ML23283A118
| ML23283A118 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/31/2023 |
| From: | Joseph Sebrosky NRC/NRR/DANU/UARP |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML23283A092 | List: |
| References | |
| DANU-ISG-2022-05 | |
| Download: ML23283A118 (1) | |
Text
Analysis of Public Comments on Draft DANU-ISG-2022-05 Advanced Reactor Content of Application Project Chapter 11, Organization and Human-System Considerations Comments on the draft interim staff guidance (ISG) are available electronically at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can access the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) public documents. The following table lists the comments the NRC received on the draft ISG.
Comment Number ADAMS Accession Number Commenter Affiliation Commenter Name NRC-2022-0078-DRAFT-0003 ML23194A214 Hybrid Power Technologies LLC Michael F. Keller NRC-2022-0074-DRAFT-0006 ML23229A120 Nuclear Energy Institute Ben Holtzman NRC-2022-0075-DRAFT-0004 ML23234A052 X-Energy Travis Chapman NRC-2022-0078-DRAFT-0002 ML23172A177 No Known Affiliation Jamie Getchius Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document NRC-2022- General Background, Industry standard NEI 18-04, Risk-Informed Performance-Based The NRC staff disagrees with this comment.
0078- p1 Technology-Inclusive Guidance for Non-light water Reactor Licensing DRAFT- Development is a proper key driving consideration for the ISG, NEI 18-04, Risk-Informed Performance-Based Technology 0003 - 1 particularly in light of the Nuclear Modernization Act of 2019 whereby Inclusive Guidance for Non-Light Water Reactor Licensing Basis Congress has re-enforced the legality of the use of industry codes/standard. Development, describes a modern, technology-inclusive, risk-These codes/standards have higher precedence than NRC guidance informed, and performance-based (TI-RIPB) process for selection documents. In our view, NEI 18-04 does not contain any material defects of licensing basis events (LBEs); safety classification of 1
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document associated with risk-informed, graduated elements involving safety-related structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and associated risk-or safety significant considerations. Unclear why the staff considers it informed special treatments; and determination of defense-in-necessary to go well beyond the industry standard. Please provide an depth (DID) adequacy for non-LWRs. This NEI document does explanation as to why such a detailed ISG, well beyond NEI 18-04 is not address all of the subjects that need to be addressed in a necessary. reactor application. As described in the Background section of this ISG, ARCAP is broader than NEI 18-04 and supplements its guidance.
The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA), in part, specifies that the NRC develop strategies for the increased use of risk-informed, performance-based licensing evaluation techniques and guidance for commercial advanced nuclear reactors within the existing regulatory framework. The ARCAP and this ISG are part of the implementation of that strategy.
Also refer to the response to the ARCAP Roadmap comment response NRC-2022-0074-DRAFT-0005-3.
No change to the ISG.
NRC-2022- Backfitting Back-fitting, Delete all requirements in the ISG that rely on speculation of prospective The NRC staff disagrees with this comment.
0078- p17 elements in the proposed and unapproved 10CFR53. Appears the NRC DRAFT- staff is attempting to use the ISG for back fitting, considering that a The guidance in the ISG is based on the requirements in existing 0003 - 2 number of new requirements are apparently being proposed that are regulations (i.e., 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52). The references to outside the existing Code of Federal Regulations and industry future Part 53 are only for general background information.
codes/standards. The ISG does not address any proposed Part 53 requirements.
Citing the unapproved 10CFR53 as a justification for new requirements, even on an interim basis, is of doubtful validity. No change has been made to the ISG.
NRC-2022- General General, pp 3 Delete the entire ISG or modify as suggested by comments 3b and 4. The The NRC staff disagrees with this comment.
0078- thru 16 staff appears to be using portions of 10CFR50 and 52 as a basis for DRAFT- manufacturing new requirements that appear outside the current CFR The guidance in the ISG is based on the requirements in existing 0003 - 3 and/or at odds with various industry codes and standards that technically regulations (i.e., 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52). For example:
govern these types of activities. Parts of the ISG involve safety-related
- 10 CFR 50.34(a)(6) and (b)(6)(i), require that an application items, some may involve safety significant areas while others have no provide a plan for the applicant's organization, training of significant bearing on nuclear safety. Risk-informed (graduation of in personnel, and conduct of operations.
importance) considerations appear to be absent, thus running afoul of the 2
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document Modernization Act. The ISG major sections have little in common while
- 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(ii) requires that applications describe being rather disjointed: managerial and administrative controls to be used to assure
- 11.1.1 Design, Construction, and Operating Organization - Key safe operation.
Management Positions, (unclear why 10CFR50 Appendix B is not
- 10 CFR 50.34(f)(2) requires that applications provide sufficient) information regarding various human factors topics.
