ML20189A572
| ML20189A572 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Issue date: | 07/01/2020 |
| From: | Nichol M Nuclear Energy Institute |
| To: | Borges J Office of Administration |
| References | |
| 84FR26725 00003, DG-1321, NRC-2020-0106 | |
| Download: ML20189A572 (9) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 7/7/20 2:48 PM Received: July 01, 2020 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k4-9hkl-n3na Comments Due: July 06, 2020 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2020-0106 Guidance for Changes During Construction for New Nuclear Power Plants Licenses Under 10 CFR Part 52 Comment On: NRC-2020-0106-0001 Guidance for Changes During Construction for New Nuclear Power Plants Licenses Under 10 CFR Part 52 Document: NRC-2020-0106-DRAFT-0003 Comment on FR Doc # 2020-09491 Submitter Information Name: Marcus Nichol General Comment See attached file(s)
Attachments 07-01-2020_NRC_NEI Comments on DG-1321 with Attachment Page 1 of 1 07/07/2020 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006484720dc3&format=xml&showorig=false SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Marieliz Johnson Comment (3)
Publication Date: 5/5/220 CITATION 84 FR 26725
MARCUS R. NICHOL Senior Director, New Reactors 1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004 P: 202.739.8131 mrn@nei.org nei.org July 1, 2020 Office of Administration MS TWFN-7A06 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attn: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff
Subject:
Industry Comments on Draft Regulatory Guide (DG) DG-1321, Guidance for Changes During Construction for New Nuclear Power Plants Licenses Under 10 CFR Part 52, 84 FRN 61082-61083, Docket ID NRC-2020-0106 Project Number: 689
Dear Ms. Jennifer Borges:
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)1, on behalf of its members, hereby submits comments on the NRCs draft regulatory guide (DG) DG-1321, Guidance for Changes During Construction for New Nuclear Power Plants Licenses Under 10 CFR Part 52, (Apr. 2020) (ML19340B290). We appreciate the opportunity to comment on DG-1321, as well as the NRC staffs recognition that licensees need greater flexibility to make changes during new plant construction without the need for prior NRC approval. However, as explained below and in the attached section-specific comments, we believe that additional flexibility is still needed given the industrys new plant construction experience to date, and that such flexibility is permitted by the NRCs Part 52 regulations.
DG-1321 does not provide the additional flexibility to make changes during construction needed to address the specific issues identified in NEIs October 2018 White Paper, Assessment of Licensing Impacts on Construction
- Experience with Making Changes during Construction under Part 52.2 Specifically, the DG does not:
(1) allow changes to Tier 1 information during construction without prior NRC approval, or (2) address 1 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is responsible for establishing unified policy on behalf of its members relating to matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect and engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations involved in the nuclear energy industry.
2 See NEI Letter to Mr. Fred Brown dated October 23, 2018,
Subject:
NEI White Paper: Assessment of licensing Impacts on Construction Experience with Making Changes during Construction under Part 52 (ML18305B421)
Ms. Jennifer Borges July 1, 2020 Page 2 changes to Tier 2* information. One of the primary reasons that companies designing advanced reactors cite for choosing to utilize the Part 50 licensing process is the constraints that have been imposed by the staff for making changes during construction under Part 52. Accordingly, NEI respectfully requests that the NRC revise DG-1321 to explicitly allow (in the final regulatory guide) changes to the licensing basisincluding Tier 1 and Tier 2* informationduring construction without prior NRC approval.
As NEI explained in its 2018 White Paper, the industrys preferred approach is reconciliation of the licensing basis during construction. Under this approach, licensees, as they do today, would submit updates to their FSARs annually, and reports on departures from the standard design certification every six months. The difference with ongoing reconciliation is that for emergent conditions, the licensee may, for a limited period (e.g., 90 days), proceed at-risk with construction that departs from the licensing basis, while a required LAR is developed for review by the NRC. If necessary, the LAR would be submitted within a limited period following identification of the nonconformance. If the NRC denies the LAR, then the licensee must return the facility to compliance with the licensing basis or propose another alternative. For this reason, a licensee would be incentivized to proceed with a change only if it is reasonably confident that the NRC is likely to approve it.
