ML23055A090
| ML23055A090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/2023 |
| From: | Cayetano Santos NRC/NRR/VPOB |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML23055A090 (1) | |
Text
March 14, 2023 LICENSEE: Southern Nuclear Operating Company FACILITY: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF FEBRUARY 16, 2023, MEETING WITH SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY On February 16, 2023, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a virtual public meeting with representatives of Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC or the licensee).
The purpose of the meeting was to have a pre-submittal discussion of a draft license amendment request (LAR) and exemption request for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP)
Units 3 and 4. The LAR proposes to remove Tier 1 information from the licensing basis, revert Tier 2* information to Tier 2, and revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) accordingly. The exemption request is from the requirements in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 52, Appendix D to maintain and evaluate departures from Tier 1 information.
The meeting notice and agenda are available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML23040A295. A list of attendees is enclosed.
This meeting is a follow-up to a pre-submittal meeting held on December 8, 2022 (ML22349A214). Since the December 8, 2022, meeting, SNC has decided to submit a separate LAR to remove Appendix C (Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria or ITAAC) from the combined license. The February 16, 2023, meeting was focused on only the proposed changes described above.
SNC representatives described their technical and regulatory evaluations justifying the proposed license amendment and exemption requests (ML23039A167).
Below is a summary of the general comments and discussions:
The NRC staff noted that the proposed revision to the UFSAR would indicate that certified design material is historical information and asked how this information would be treated in the future if the draft LAR were approved. SNC staff responded that historical information would not be considered when applying the 10 CFR 50.59 process to determine if NRC review is needed for a proposed change.
The NRC staff noted that the changes requested in the draft LAR and exemption request are inconsistent with current staff positions as described in SECY220052, Proposed Rule: Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing, as well as existing Commission policy codified in the 10 CFR Part 52 rule and design certifications. In SECY190034, Improving Design Certification Content,
the staff described efforts to refine the principles for Tier 1 information so NRC approval would not be required for changes of minimal safety significance. The revisions to the licensing documents proposed in the draft LAR are significant licensing changes with policy implications. Therefore, if this LAR were submitted, the staff would likely need to engage with the Commission as part of its review adding significant time to the review schedule. SNC staff agreed with the policy implications of this request and stated that it believes the intent of 10 CFR Part 52 has been fulfilled when construction is completed.
The NRC staff asked if SNC planned to submit this LAR and exemption as separate licensing actions for Vogtle Units 3 and 4 or a combined licensing action for both units.
SNC staff responded that the timing for the submittal is still under discussion, but the current plan is to submit a single licensing action for both Vogtle Units 3 and 4, assuming the NRC did make a finding that all ITAAC acceptance criteria are met in accordance with 10 CFR 52.103(g) for Vogtle Unit 4 in the future.
The draft LAR states that removal of the Tier 1 requirements would not change the design, nor remove any design information from the licensing basis. The NRC staff disagreed with this statement. Since the current licensing basis is defined as the set of NRC requirements applicable to a plant, then removal of Tier 1 requirements does remove design information from the licensing basis because Tier 1 contains design information.
The draft LAR states During the construction of VEGP Unit 3, it was recognized that some changes required prior NRC approval only because the information was designated as Tier 1 . . . and the change would not have met the Tier 2 change evaluation criteria that would have otherwise led to prior NRC review and approval.
Some of these were simply editorial changes or changes to correct mislabeled equipment identification, or other similar changes that do not change the meaning or substance of the safety information presented. The NRC staff noted that SECY220052 acknowledged this stating that The NRC recognizes that some of the change requests in Tier 1 addressed information that may not have been important to safety. Changes of an editorial nature can be grouped together and may be handled with some careful planning in licensing activities. Therefore, if the issue is that the information in Tier 1 and Tier 2* is not appropriate, the solution may be to update the Tier 1 and Tier 2*
information and not to revise the change control process for this information. SNC staff stated that inappropriate information in Tier 1 and Tier 2* is only part of the problem.
SNCs position is that once Vogtle Unit 3 or 4 begin operation, Tier 1 and Tier 2*
requirements have already fulfilled their purpose and are no longer necessary requirements.
The draft LAR cites the statements of consideration for the initial issuance of 10 CFR Part 52 regarding its expectations for a design certification in that a rule certifying a design is likely to encompass roughly the same design features that 50.59 prohibits changing without prior NRC approval. The draft LAR goes on to state that if the Commissions expectation and intent was that the certified information would encompass roughly the same design features that § 50.59 prohibits changing without prior NRC approval, then the Tier 1 change criteria should be adequately addressed by the change criteria of § 50.59, and thus, additional Tier 1 change criteria is unnecessary. The Commissions statement identifies the scope of information to be included in a design certification, but the Commission reached a different conclusion
regarding the change control process for this information. The Commission specifically chose the exemption process, and not 10 CFR 50.59, as the appropriate change control process for Tier 1 information. SNC staff responded that the draft LAR is not requesting to use the 10 CFR 50.59 process but the 50.59-like process as defined in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section VIII. In addition, SNCs view is that, once a plant has begun operation, maintaining Tier 1 and Tier 2* requirements through the remaining life of the plant is a significant regulatory burden.