- 11.1.2 Basis/number of Operating Shift Crews, their Staffing, and Responsibilities, (see comments 3b and 4) The references to future Part 53 are only for general
- 11.1.3 Human Factors Engineering (appears to create open-ended, background information. The ISG does not address any proposed nebulous requirements not previously seen) Part 53 requirements.
The proposed ISG is overly complicated, confusing and a likely springboard for open-ended, (and unproductive) never-ending staff Regarding the NEIMA, refer to the response to comment NRC-requests for information. Comments 3b and 4 suggest an alternative 2022-0078-DRAFT-0003 - 1.
approach. In passing, the ISG appears to be an attempt to justify the creation of a new staff Human Factors organization. Unclear why the No change has been made to the ISG.
creation of such complexity is necessary.
NRC-2022- General pp 3 -16 Highlight key considerations clearly derived from 10CFR50 using the The NRC staff disagrees with this comment.
0078- References, topic associated with the referenced CFR50.34xx entries. The simple DRAFT- p18 reference to just 50.34xx numbering is too difficult to follow and The ISG references various paragraphs within 10 CFR 50.34 that 0003 - 4 inevitably creates confusion if only an alpha/numeric designation is used. specify individual requirements. The staff believes that by first Just say what topic is meant. Might be easier to use some form of table in listing the applicable regulations followed by a description of the the main body of the SRP, with clear linkage to CFR50.34xx topic. Also, application content guidance presents the clearest approach for minimizes mission creep. See comment #4 below for a more efficient applicants.
and less confusing approach.
No change has been made to the ISG.
NRC-2022- References PP 3-16 Incomplete list of references. We note various industry standards are The NRC staff disagrees with this comment.
0078- References, applicable. As examples, ANS 3.1-2014 Selection, Qualification and DRAFT- p18 Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants; ANS 3.2-2012 The standards identified in the ISG are listed in the References 0003 - 5 Managerial, Administrative, and Quality Assurance for Operational Phase section.
of Nuclear Plants. There are undoubtedly more potentially applicable industry codes/standards associated with a particular topic area. The point The topics addressed in this ISG are arranged in logical groups of this comment lies with a simpler method to construct the ISG. Namely, under the section headings organization, basis/number of
- 1. Identify the key topic area, as suggested in comment 3b (clearly linked operating shift crews, their staffing, and responsibilities, and back to 10CFR50.xx source topic). human factors engineering. Various standards and regulatory
- 2. Require the applicant to identify the industry code/standard intended for guides are listed under the applicable topic as acceptable use with the key topic area and require the applicant summarize their approaches to developing application content. The ISG suggests general approach for conformance with the part of the referenced that applicants refer to these documents but does not mandate that code/standard linked to the subject topic area. applicants follow them.
3
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document The reviewer can then assess whether or not compliance with the key topic No change has been made to this ISG.
area is being achieved relative to the industry code/standard, recognizing that reviewer efforts must be commiserate with the risk involved, as tied to the applicants identification of the safety significance (importance to safety) being employed by the applicant for the items in question. This approach greatly lessens the burden on all parties while placing the fundamental onus on the applicant. Further, the exceptionally prescriptive methods of the past are avoided NRC-2022- LWR General Please rephrase to indicate the guidance is technology-inclusive and is The NRC staff disagrees with this comment.
0074- applicability equally applicable to both LWR and non-LWR designs.
DRAFT- The NRC staff is considering expanding the applicability of 0006-1 Throughout all the documents of the package, there are statements that this ARCAP guidance documents beyond non-light water reactors guidance is applicable to nonLight Water Reactors (LWRs). However, all (non-LWRs). However, expansion of the guidance beyond non-the guidance is technology-inclusive and is equally applicable to LWRs. LWRs at this time is considered premature.
ARCAP is supposed to be applicable for any technology (non-LWR and LWR), any licensing approach (LMP, classical, etc.), and any licensing The final ISG continues to note that the NRC is developing an path (CP, COL, DC etc.). optional performance-based, technology-inclusive regulatory framework for licensing nuclear power plants designated as 10 For the ARCAP guidance, industry specifically requested the NRC develop CFR Part 53, Licensing and Regulation of Advanced Nuclear guidance applicable to both non-LWRs and LWR SMRs, and we were Reactors, (RIN 3150-AK31). It is envisioned that the 10 CFR informed in various meetings that this would be the NRCs approach. Part 53 guidance would be applicable to both LWR and non-While NEI 18-04 and NEI 21-07 were developed specifically for advanced LWRs. Should the 10 CFR Part 53 rulemaking include non-LWRs, applicants with LWR designs should also be able to use the requirements for both LWR and non-LWRs the NRC staff Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) methodology if they elect to do so envisions that the concepts found in the ARCAP ISGs guidance (e.g., NEI 18-04 and NEI 21-07). It would be up to the applicants to justify would be expanded beyond non-LWRs. In the interim, the NRC the use of the guidance documents and associated regulatory guides. staff notes that the applicability section of the ISG notes that applicants desiring to use the ISG for a light water reactor application should contact the NRC staff to hold pre-application discussions on their proposed approach.
