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