This alternative approach, if adopted by the NRC, would provide a number of significant benefits. Specifically, it would help avoid construction delays due to emergent conditions that involve changes presently requiring prior NRC approval. In the same vein, it also would eliminate the need for the Preliminary Amendment Request (PAR) process and associated costs as well as the need for development of exigent submittals and NRC staff reviews to avoid construction schedule impacts. Finally, it would remove the burden on licensees to maintain larger than otherwise necessary licensing and engineering staffs to manage and expedite PAR/LARs needed to address emergent issues and maintain construction schedules and sequencing.
DG-1321 reflects a view that we believe is not required by the regulations. Specifically, the guidance is written to require a plant to be in compliance with the current licensing basis at all times during construction, despite the practical challenges posed by a facility moving through myriad interim construction states, and the lack of any radiological safety risk during the construction phase. As a practical matter, this means that licensees may depart from the approved design, or continue construction that departs from the licensing basis, only after:
(1) the licensee determines that a LAR is not required; (2) the LAR is developed, submitted, reviewed and approved by the NRC; or (3) the licensee receives a PAR no objection letter from the NRC.3 Although the PAR process generally has functioned as intended and allowed construction to continue in many cases, it is a suboptimal workaround that imposes undue complexity, burden, and costs on licensees. Consequently, insofar as it relies on the PAR process, DG-1321 does not fully address the unnecessary risk of construction delays or disruptions that may result from a licensees need to develop, submit and await NRC approval of a LAR or PAR.
3 Under the PAR process, upon accepting a LAR, the NRC sends a no objection letter to the licensee, who may then proceed to construct the change in parallel with the NRCs formal technical review and prior to NRC approval of the LAR. Once a LAR is submitted, the PAR process can be completed in days to weeks, depending on the complexity and urgency of the change.
Work under a PAR is considered at-risk because if the NRC ultimately rejects the associated LAR, then the licensee must undo the change and restore the facility to the approved licensing basis. The PAR process is codified via a license condition in each COL.
Ms. Jennifer Borges July 1, 2020 Page 3 The industrys recommended approachreconciliation of the licensing basis during constructionis consistent with NRC regulations and in no way undermines public health and safety. In short, no regulatory or safety basis exists during plant construction to require that LARs be approved prior to making the changes in question. Indeed, the Regulatory Analysis for DG-1321 acknowledges this fact:
As explained... in the final Statements of Consideration for the 1999 rule amending 10 CFR 50.59, for operating plant licenses issued under 10 CFR Part 50, implementation of a change to the design of an SSC described in the FSAR begins when the licensee uses the SSC in facility operations. Installation and testing of the SSC, as changed, is not considered implementation unless the installation or testing itself would violate a TS or would require an amendment under the criteria of 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2). The NRC staff has determined that licensees may construct or implement changes to an SSC in a plant that is under construction under 10 CFR Part 52 before the NRC has made a final determination on a license amendment and any associated exemption from certification information that applies to the SSC, similar to the installation and testing of a change to an SSC in an operating plant under Part 50.... For plants under construction under 10 CFR Part 52, the determination comparable to placing the SSC in use in facility operations (operability for SSCs controlled by TS) for a 10 CFR Part 50 facility occurs when the licensee notifies the NRC that the prescribed inspections, tests, and analyses for that SSC have been performed and that the prescribed acceptance criteria have been met.4 Importantly, the NRCs allowance of changes to the licensing basis without prior NRC approval during construction would not alter the 10 CFR 52.97(b) requirement that successful completion of ITAAC is the key demonstration that the facility has been constructed and will operate in accordance with the license and NRC regulations. In this regard, the industry has agreed with the NRC that LARs which affect the ability to conclude an ITAAC is met must be approved before the ITAAC may be closed. Because ITAAC closure provides the definitive demonstration that the completed facility was constructed in accordance with the license, the NRC staff position that construction must comply at all times with the current licensing basis is unwarranted. As 10 CFR 52.99(b) makes clear, if a licensee proceeds with construction activities that are subject to an ITAAC, even though the NRC may not have found that any one of the prescribed acceptance criteria are met, it does so at its own risk.5 Finally, as the NRCs Regulatory Analysis further recognizes, [s]imilar to operating plants where a system is not operable while it is out of service for maintenance and testing, there are no immediate nuclear safety consequences for a new plant to be outside of its licensing basis if the plant construction has not been 4 Regulatory Analysis, Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1321, Guidance for Changes During Construction for New Nuclear Power Plants Licenses Under 10 CFR Part 52, at 3 (Apr. 2020) (ML20010G336) (quoting Changes, Tests, and Experiments; Final Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. 53,582, 53,584 (Oct. 4, 1999)) (emphasis added).