No change has been made to this ISG.
NRC-2022- Staffing at p. 4 Please add clarification on the level of detail expected as noted. The NRC staff partially agrees with this comment.
0074- CP stage DRAFT- The ISG denotes that NRC staff expects to see general staffing plans for Pages 3 and 4 describe expectations for construction permit 0006-2 the construction pre-op testing, fuel load, and startup and power ascension (CP)/operating license (OL) and combined operating license testing. There is also text denoting CPAs include preliminary plans for the (COL) applications focusing on the pre-operation/construction 4
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document operating organization. What Reg Guide or NUREG will NRC staff use to period. Page 5 describes addition expectations for OL and COL verify staffing methodology for new reactor designs with advanced safety applications focusing on the operational period. The ISG features and technologies that vendors believe will warrant fewer staff than references American National Standards Institute current LWRs? (ANSI)/American Nuclear Society (ANS)-3.2-2012, Managerial, Administrative, and Quality Assurance Controls for Additional information on the level of detail expected in the CP and OL the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants. Currently, the applications would be helpful to remove subjectivity from applicant NRC staff does not have a separate set of review guides for non-reviews. For example, does the technical basis need to be provided in the LWRs regarding organizational staffing.
CPA? Does the NRC just want a list of proposed staff, or does the eligibility requirements with justification need to be provided? To provide additional guidance, references to the guidance in Section III, Acceptance Criteria, of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) Sections 13.1.1 and 13.1.2-13.1.3 are added to Section 11.1.1 of the ISG as follows:
Additional guidance describing the expected level of detail for organizational information in CPs, OLs, and COLs is in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, Sections 13.1.1 and 13.1.2-13.1.3.
NRC-2022- Acceptance P. 15 and 16 Please add clarifying basis for the criteria similar to 11.2.g " adequate The NRC staff partially agrees with this comment.
0074- criteria number of licensed operators will be available at all required times to DRAFT- satisfy the minimum staffing requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(m), or the The following clarifications are provided.
0006-3 applicant has provided justification for an exemption. (10 CFR 50.54(i)- Item 11.2.c, is revised to read:
(m)..." This provides clear criteria with a basis that both applicant and To address 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(i), (ii), and (v), the key positions reviewer can agree on. for ensuring the safe operation of the plant are in the operating organization, consistent with the quality assurance program and Alternatively, the criteria could be removed from the ISG if no clear ANS 3.2 acceptance criteria and basis can be identified.
Item 11.2.d, is revised to read:
The ISG acceptance criteria in sections 11.2 c, d, i, l, and m lack clear To address 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(iii), the applicant has adequately criteria with a basis to ensure both the reviewer and applicant will reach described the groups and key positions responsible for the same conclusion on whether the criteria is met. This could lead to implementing the initial test program, consistent with the quality rework by both applicant and reviewer. If no clear criteria can be assurance program and ANS 3.2.
identified, then these should not be part of the acceptance review.
Item 11.2.i, is revised to read:
To address 10 CFR 50.34(f)(3)(vii), the applicant has described the role and function of the architect-engineer and the nuclear steam supply system vendors during design and construction.
5
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document Item 11.2.l, is revised to read:
To address 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(v), sufficient managerial depth is available to provide qualified backup, consistent with the quality assurance program and ANS 3.2.
Section 11.2, m, is revised to read:
To address 10 CFR 26.205(c), the numbers of licensed and non-licensed personnel subject to § 26.205 are sufficient to allow shift schedules that prevent personnel impairment from fatigue due to the duration, frequency, or sequencing of successive shifts. The number of licensed and non-licensed personnel for onsite shift operating crews is sufficient to prevent the routine use of overtime.
Also refer to the response to comment NRC-2022-0074-DRAFT-0006-2.
NRC-2022- Engineering P. 16 Please add clarification on technology neutral approaches for a site can The NRC staff disagrees with this comment.
