ML23283A119
| ML23283A119 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/31/2023 |
| From: | Joseph Sebrosky NRC/NRR/DANU/UARP |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML23283A092 | List: |
| References | |
| DANU-ISG-2022-06 | |
| Download: ML23283A119 (1) | |
Text
This draft comment resolution table is the latest version of the table that the NRC staff has publicly released to support interactions with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).This version is based on reviews by NRC staff and consideration of stakeholder input.The NRC staff expects to adopt further changes to the comment resolution table.
This comment resolution table has not been subject to complete NRC management or legal review, and its contents should not be interpreted as official agency positions.The NRC staff plans to continue working on the information provided in this document.
Analysis of Public Comments on Draft DANU-ISG-2022-06 Advanced Reactor Content of Application Project Chapter 12, Post-manufacturing and construction Inspection, Testing, and Analysis Program 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-2022-0074 -DRAFT -0006 ML23229A120 Nuclear Energy Institute Ben Holtzman
NRC-2022-0075 -DRAFT -0004 ML23234A052 X -Energy, LLC Travis Chapman
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document NRC-General General Please rephrase to indicate the The NRC staff disagrees with this comment.
2022 guidance is technology-inclusive 0074 -
1 Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document DRAFT-and is equally applicable to both The NRC staff is considering expanding the applicability of 0006-1 LWR and non-LWR designs. advanced reactor content of application project ( ARCAP) guidance documents beyond non-light water reactors (non -
Throughout all the documents of LWRs). However, expansion of the guidance beyond non-the package, there are statements LWRs at this time is premature.
that this guidance is applicable to nonLight Water Reactors (LWRs). The final interim staff guidance (ISG) continues to note that However, all the guidance is the NRC staff is developing an optional performance-based, technology-inclusive and is technology-inclusive regulatory framework for licensing equally applicable to LWRs. nuclear power plants designated as 10 CFR Part 53, ARCAP is supposed to be Licensing and Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Reactors, applicable for any technology (RIN 3150-AK31). It is envisioned that the 10 CFR Part 53 (non-LWR and LWR), any guidance would be applicable to both LWR and non-LW R s.
licensing approach (LMP, Should the 10 CFR Part 53 rulemaking include requirements classical, etc.), and any licensing for both LWR and non-LWRs the NRC staff envisions that the path (CP, COL, DC etc.). concepts found in the ARCAP ISGs guidance would be expanded beyond non-LWRs. In the interim, the NR C staff For the ARCAP guidance, industry notes that the applicability section of the ISG notes that specifically requested the NRC applicants desiring to use the ISG for a light water reactor develop guidance applicable to application should contact the NRC staff to hold pre -
both non-LW R s a n d LW R SMRs, application discussions on their proposed approach.
and we were informed in various meetings that this would be the NRCs approach. While NEI 18 -04 and NEI 21-07 were developed specifically for advanced non-LWRs, applicants with LWR designs should also be able to use the Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) methodology if they elect to do so (e.g., NEI 18-04 and NEI 21-07). It would be up to the applicants to justify the use of the guidance documents and associated regulatory guides.
NRC-The purpose and descripting (sic) The NRC staff agrees with this comment.
2022 discussion of the ISG should be 0074-revised to be clear how this ISG 2
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document DRAFT-applies to an ML application since Refer to the response to Comment NRC-2022-0074-DRAFT-0006-2 by definition the ML does not 0006-4.
authorize construction, installation or operation.
10 CFR 52.1 defines a manufacturing license as a license issued under subpart F, authorizing the manufacture of nuclear power reactors but not their construction, installation, or operation at the sites on which the reactors are to be operated. On page 2 of DANU-ISG-2022-06 it is noted that the guidance in the ISG is limited to the portion of non-LW R application associated with the development of a risk-informed post-construction inspection, testing, and analysis program (PITAP) and the staff review of that portion of the application. The applicability of the ISG clearly includes applications for MLs.
Given the definition of an ML it is not clear how guidance on a PITAP is applicable to an ML.
NRC-p. 5, The ISG should be revised The NRC staff partially agrees with this comment.
