ML23010A111
| ML23010A111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/19/2023 |
| From: | Allen Fetter NRC/NRR/DNRL/NRLB |
| To: | |
| References | |
| DG-4029 RG 4.27 Rev 0 | |
| Download: ML23010A111 (3) | |
Text
Response to Public Comments on Draft Regulatory Guide (DG)-4029 Use of Plant Parameter Envelope in Early Site Permit Applications for Nuclear Power Plants Proposed Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.27 On June 24, 2021 the NRC published a notice in the Federal Register (86 FR 33384) that Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-4029, a proposed new Regulatory Guide was available for public comment. The Public Comment period ended on August 9, 2021. The NRC received comments from the individuals or organizations listed below. The NRC has combined the comments and NRC staff responses in the following table.
Comments were received from the following:
Katherine R. R. Austgen for Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 1201 F Street NW, Suite 1100 Washinton, DC 20004 ADAMS Accession No. ML21222A220 Commenter Section of Specific Comments NRC Resolution DG-4029 Katherine R. NEI Letter [NEI] noted that DG-4029 includes a reference to NEI 10-01, Revision 1, The NRC staff is in the process of reviewing NEI 10-01, Revision 2 Austgen, NEI Industry Guideline for Developing a Plant Parameter Envelope in Support of for consideration for endorsement. If the NRC staff endorses NEI an Early Site Permit, issued May 2012 as Related Guidance. The 10-01, Revision 2, it may be considered for referencing in an attachment to [NEIs] letter [contained] an update to NEI 10-01, as draft update to RG 4.27.
Revision 2, which incorporates experience from ESPs issued after May 2012.
[NEI] believe that this update is of value for the NRC and industry as NRC finalizes DG-4029 for publication as Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.27. [NEI]
welcome[s] NRC review and endorsement of NEI 10-01, Revision 2, in support of the transition from Review Standard (RS)-002 to RG 4.27. While the NRC has not previously endorsed NEI 10-01, NEI submitted Revision 1 of the guidance after addressing NRCs feedback and comments. Thus, the NRC should be able to focus its review on the changes between Revision 1 and 2 during the review to endorse NEI 10-01.
Katherine R. Various NEI Comment 1: In general, the draft guidance does not appear to The NRC staff agree and have added language throughout DG-Austgen, NEI sections in contemplate ESP applications followed by a construction permit (CP) 4029 acknowledging that an ESP application might be followed by DG-4029 application. While this may not have been envisioned as the most likely a CP or a combined license (COL) application. The NRC staff have 1
Commenter Section of Specific Comments NRC Resolution DG-4029 regulatory pathway for new reactor applicants when the ESP provisions were also added language from 10 CFR 52.26(c), that a CP or COL introduced in 10 CFR Part 52, it is considered a viable option today and is applicant may, at its own risk, reference in its application a site for worth recognizing for clarity. The ability of a CP applicant to reference an which an early site permit application has been docketed but not ESP is reflected in current Part 52 and its regulatory history. See, e.g., 10 granted."
CFR 52.12, 52.13, 52.24(b), 52.26(c)-(d), 52.39(b)-(d), 52.93(b); Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants; Final Rule, 72 Fed.
Reg. 49352, 49357, 49431 (Aug. 28, 2007). For example, 10 CFR 52.24(b) states in part: Before issuance of either a construction permit or combined license referencing an early site permit, the Commission shall find that any relevant terms and conditions of the early site permit have been met.
(Emphasis added). Also, 10 CFR 52.26(c) permits a CP or combined license (COL) applicant to at its own risk, reference in its application a site for which an early site permit application has been docketed but not granted.
NEI Recommendation: NRC should add language throughout DG-4029 acknowledging that an ESP application might be followed by a CP or a COL application, or even reviewed concurrently with a CP or COL application.
Katherine R. Various NEI Comment 2. In general, the draft guidance does not appear to The NRC staff agree, in part, and language has been added to the Austgen, sections in contemplate ESP applications accompanied by a Limited Work Authorization RG noting that an LWA may be associated with an ESP. The NRC NEI DG-4029 (LWA) request. We understand that such applications will need to include staff, however, disagree that the addition of a reference to ISG-26 some additional specificity on the site layout/final configuration and is merited because it does not contain any language or guidance construction impact during the implementation of LWA scope. on PPEs. To note, the complete title and ADAMS accession number of the ISG referred to by this comment is Combined License and Early Site Permit COL/ESP-ISG-026, NRC, 2014, NEI Recommendation: NRC should consider incorporating an ML14092A402.
additional reference to COL/ESP-ISG-026, Environmental Issues Associated with New Reactors, which includes guidance related to applicants seeking LWAs. If there are any unique attributes of an ESP application with an LWA Also, although an LWA may be associated with an ESP request as it relates to the use of a PPE that are not already covered in application, a decision to pursue an LWA would likely indicate that COL/ESP-ISG-026, then DG-4029 might be an appropriate vehicle for an applicant already has a specific reactor design in mind, and, as providing such clarification. such, a PPE for an LWA would not likely be utilized and additional guidance is unwarranted.
Katherine R. C.3 NEI Comment 3. In Section C., Staff Regulatory Guidance, Item 3 states that The NRC staff agree. The sentence has been rewritten to address Austgen, an applicant should identify margins to account for uncertainties in PPE this comment, as follows: An applicant using a PPE should use NEI values in each application. The intent of this statement is not clear. As a 2
Commenter Section of Specific Comments NRC Resolution DG-4029 matter of good engineering practice and in recognition of uncertainties, ESP reasonable margins to account for potential uncertainties in PPE applicants already are expected to consider (and do consider) margins in values in each application.
developing the PPE. If the staffs intent is to convey a new expectation that ESP applicants will include numeric values of PPE parameter margins in their applications, then the staff should clarify this point and the basis for its position. As is noted in Section B of DG-4029, under the heading The Role of the PPE in the ESP Process, if a COL applicant holding an ESP determines that the selected reactor design presents a parameter value(s) outside those set in the PPE values, then the COL applicant would appropriately address the impacts in the COL application. Given this existing mechanism (i.e., the COL or CP application) for addressing any PPE value exceedances, and the likely preliminary nature of the reactor-specific values used as inputs to the PPE at the ESP application stage, this guidance action to identify PPE margins in the ESP application does not appear to enhance the NRCs decision-making process or satisfy a particular regulatory requirement.
NEI Recommendation: Delete the first sentence of Item 3. The balance of Item 3 is actionable and appropriate guidance for applicants.
Katherine C.7 NEI Comment 4. Section C. Staff Regulatory Guidance, Item 7 contains a The NRC staff agree and the typographical error is no longer an R. Austgen, typo in the sentence, The design-specific information called for in an ESR issue because it was in a sentence that has now been deleted (the NEI may not exist for applicants using the PPE approach sentence was repetitive).
NEI Recommendation: Correct ESR to read ESP.
The NRC staff also notes that it identified a statement referrencing an Appendix A that was not part of or included in the draft regulatory guide. Accordingly, the NRC staff deleted the following sentences: Appendix A to this RG is based on NUREG-1555.
Use it in conjunction with NUREG-1555 for review of an Environmental Report submitted as part of an ESP for a PPE.
3