ML23275A088
| ML23275A088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/2023 |
| From: | Cayetano Santos NRC/NRR/VPOB |
| To: | Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| References | |
| Download: ML23275A088 (8) | |
Text
October 12, 2023
LICENSEE: Southern Nuclear Operating Company
FACILITY: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2023, MEETING WITH SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY
On September 20, 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 the draft license amendment request (LAR) and exemption request for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP)
Units 3 and 4. The LAR proposes to convert Tier 1 and Tier 2* information to Tier 2 information and revise the combined licenses (COLs) and 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 regarding Tier 1 and Tier 2* information.
The meeting notice and agenda are available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML23241A919. A list of attendees is enclosed.
SNC representatives described their technical and regulatory evaluations justifying the proposed license amendment and ex emption requests (ML23241A045).
Below is a summary of the comments and discussions:
This meeting is a continuation of pre-submittal discussions with SNC regarding exemptions from Tier 1 and Tier 2* requirem ents. The previous meetings were held on December 8, 2022 (ML22349A214) and February 16, 2023 (ML23055A090). The NRC staff acknowledged that SNC incorporated staff feedback provided during the meeting on February 16, 2023.
In preparing for this meeting, the NRC sta ff reviewed other licensing actions submitted by SNC regarding the scope and content of Tier 2* information such as LAR 14-008 and LAR 17-037. LAR 14-008 requested to use the Tier 2 change process for Tier 2*
information but was later withdrawn (ML14349A624). LAR 17-037 was approved by the NRC and added a license condition to determine if a change to Tier 2* information required prior NRC approval (ML18235A029).
The NRC staff characterized SNCs proposal as a first-of-a-kind request that involves Commission policy issues, especially regarding the Tier 1 information. SNCs proposal involves both Tier 1 and Tier 2* information. The staff noted that there are precedents for revising Tier 2* information and the Tier 2* change control process, but there are no precedents for granting an exemption to all Tier 1 requirements. SNC staff
acknowledged that the exemption request from Tier 1 information is unique but justified because construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 is complete and all the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) have been met. Approval of this request would enable VEGP Units 3 and 4 to operate more like operating plants licensed under Part 50.
The NRC staff asked if the Tier 1 information would be moved to the UFSAR. SNC staff responded that all applicable Tier 1 information would be moved into an appendix in the UFSAR, and this was a change made to address staff comments from the previous pre-submittal meeting. SNC stated that the ITAAC tables would not be moved to the UFSAR because they are no longer requirements. If approved, SNC suggested that it would systematically evaluate the appendix to identify Tier 1 information that duplicates Tier 2 information and eliminate the redundant Tier 1 information. Thus, any Tier 1 information not contained in Tier 2 would remain in the UFSAR appendix.
The proposed draft LAR and exemption request states, in part, that SNC believes that the Tier 1 and the Tier 2* designations have fulfilled their purpose and the additional requirements for proposed changes associated with Tier 1 information and Tier 2*
information are no longer warranted.
o The NRC staff asked if SNC considered submitting a petition for rulemaking instead of a plant-specific exemption request because this statement could apply generically to any Part 52 licensee. SNC staff responded that they were concerned that the time associated with a possible rule change would be significantly greater than the review of a plant-specific licensing action. In addition, VEGP Units 3 and 4 are unique in that they are currently the only operating plants licensed under Part 52 and no other Part 52 plants are under construction; therefore, a plant-specific licensing request is appropriate. If other Part 52 plants become operational in the future, those licensees may also request similar exemptions. The NRC staff commented that if SNCs request were approved and set a precedent for other Part 52 licensees, it may constitute a de facto rulemaking by creating a precedent path for granting identical exemptions to multiple licensees. NRC also expressed concern about the unintended consequences on possible licensing of advanced reactor designs under Part 53. Finally, the NRC staff noted that, as part of the acceptance review of this licensing action, the staff would have to consider the appropriate regulatory process for this request and implications to other Part 52 and 53 licensees. SNC responded that they dont want to wait for plants that may never be built.
o The NRC staff asked what additional burden is associated with the current Tier 2* requirements. SNC staff responded that existing Tier 2* requirements are not overly burdensome, but SNC would benefit by being able to implement a similar change process across its fleet of plants. SNC noted however that methodology changes would still require prior approval. The current Tier 1 requirements are an additional burden because of the need to maintain a separate document using the exemption process. The NRC staff asked if SNCs proposed changes result in increased regulatory uncertainty. SNC staff stated that the revised footnote proposed for Tier 2* information would be clear and should not cause any increased regulatory uncertainty.