2022 Application regarding MLs toclearly 0074-Guidance, distinguish between post - Refer to the response to Comment NRC-2022-0074 - DRAFT-DRAFT-1st sentence manufacturinginspection and 0006-4 regarding post-manufacturing text versus post -
0006-3 testing that would be expected to construction text.
be addressed in the factory and post-constructioninspection and Regarding the clarity of the manufacturing license (ML) testing. One example of language application content guidance, the ISG states (on page 5) that that addresses post-manufacturing an ML application should describe the Phase 1 program, inspection comes from the draft which includes the requirements in 10 CFR 52.157(f)(17) proposed Part 53, specifically regarding quality assurance criteria (i.e., Criterion III, Design 3
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document 53.620(b)(3): "post-manufacturing Control; Criterion X, Inspection; and Criterion XI, Test inspection and acceptance process Control), and 10 CFR 52.158 which requires ITAAC.
must be established and implemented before transporting a For clarity, the following new paragraph will be added after manufactured reactor or portions the third paragraph in the Application Guidance section of a manufactured reactor for regarding ML applications:
installation at a commercial nuclear plant. The process must For an ML application, the Phase 1 program description consider the results of inspections, should address inspections, tests, and analyses that the tests, and analyses that have been licensee who will be operating the reactor shall perform and performed and the acceptance the acceptance criteria that are necessary and sufficient to criteria that are necessary and conclude that manufacturing activities have been completed in sufficient to conclude that accordance with the ML (refer to 10 CFR 52.157(f)(17) and manufacturingactivities have been 10 CFR 52.158).
completed in accordance with the ML." In addition, the following change is being made to the last paragraph of the application guidance section:
The first sentence notes the PITAP is generally divided into two For COLs referencing a ML, much of the post -manufacturing phases: Phase 1 is the constructioninspection and testing to resolve ITAAC may be preoperational phase (prior to performed at the manufacturer s facility and not at the C O L initialfuel loading) and Phase 2 is final site. The COL holder has the responsibility for verifying initial startup testing (initial fuel ITAAC are complete. As noted below the COL holder could loading and initial power rely on testing performed at the manufacturing facility to ascension). The application should verify ITAAC completion. The requirement for ITAAC to be describe how all tests identified in included in ML applications (i.e., 10 CFR 52.158(a)) states, in the Phase 1 program can be part, the following:
performed prior to loading fuel.
The expected content for an M L The following footnote 5 has also been added to the last application to address Phase 1 is paragraph of the application guidance section:
not clear. As background, 52.157 does not explicitly address post - The NRC staff notes there are potential business models that manufacture inspection or testing could involve a manufacturing licensee also holding a although 52.158 includes a combined license for the purpose of operational testing. Such requirement for ITAAC to a model could involve completion of some of the ITAAC at demonstrate the reactor has been the manufacturing facility under the COL held by the manufactured in conformitywith manufacturer. Under this business model the COL holder for the manufacturing license, the where the reactor is eventually installed (i.e., deployment site 4
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document provisions of the Act, and the COL holder) would be responsible to ensure the ITAAC Commission's rules and completed at the manufacturing facility have been maintained regulations. 52.157(f)(21) does and would also be responsible for verifying the ITAAC are require justification that complete for those ITAAC performed at the site. These compliance with the interface business models and the potential for future guidance in this requirements of paragraph (f)(20) area were discussed during a September 11, 2023, public is verifiable through inspections meeting (see:
testing, or analysis. The method to https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg?do=details&Code=20230975).
be used for this verification must The NRC staff will update this ISG, as appropriate, pending be included as part of the proposed further direction from the Commission on this matter.
ITAAC required by 52.158.
The following footnote 6 has also been added.
An ML holder may also seek a CP/OL or COL to conduct some or all of the ITP in the factory before delivery to the deployment site. In these cases, the OL or COL for the factory testing would specify what portions of the ITP would be conducted in the factory and the deployment site. The OL or COL would specify what remaining tests may be conducted at the deployment site. ML holders considering such a n approach are encouraged to discuss their intentions during the pre-application phase of the review.
Acceptance Criteria F(8) was changed as follows to clarify that ML ITAAC (along with combined license ( COL), and design certification (DC)) inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) should be provided as a standalone document. The change is as follows:
Applications for a COL, DC, or ML include the ITAAC either as a standalone document. or as part of the PITAP
NRC-Bottom of There are two proposed changes: The NRC staff agrees with this comment.
2022 p.6 (1) revise the title and structure of 0074-the ISG to address post-The following changes are made to this ISG:
DRAFT-manufacturingand post -
0006-4 construction; (2) restructure the 1. The ISG title is changed to Post -manufacturing a nd guidance to make clear construction Inspection, Testing, and Analysis Program.