0074- expertise meet the requirement for engineering expertise. Additionally, please DRAFT- onshift provide clarification on what information and features would need to be As described in this ISG, Section 11.2, engineering expertise on 0006-4 demonstrated to enable engineering expertise to be on-call, part of the shift should be consistent with the Commissions Policy Emergency Response Organization (ERO), or remote. Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift (Volume 50 of the Federal Register, page 43621; October 28, 1985) and within the The requirement for engineering expertise on shift based on LWR guidelines of Three Mile Island Action Plan Item I.A.1.1, Shift operating experience from TMI comes from a Commission Policy Technical Advisor, of NUREG-0737, Clarification of TMI statement rather than regulation, and may not be relevant to advanced Action Plan Requirements, issued November 1980.
reactor technologies. More relevant engineering expertise will be from the Furthermore, 10 CFR 50.120 requires that the applicant provide a technology specific training programs that will teach engineering training program derived from a systems approach to training as fundamentals and principles required to operate that specific technology. defined in 10 CFR 55.4 and must provide for the training and Information should be provided regarding how applicants can credit the qualification of the shift technical advisor.
technology-specific training program and design features that reduce the need for traditional engineering expertise (LWR technology scope not If an applicant chooses to deviate from these requirements and applicable to all designs) while identifying other activities more relevant to policy statements, it should provide justification for an alternative the applicant's design. approach (and an exemption request if the deviation involves 10 CFR 50.120).
6
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document SECY-21-0039 (ML21060A823) discusses how the NRC staff addressed a past request regarding elimination of the shift technical advisor (STA) position from an operating crew complement. Thus, the staff have demonstrated flexibility with regard to the expectations for the STA role when warranted by, in part, the implications of new reactor technologies. The staff plans to consider, on a case-by-case basis, proposals from Part 50 and 52 applicants and licensees with regard to the STA role and, if warranted, will engage the Commission on any related matters of policy. With specific regard to the training-related aspect of the comment, it should also be noted that the 1989 Commission policy statement provided in 54 FR 33639 highlights, more generally, the importance of maintaining a balance of education and experience amongst the control room staff.
No change to this ISG.
NRC-2022- Staffing at Page 4 Please clarify the level of detail expected for the CPA. For example, would Refer to the response to Comment NRC-2022-0074-DRAFT-0075- CP stage the NRC like a list of proposed staff or do the eligibility requirements with 0006-2.
DRAFT- justification need to be provided?
0004- 27 The NRC staff expects to see staffing plans for the construction pre-op testing, fuel load, and startup and power ascension testing. The NRC staff also expects to see the preliminary plans for the operating organization, including a staffing plan for operations for the CPA. The safety features and technologies of advanced reactors warrant fewer staffing levels than the current LWRs. What level of detail is the NRC expecting for these plans? What RG/NUREG will the NRC be using to verify staffing methodology, as the methodology should and will be different than the current LWR fleet? Since these are supposed to be preliminary, does a technical basis need to be provided for the Construction Permit Application (CPA)?
NRC-2022- Engineering Page 16 Please clarify how a site can meet the requirement for engineering Refer to the response to Comment NRC-2022-0074-DRAFT-0075- expertise expertise. Examples: can a site credit the training program if the safety 0006-4.
DRAFT- onshift features of the plant do not warrant engineering expertise? If transients are 0004- 28 slow moving, can the engineering expertise be on-call or part of a licensee's Emergency Response Organization? Can the engineering 7
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document expertise be remote? Please provide flexibility for advancements in nuclear safety instead of arbitrarily propagating requirements based on LWR technology.
The requirement for engineering expertise on shift is based on LWR operating experience (Three Mile Island), comes from a Commission Policy statement (not a regulation), and may not be relevant to advanced reactor technologies. Is the NRC staff considering crediting the training program content, which is tailored to train plant staff to safely operate that specific technology, as required engineering expertise? This should be especially considered if the training program teaches engineering fundamentals and principles required to operate that specific technology.
NRC-2022- Number of Section 11.2 Section 11.2 of DANU-ISG-2022- contains Acceptance Criterion m, which The NRC staff agrees with this comment.
0078- licensed and states, The number of licensed and non-licensed personnel for onsite shift DRAFT- non- operating crews is sufficient to prevent the routine use of overtime. Section 11.2.m, is revised to read:
0002-1 licensed Government regulation of overtime is performed through the Fair Labor personnel Standards Act and National Labor Relations Act which fall under the To address 10 CFR 26.205(c), the numbers of licensed and non-jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and National Labor Relations licensed personnel subject to § 26.205 are sufficient to allow shift Board. The NRC does not have jurisdiction with respect to overtime and schedules that prevent personnel impairment from fatigue due to does not have a regulatory basis to consider the potential use overtime in the duration, frequency, or sequencing of successive shifts. The the determination of a safety finding for construction permit, operating number of licensed and non-licensed personnel for onsite shift license, combined license, manufacturing license, standard design operating crews is sufficient to prevent the routine use of approval, or design certification applications. Nuclear utilities have overtime."
negotiated with labor unions for pay, work hours, and other conditions of employment throughout the history of the industry as allowed by the National Labor Relations Act. These have routinely resulted in staffing levels that routinely make use of overtime while still complying with NRC regulations.
A suggested rewording of this section is as follows: m. The number of licensed and non-licensed operators for onsite shift operating crews is sufficient to prevent the routine use of waivers to the workhour rule requirements of Subpart I of 10 CFR Part 26.
8