24 understand it's still in preliminary stages. I'd just 25 offer not really questions but a few comments for you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 1 to consider as you -- as you flesh out that 2 definition.
3 So in addition to attention to the -- can 4 affect safe operation that I just mentioned, I would -
5 - I hope you'll focus on the relationship of that 6 definition with the level of design information that's 7 specified in the first two sentences of 10 CFR 52.47 8 because the second element of the definition that you 9 identified that you're considering has a pretty clear 10 relationship with the sentences in the beginning of 11 52.47. So, hopefully, you'll pay attention to that.
12 And the other thing I would mention is 13 that the SDA scopes -- standard design approval scope 14 at 10 CFR 52.137 uses the phrase entire facility and 15 there may be an opportunity to reflect the 16 essentially complete definition in the SDA 17 regulations as well, just to ensure clarity there.
18 The SDA says, essentially, the entire 19 facility or a major portion thereof. So there may be 20 an opportunity to kind of harmonize the two with the 21 essentially complete definition.
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you. That's a good 23 comment. We will certainly look at that.
24 MR. BECKER: Okay. Thank you.
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Are there any other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 1 questions on this first bullet?
2 OPERATOR: There are no other questions.
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. So the next bullet 4 on the slide relates to comments the NRC received that 5 request NEI engagement on several transformational 6 items and concurrent with the staff's development of 7 recommendations for those items.
8 The items cited in this area is our 9 efforts to align the DC change process with 50.59, our 10 efforts to better define Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2*
11 information, and our efforts to examine and make 12 changes to regulatory requirements associated with 13 maintenance of standardization in certified design.
14 The staff understands the concerns raised 15 by NEI. As we discussed earlier in slide 23, the NRC 16 tries to follow its principles of good regulation by 17 being an open regulator. We believe following an 18 ordered notice and comments process will produce the 19 best balance between the need to adhere to a timely 20 schedule and the need to engage with the public as the 21 rule is being developed.
22 We feel that NEI and others will have 23 adequate opportunity to engage with the NRC on these 24 and other issues as they are developed. Is there any 25 questions on this bullet?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 1 OPERATOR: We do have a question from 2 Peter Hastings. Your line is open.
3 MR. HASTINGS: Hi. This is Peter Hastings 4 with Kairos Power. I actually was trying to get in to 5 ask or make a comment, excuse me, on the prior bullet.
6 I just didn't get in on time.
7 So, very briefly, I want to certainly 8 agree with everything that Gary Becker said, and in 9 addition, in defining the term essentially complete, 10 I'd like to suggest that the staff pays particular 11 attention to the use of risk-informed techniques 12 through the licensing modernization project that's 13 used -- being used for most advanced reactor 14 application development to make sure that it -- that 15 the definitions comport.
16 I'd also like to suggest that enhancing 17 the definition in guidance may be preferable to make 18 sure that we maintain flexibility in how that 19 definition is employed.
20 For example, if the definition focused on 21 features and that were taken to perhaps the logical 22 extreme, then that would obviate the opportunity to 23 take advantage of some of the improvements in SRP 24 Chapter 7 where the review focuses more on criteria 25 than on design features, and if the definition needed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 1 some adjustment in a future application it would be a 2 lot easier to explain a variation from guidance than 3 to request an exemption simply because of a definition 4 that we didn't realize was clunky at the time.
5 That concludes my remarks. Thank you.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you. That's a good 7 comment. Is there anybody else that would like to 8 discuss either of these two items?
9 OPERATOR: There are no questions holding.
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. I'll move on to 11 slide 26. So this slide relates to comments the NRC 12 received regarding the schedule for the rulemaking.
13 The comments point out that the rulemaking schedule 14 seems exceptionally long and the planned final rule 15 effective date of 2025 would not support current 16 commercial activities adequately.
17 The comments also indicated that there 18 does not seem to be enough time stays between the 19 planned issuance of the final rule for this project 20 and the mandated date for the NRC to issue a 21 technology-inclusive regulatory framework in 2027.
22 This situation is causing regulatory 23 uncertainty for applicants. I hope that the previous 24 discussion on the description of the task before us is 25 adequate for you to conclude that this rulemaking will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 1 take some time. In November you also suggested that 2 the NRC should reprioritize the rulemaking from medium 3 priority to high priority. The staff responded with 4 the -- that the reprioritization of the rule itself 5 would not necessarily result in any improvement in the 6 time line.
7 The prioritization of the rules allow 8 management a means to better judge how this activity 9 would score against other rulemakings the NRC does, in 10 order to provide management the insight it needs on 11 decision-making that's needed to establish the best 12 use of limited resources.
13 The staff also explained that the 14 rulemaking is designed to be a deliberative process 15 and involves input and activities by other outside 16 agencies such as the Office of Management and Budget 17 and the Office of the Federal Register.
18 These agencies must also prioritize their 19 work and thus there are elements to the rulemaking 20 schedule that are outside of the NRC's control.
21 However, the staff recognizes the long projected 22 duration of this rulemaking and is committed to 23 seeking opportunities to improve the schedule through 24 various initiatives to expedite the internal review 25 and coordination without infringing on the stakeholder NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 1 engagement. Would anybody like to comment on that one?
2 (Pause.)
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Are there any questions, 4 Operator?
5 OPERATOR: No. Unfortunately, no 6 questions have come in.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. I am going to move 8 on to slide 27. So, briefly, recapping the next 9 steps, the staff is going to finalize and issue the 10 regulatory basis for public comment. We plan to hold 11 a public meeting approximately 30 days into the 12 comment period.
13 In order to be more efficient, the staff 14 will address the public comments when it drafts the 15 proposed rule. The staff will hold additional 16 stakeholder meetings during the proposed rule phase.
17 Next slide. We are on slide 28.
18 The staff plans to issue the regulatory 19 basis for comments in December of this year. The 20 proposed rule is expected to be issued for public 21 comment no later than two years after this, in October 22 of 2022, and the final rule is expected to be issued 23 no later than October 2024.
24 Next slide. We are at slide 29 now. You 25 can reach out to us here if you have any further 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 1 information. Next slide.
2 So, again, thank you very much for your 3 attention and the questions you gave us today. We 4 welcome feedback in our public meetings. We want to 5 know if you are satisfied with today's public meeting 6 or if you have any suggestions on how we can make it 7 more effective. You can access the link to the online 8 feedback form and the meeting -- details of the 9 meeting on the NRC's public meeting schedule page.
10 Alternatively, you can scan this QR code 11 and that'll bring you directly to the online feedback 12 form for this meeting. And you can also access the 13 online feedback form for this meeting by going to the 14 public meeting website below the link.
15 Next slide. You can find information 16 about this rulemaking activity on regulations.gov.
17 The meeting materials and the meeting summary will be 18 posted soon. So search for the docket ID NRC-2009-19 0196.
20 Thanks for attending and have a great 21 afternoon, and our meeting is over. Thank you very 22 much.
23 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter was 24 concluded at 2:15 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433