5 10 CFR 52.99(b) (With respect to activities subject to an ITAAC, an applicant for a combined license may proceed at its own risk with design and procurement activities, and a licensee may proceed at its own risk with design, procurement, construction, and preoperational activities, even though the NRC may not have found that any one of the prescribed acceptance criteria are met.)
Ms. Jennifer Borges July 1, 2020 Page 4 completed and fuel has not been loaded.6 Notably, the NRC has multiple controls to ensure that the plant is constructed as licensed prior to authorization of loading fuel or authorizing operations.
The attachment to this letter contains additional comments on discrete sections of DG-1321. Those comments are consistent with NEIs request that the final version of the regulatory guide explicitly allow changes to the licensing basis, including Tier 1 and 2* information, during construction without prior approval.
If there are any questions on this matter, please contact me or Mike Tschiltz (mdt@nei.org; 202-471-0277).
Sincerely, Marcus Nichol Attachment c:
Mr. Ho Nieh, NRR Mr. Robert Taylor, NRR Ms. Anna Bradford, NRR 6 DG-1321 Regulatory Analysis at 3 (emphasis added).
Nuclear Energy Institute Comments on DG-1321, Guidance for Changes During Construction for New Nuclear Power Plants Licenses Under 10 CFR Part 52 1
Section (page)
DG-1321 Text (emphasis added)
Comment General General The draft guidance provides a process for proceeding with construction for departures from Tier 2 information that require an amendment but precludes changes to Tier 1 and is silent on departures from Tier 2*
information. While it is likely that this process is also intended to be applicable to Tier 2*
information (Tier 2* is defined as a subset of Tier 2 in the Part 52 Appendix D, for example), this should be explicitly stated in the DG.
The draft guidance does not take the opportunity to provide a more efficient change process for Part 50 SSAR and PSAR and defaults to the use of license amendments for any changes.
Applicable Regulations -
10 CFR Part 52, Appendices A, B, C, D, E, and F (pg. 2)
Section VIII of each appendix includes requirements for changes to and departures from the information in the generic design certification document (DCD)
Editorial comment: DCD is the abbreviation for design control document, not design certification document.
Related Guidance (pg. 3)
Related Guidance provides a list of guidance documents including RG 1.181, RG 1.187, RG 1.206, NUREG-0800, and COL-ISG-025.
- 1) NEI 96-07 Appendix C isnt yet endorsed in NRC guidance; however, it is approved for use by NRC letter. Recommend including this guidance in the list of Related Guidance.
- 2) RG 1.215 may also be appropriate to discuss here since this proposed approach impacts the timing of ITAAC correspondence and also endorses NEI 08-01 as an acceptable method for performing ITAAC closure.
Related Guidance (pg. 3)
In the Federal Register Notice for DG-1321, the NRC requested specific comments on Should the preliminary amendment request process described in Interim Staff Guidance COL-ISG-025, Interim Staff Guidance on Changes during Construction under 10 CFR Part 52, (ADAMS Accession No. ML15058A383), be incorporated into this regulatory guide?