The draft LAR and exemption request states that some Tier 2* information will be identified in the UFSAR as Integral to NRC Approval of the Methodology, and a related footnote will be added to read: *This information considered integral to NRC approval of the methodology. In accordance with [Nuclear Energy Institute] NEI 96-07, NRC staff approval required prior to implementing a change in this information.
o The NRC staff asked for additional clarification regarding how this proposed change differs from the existing Tier 2* requirements. SNC staff explained that Tier 2* information would be converted to Tier 2 information so the § 50.59-like process could be used to determine if NRC prior approval is required to change this information. This would ensure that significant technical changes would be sent to the NRC for prior review and approval, while minor editorial changes to the information would not. The NRC staff noted that for topical reports designated as Tier 2* licensees typically would not submit an LAR to correct a single editorial mistake. Instead, licensees would submit an LAR requesting multiple changes to the report that would include minor editorial corrections.
o The NRC staff also noted that the phrase, Integral to NRC Approval of the Methodology, may not appropriately describe some Tier 2* information such as the reactor coolant pump type or the screen des ign criteria. As a result, this could lead to confusion especially if the specific methodology is not identified. SNC stated this proposed change was intended to address NRC staff comments made during the previous pre-submittal meeting. NEI 96-07, Guideline for Implementation of Change Processes for new Nuclear Power Plants Licensed Under 10 CFR Part 52, was endorsed by the NRC and provided an example of information described as integral to the NRC approval of the methodology, when determining that a proposed change required prior NRC review and approval. SNC staff evaluated the remaining Tier 2* information for VEGP Units 3 and 4 and concluded that the phrase Integral to NRC Approval of the Methodology, could be applied to all the Tier 2* information.
The draft LAR and exemption request states that determining the fundamental functional requirements (an undefined term) may be just as subjective as the original criteria which led to more information in Tier 1 than necessary. As such, SNC is concerned that attempting to refine the scope of Tier 1 and Tier 2* requirements will lead to significant expenditures of manpower and review fees.
o The NRC staff acknowledged that refining the scope of Tier 1 as part of a single licensing action would involve expending resources but added that SNCs proposal for an exemption from Tier 1 and Tier 2* requirements could also involve significant expenditures. SNC staff stated that they understand the policy issues involved with this request but believes a plant-specific request would be more expedient than generic rulemaking. SNC staff also noted that preparing an exemption request identifying all the information in Tier 1 that they believe can be removed would be a prolonged effort. If SNCs draft request were approved, the Tier 1 information would be moved to the UFSAR and could be evaluated in detail over the lifetime of the plant to determine what information could be deleted. The results of staff review of this proposed licensing action could also be beneficial to the nuclear industry in determining what should be included in Tier 1 versus Tier 2 and whether Tier 1 requirements should apply only during construction.
o The NRC staff noted that given the two-tier system of information contained in a design certification, NRC staff would review would always be needed in determining what information is categorized as Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2*. The NRC staff also noted that SECY-19-0034, Improving Design Certification Content, described the principles that should be used to identify Tier 1 information. These principles were implemented as part of the NRCs NuScale design certification review so there is some experience with refining the scope of Tier 1 requirements.
The NRC staff asked why SNC proposes to remove the license condition added via LAR 17-037. SNC staff stated that this license c ondition is specific to Tier 2* information, and with this request, there would no longer be any Tier 2* information so the license condition would no longer be needed. SNC will consider whether it may be beneficial to retain some portion of this license condition.
In the draft LAR and exemption request SNC also notes that SECY-22-0052 Enclosure 3 acknowledges that Having different change process applicability requirements for FSARs and plant-specific DCDs in 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 52, respectively, may be unnecessary and could lead to confusion. These concerns reflect the Commission expectations provided in the 1989 Statements of Consideration for the initial issuance of Part 52 (54FR15372) which states: The Commission does expect 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 NRC staff noted the quote from SECY-22-0052 refers to a comparison of the 50.59 process in Part 50 and the 50.59-like process in Part 52, not a comparison of the 50.59 process and exemptions. SNC staff acknowledged the intent of this statement in SECY-22-0052 but believes that different change processes between Part 50 operating plants and Part 52 operating plants is unnecessary and could lead to confusion.