The draft LAR quotes from the AP1000 design certification statements of consideration which states the AP1000 [design certification rule] should utilize thresholds as close to
§ 50.59 as is practicable and appropriate. The NRC staff commented that this portion of the statements of consideration was referring to Tier 2 information and not Tier 1 information. SNC staff said they would review the document to confirm the context of this quote.
The draft LAR states that the Tier 1 design descriptions are based on the more detailed Tier 2 design descriptions which also serve as design commitments for the lifetime of a facility. Thus, these design commitments are not removed by the proposed exemption from the Tier 1 requirement. The NRC staff noted that since Tier 1 is not identical to Tier 2 there could be some loss of licensing basis information if Tier 1 was eliminated as a requirement. SNC staff responded that design information with respect to how the plant was designed, constructed, tested, and operated would remain in the licensing basis even without the Tier 1 designation. SNC staff also stated that a one-toone comparison of Tier 1 and Tier 2 information has not been performed to confirm that no details would be lost with the elimination of Tier 1, but experience with LARs submitted to date has shown that Tier 2 consists of more detailed information than Tier 1.
The NRC staff noted SNCs revisions to the draft exemption request to address comments made by the staff during the December 8, 2022, meeting regarding the standardization of certified information. The NRC staff also noted that even though in SECY220052, the staff proposes to remove the requirement to consider standardization as part of the justification for changing a design, standardization does remain a policy goal of 10 CFR Part 52. SNC staff commented that standardization is determined during construction of the first few units by identifying and addressing issues with the certified design. Then other plants could implement these same changes to maintain the benefits of standardization. SNC staff added that this would promote standardization for the AP1000.
The NRC staff asked if there are any future changes to Tier 1 or Tier 2* information that are needed but are not safety significant. SNC staff stated they were not aware of any changes at this time but during a 40 (or possibly 60) year life of the plant these situations certainly could arise. SNC staff added that a current trend in the nuclear industry is to move control of non-safety significant information from NRC control to licensee control.
The NRC staff asked for more detailed justification for changing the designation of the eight items listed in Appendix D,Section VIII.B.6 from Tier 2* to Tier 2 information. SNC staff responded that treating these items as Tier 2 information would make Vogtle Units 3 and 4 similar to the rest of the operating fleet in that SNC would not have to submit LARs for changes to Tier 2* information that had no impact on safety. During construction at Vogtle Units 3 and 4, SNC submitted several licensing actions to correct typographical errors and editorial inconsistencies between Tier 1 and Tier 2. The NRC
staff noted that in the fuel area the 50.59-like process is not used. Instead, an approved topical report (WCAP12488, Westinghouse Fuel Criteria Evaluation Process) captured the safety significant information for fuel and was designated as Tier 2* information. SNC staff stated that due to its Tier 2* designation, any change in WCAP12488 would be identified as a change requiring NRC prior review and approval, whereas for the current operating fleet, changes to their equivalent fuel criteria evaluation process would undergo the 10 CFR 50.59 process.
The NRC staff noted that in some cases a change in the input to an analysis may be considered a change in the method of evaluation requiring NRC review, and in other cases it may not. During its review of a loss-ofcoolant accident analysis (LOCA) methodology report for the AP1000, the NRC staff concluded that certain input parameters for this LOCA methodology should not be changed without prior NRC review. Therefore, it was decided that instead of revising the methodology report specifically for the AP1000, the input parameters would be designated as Tier 2*
information.
Members of the public were in attendance. There were no comments or questions from the public. The staff did not receive any Public Meeting Feedback forms.
Please direct any inquiries to me at 301415-7270 or Cayetano.Santos@nrc.gov.
Sincerely, Signed by Santos, Cayetano on 03/14/23 Cayetano Santos Jr., Senior Project Manager Vogtle Project Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 52025 and 52026
Enclosure:
List of Attendees cc: Listserv
LIST OF ATTENDEES FEBRUARY 16, 2023, MEETING WITH SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY Name Organization Cayetano (Tanny) Santos Billy Gleaves Victor Hall Phil OBryan James Gaslevic NRC/Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Garry Armstrong Nanette Valliere Chris VanWert Rebecca Patton Omar Lopez-Santiago NRC/Region II Nicole Coovert Michael Spencer NRC/Office of the General Counsel Julie Ezell Keith Dorsey Amy Chamberlain Southern Nuclear Operating Company Eddie Grant Neil Haggerty Jana Bergman Members of the Public Enclosure
ML23055A090 OFFICE NRR/VPO/VPOB NRR/VPO/VPOB NRR/DSS/SNRB NRR/VPO/VPOB NAME CSantos CS RButler RB RPatton RP VHall VH DATE Feb 24, 2023 Mar 2, 2023 Mar 14, 2023 Mar 14, 2023 OFFICE NRR/VPO/VPOB NAME CSantos CS DATE Mar 14, 2023