NEI is advocating changes to DG-1321 that would obviate the need for the preliminary amendment request (PAR) process described in COL-ISG-025. If those changes are not implemented by the staff, then COL-ISG-025 guidance should be incorporated into DG-1321 to maintain flexibility in addressing changes during construction via the PAR process.
Nuclear Energy Institute Comments on DG-1321, Guidance for Changes During Construction for New Nuclear Power Plants Licenses Under 10 CFR Part 52 2
Section (page)
DG-1321 Text (emphasis added)
Comment Basis for the Changes in Guidance (pg. 6)
Licensee configuration management programs ensure that changes are properly controlled.
Since this seems to imply that the Quality Assurance Program is a key part to the success of this program, perhaps RG 1.28 should also be inserted into the Related Guidance section since NQA-1 guidance provides some helpful information about Conditional Release in Subpart 2.2 in support of Basic Requirement 15. However, this would not address SSCs in the licensing basis not covered under the QA program.
Basis for Changes in Guidance (pg. 7)
The rationale set forth in the final Statement or Considerations for the 1999 rule amending 10 CFR 50.59 for the Commissions position with respect to operating plants applies to change governed by 10 CFR 50.59, which corresponds to the change process in Section VIII.B.5 for Tier 2 information.
That rationale does not correspond to any provision of Section VIII.A, which governs generic changes to and plant-specific departures from Tier 1.
The draft guidance provides very limited benefit to most Part 52 licensees due to the lack of applicability to changes to Tier 1 information, which is the basis for the majority of the Part 52 LARs. For Vogtle 3&4, the need for Tier 2* LARs was minimized by Amendment Nos. 142 and 141, which provide a site-specific Tier 2* Departure Evaluation Process. For design certifications currently under review, the amount of Tier 2*
information is expected to be minimized or eliminated entirely.
It is stated that the basis for omitting Tier 1 from the DG process is that it is based upon the 1999 rule amending 50.59, which corresponds to the change process for Tier 2 information. However, by definition, Tier 1 information is derived from Tier 2. Therefore, it is logical that the guidance be expanded to encompass LARs requesting departures from Tier 1 information. It is understood that while an expansion in scope to include Tier 1 would involve justification in the LAR, such a change would allow licensees to obtain much of the benefit envisioned by this guidance.
C. Staff Regulatory Guidance -
Item 1.a (pg. 8)
A licensee must submit the request for a license amendment required to authorize the change to the facility or departure from Tier 2 of the plant-specific DCD within 45 days after the licensee begins construction of the SSCs subject to the change or departure. Submission of a license amendment request on this schedule would allow for time sufficient to process the license amendment request so that the ITAAC findings and fuel load are not delayed.
Similar to the previous comment, this language limits the scope of the changes to a change to the facility or departure from Tier 2 of the plant-specific DCD. This text precludes changes to Technical Specifications or Tier 1 that may not impact Tier 2.
Nuclear Energy Institute Comments on DG-1321, Guidance for Changes During Construction for New Nuclear Power Plants Licenses Under 10 CFR Part 52 3
Section (page)
DG-1321 Text (emphasis added)
Comment C. Staff Regulatory Guidance -
Item 1.a (pg. 8)
A licensee must submit the request for a license amendment required to authorize the change to the facility or departure from Tier 2 of the plant-specific DCD within 45 days after the licensee begins construction of the SSCs subject to the change or departure. Submission of a license amendment request on this schedule would allow for time sufficient to process the license amendment request so that the ITAAC findings and fuel load are not delayed.
The SOC for the 1999 change to the 50.59 rule did not require this 45-day precondition. It is not clear why it is necessary for Part 52 COL holders. Delays to fuel load are the licensees risks.
Also, it is not clear what happens if there is a delay and the submittal isn't made until day 49 or 50, for example.
Perhaps it would be better to state:
The licensee should submit a request for a license amendment in sufficient time to allow for NRC review and approval without delaying the schedule for making ITAAC findings or authorizing fuel load.
or simply replace within 45 days with (typically within 45 days) "
C. Staff Regulatory Guidance -
Item 1.b (pg. 8)
Under this process, a licensee is not permitted to begin construction in accordance with a change to the design as described in the FSAR, as updated, or a design that departs from Tier 2 unless the SSC under construction is located within the restricted area defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and described in the FSAR, as updated, or Tier 2.