The draft LAR and exemption request includes the following statements: The safety evaluation for the [LAR 17-037] amendment states The staff focused on whether the proposed exemption and new license condition would assure that departures from Tier 2* information would be governed by regulatory controls commensurate with the safety significance of the information. As noted above, SNC agrees with The intent of the § 50.59 process is to permit licensees to make changes to the facility, provided the changes maintain acceptable levels of safety as documented in the SAR. Thus, it is reasonable to deduce that if the § 50.59 process maintains acceptable levels of safety for Part 50 plants, that the Tier 2 change control process that is similar to the § 50.59 process would also be appropriate regulatory controls commensurate with the safety significance of the information and that the additional Tier 2* designations and change controls are, therefore, unnecessary. The NRC staff clarified that as part of its review of LAR 17-037 the staff focused on assuring that the proposed new criteria are adequate to determine whether the safety significance of the Tier 2* information under these topics is comparable to the safety significance of Ti er 1 information, such that departures from that information always warrant prior NRC approval. Staff approval of LAR 17-037 did not imply that the § 50.59-like process would be appropriate for changing Tier 1 information. SNC staff interpreted the LAR 17-037 safety evaluation to mean that the Tier 2* information was consistent with Tier 1 requirements and not that Tier 2*
information was of comparable the safety significance of all Tier 1 information.
The NRC staff described SNCs proposed changes as a request by a plant licensed and constructed under Part 52 to operate like a Part 50 plant. SNC staff stated that after construction is complete and the NRC has verified that the plant has been constructed per the certified design, there are no additional safety benefits associated with maintaining the Tier 1 and Tier 2* requirements for the operating life of the plant. SNC is preparing this draft LAR and exemption based on the current situation in which VEGP Units 3 and 4 are the only operating AP1000 plants and none are under construction.
The draft LAR and exemption request states that [a]s noted in SECY-22-0052 Enclosure 1, providing proposed rule revisions based on reviews of lessons learned from new reactor licensing, requiring licensees subject to the DC change process to obtain NRC approval before making certain physical changes, while allowing part 50 licensees to proceed with the physical changes before asking for NRC approval may impose an unnecessary burden on those licensees subject to the DC change process. Since this statement appears to be about when a requested change is submitted for NRC approval, the NRC staff asked how this statement is relevant to SNCs proposal. SNC staff interpreted this statement from SECY-22-0052 as a comparison of the design certification change process that requires NRC review of any change to Tier 1 or Tier 2*
information versus the § 50.59 process for Part 50 plants that allows for an analysis of safety significance to determine if prior NRC review is required.
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 stated that they plan is to submit a single licensing action for both Vogtle Units 3 and 4.
Members of the public were in attendance. The following is a summary of the public comments:
A member of the public commented that if the Vogtle Units 3 and 4 were built under 10 CFR Part 50, they would not have these issues.
A member of the public asked under what authority per the Atomic Energy Act does the NRC have to consider this request as a licen sing action when it should be considered as a rulemaking. The NRC staff responded that if this LAR and exemption request were submitted, the agency would need to consider whether it should review this a licensing action or if another regulatory process would be more appropriate.
A member of the public asked how the NRC would know of changes that are made by the licensee to the UFSAR if this request were approved. The NRC staff responded that the licensee is required to provide periodic reports to the NRC describing UFSAR changes regardless of whether it required a license amendment for prior NRC approval.
A member of the public expressed a concern that the licensee proposes to identify important information through a footnote.
A member of the public asked if the public would be given an opportunity to request a hearing if the licensee were to submit this request. The NRC staff responded that this request involves a change to the licenses for VEGP Units 3 and 4, so if it were accepted as a license amendment request, there would be an opportunity for members of the public to request a hearing.
The staff did not receive any Public Meeting Feedback forms.
Please direct any inquiries to me at 301-415-7270 or Cayetano.Santos@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
Cayetano G. Santos Jr., Senior Project Manager Vogtle Project Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket Nos. 52 -025 and 52-026
Enclosure:
List of Attendees
cc: Listserv
LIST OF ATTENDEES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
MEETING WITH SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY
Name Organization
Cayetano (Tanny) Santos Billy Gleaves Lauren Nist James Gaslevic Garry Armstrong Nanette Valliere Chris VanWert Rebecca Patton Nicholas Hansing NRC/Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Michael Markley Ed Miller Andrea Johnson John Honcharik David Drucker Ahsan Sallman John Lamb Jennifer Majano Derek Scully
Keith Dorsey Eddie Grant Amy Chamberlain Southern Nuclear Operating Company Jamie Coleman Steve Leighty William Garrett
Jana Bergman Thomas Saporito Members of the Public
Enclosure
ML23275A088 *via email NRC-001 OFFICE NRR/VPO/PM NRR/VPO/LA NRR/DORL/LPL2-1/BC NAME CSantos RButler* MMarkley*
DATE 9/29/2023 10/4/2023 9/29/2023 OFFICE NRR/DSS/SNRB/BC NRR/VPO/D NRR/VPO/PM NAME RPatton* LNist* CSantos DATE 10/11/2023 10/4/2023 10/12/2023