The SOC for the 1999 change to the 50.59 rule did not require this precondition. Why is it necessary for Part 52 COL holders? The basis is not clear.
Again, this text omits a change to Technical Specifications or Tier 1 where the change may not impact Tier 2.
Regarding the proposed changes to SSCs in the restricted area, as defined in Part 20, this appears to be referring to one of the aspects of the PAR Process whereby the NRC verified that the change qualified for a categorical exclusion from having to perform an environmental review. If that is the case, then this point should be clearly explained in the DG.
C. Staff Regulatory Guidance -
Item 1.d (pg. 8)
In order to meet the above conditions, the licensee must determine whether a proposed change to the design of the facility as described in the FSAR or a departure from the plant-specific DCD requires an amendment before initiating construction. This is necessary to determine whether the departure affects Tier 1 or the ITAAC.
This text does not include situations in which the departure affects Tech Specs or the License.
(This might also impact item no. 4 which addresses only Tier 1 and ITAAC. Perhaps it should also address the rest of the license, i.e., license conditions and Tech Specs.)
C. Staff Regulatory Guidance -
Item 3 (pg. 8)
Although all COLs issued as of the date of this RG include a license condition authorizing PARs, a licensee has the option to use the guidance provided in this RG (and the provisions of its license condition) for a change to or departure This text seems to imply that changes to ITAAC (Tier 1) are within the scope of this guidance. There appears to be inconsistencies in the language used to describe the guidance scope.
Nuclear Energy Institute Comments on DG-1321, Guidance for Changes During Construction for New Nuclear Power Plants Licenses Under 10 CFR Part 52 4
Section (page)
DG-1321 Text (emphasis added)
Comment from the design of the facility that requires a license amendment and any associated exemption from the certification information.
C. Staff Regulatory Guidance -
Item 5 (pg. 9)
To voluntarily adopt this process, a licensee should propose a license condition that implements the conditions in Items 1 and 2 above and exemptions from the applicable provisions of section II.E and III.B of the Part 52 design certification appendix referenced in the COL.
For a license applicant who does not reference a certified design, is it the NRCs position that this license condition would still be required based on the applicability of the RG proposed here? Would a license applicant in this situation only need to add a license condition to not submit an ITAAC Closure Notification until the LAR impacting the related UFSAR or ITAAC language was approved (because Tier 1/Tier 2 dont exist in that situation)? Clarification is needed.
C. Staff Regulatory Guidance -
Item 5 (pg. 9)
To voluntarily adopt this process, a licensee should propose a license condition that implements the conditions in Items 1 and 2 above and exemptions from the applicable provisions of section II.E and III.B of the Part 52 design certification appendix referenced in the COL.
On page 7, it states that The foregoing background and discussion applies only to the design of a facility described in an FSAR, as updated, including Tier 2, but not Tier 1, as described below.
The exemptions to which C.5 is referring are unclear. Is this text referring to exemptions to allow the process described in the license condition to be used, or is it referring to specific exemptions to allow changes to be made to certified information? Are the referenced exemptions intended to allow the licensee to forego seeking a PAR No Objection and instead utilize this new license condition to proceed with construction without submittal of the LAR and NRC acceptance of the LAR in situations where Tier 1 is involved?
If this is the case, then guidance for PARs is not necessary. Clarification is needed.
FRN Section IV Should the regulatory guide discuss the timing and review of license amendment requests submitted after the Commission publishes the Notice of Intended Operation discussed in 10 CFR 52.103(a) and before the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding, given that such changes could potentially impact ITAAC closure notifications? Are there issues related to the timing of ITAAC closure notifications?
More discussion is needed with the industry to get a better understanding of what is under consideration for inclusion in the DG regarding timing and review of license amendments between the section 52.103(a) notice and 52.103(g) finding.