5
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document expectations for post-construction 2. On page 2, The guidance in this ISG is limited to the activities that are appropriate for portion of a non-LWR application associated with th e CP, OL, and COLs versus the development of a risk-informed post -construction(or expectations for MLs. The post -manufactur ing for an ML application) inspection, discussion of the postconstruction testing, and analysis program activities for sites that will utilize a 3. On page 2 manufactured, constructed and will be reactor manufactured under an operated ML, the inspection activities 4. On page 2, integration of post-manufactur ing and post-should address construction and construction quality assurance installation activities for the 5. On Page 6, For MLs, much of the post -manufacturing manufactured reactor. constructioninspection and testing
- 6. On pages 9, 10, and 12 revise post -construction to The language in the last paragraph post -construction (and post -manufacturing if on Page 6 states, "For MLs, much applicable).
of the post-construction inspection and testing to resolve ITAAC may Also refer to the response to comment NRC-2022-0074 -
be performed at the manufacturers DRAFT-0006-3.
facility and not at the final site."
The text goes on to address the ML ITAAC requirements in 52.158(a).
This language continues to confuse "manufacturing" and "construction" and is an unnecessary complication in the guidance.
NRC-Pre-p. 6 Please confirm that this ISG is not The NRC staff partially agrees with this comment.
2022 operational adding additional requirements 0074-test beyond what is required to be The referenced text regarding the pre -operational test program DRAFT-program provided in a CPA per 10 CFR is referring to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, Test 0006-5 50.34(a)(7) by removing or Control, which requires, in part, that a test program shall be rewording the last sentence from established to assure that all testing required to demonstrate the first paragraph of page 6. that structures, systems, and components (SSCs) will perform satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in The last sentence of the first accordance with written test procedures. The ISG text on page paragraph on page 6 states: If the 6 has been clarified as follows:
application is for a CP, the PITAP description can be limited to the If the application is for a CP [construction permit], the PITAP Phase 1 (described below) description can be limited to the Phase 1 (described below) 6
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document inspection, testing, and verification inspection, testing, and verification that would be required by that would be required by 10 CFR 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, along withwhich should Part 50, Appendix B, along with a include a description of the scope, objectives, and description of the scope, programmatic controls associated with the pre-operational test objectives, and programmatic program controls associated with the pre-operational test program (prior to initial fuel loading).
This implies requirements that go beyond the quality assurance program descriptions required in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(7) and does not appear to be consistent with the first sentence of the second paragraph of the application guidance on page 5: program elements required by the quality assuranceprogram under § 50.34(a)(7).
NRC-2022-Pre-p. 6 Please remove the last sentence Refer to the response to Comment NRC-2022-0074-DRAFT-0075-operational from the first paragraph of page 6. 0006-5.
DRAFT-test 0004-29 program The last sentence of the first paragraph on page 6 of DANU -
ISG-2022-06 states, If the application is for a CP, the PITAP description can be limited to the Phase 1 (described below) inspection, testing, and verification that would be required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, along with a description of the scope, objectives, and programmatic controls associated with the pre-operational test program (prior to initial fuel loading). This implies requirements that go beyond the 7
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document quality assurance program descriptions required in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(7) and does not appear to be consistent with the first sentence of the second paragraph of the application guidance on page 5 which specifically refers to program elements required by the quality assurance program under § 50.34(a)(7). Can the staff confirm that this ISG is not adding additional requirements beyond what is required to be provided in a construction permit application per 10 CFR 50.34(a)(7)?
NRC-2022-C P a n d O L Sections A-Provide a list in the guidance of The NRC staff disagrees with this comment.
0075-scope E which items apply for construction DRAFT-permit applications. The Application Guidance section on pages 5 and 6 describes 0004-30 which parts of the PITAP program (Phases 1 and 2) apply to It is unclear in sections A-E which CP and operating license ( OL) applications. For example, it portions are required to be states that for a CP, the PITAP description can be limited to described in a construction permit descriptions of the Phase 1. In summary:
application and which portions are required for an operating license
- Section A guidance applies to Phase 1.
application, for those licensing
- Section B guidance applies to Phase 2.
under 10 CFR 50.
- Sections C, D, and E guidance apply to both Phase s 1 and 2.
- Section F guidance is staff review guidance, and it applies to both Phases 1 and 2.
No change has been made to this ISG.
NRC-2022-General Sections A-Please clarify the items in A-E The NRC staff partially agrees with this comment.
0075-E apply to different license DRAFT-application types. Specifically, The guidance in Sections A and B is applicable to applicants 0004-31 please list which items apply to 10 as described on pages 5 and 6 of the ISG. The guidance in CFR 50 licenses. Sections C - E is applicable to both Part 50 and Part 52 applicants.
8
Commenter Topics Section of Specific Comment NRC Staff Response Identifier Document Some of the items in sections A-E imply that 10 CFR 52 processes The text in item E.6, referenced in the comment, is revised to should be applied for 10 CFR 50 make it more generic, as follows:
licenses, for example D.6 [sic]
requires establishing a plant review (6) establishing a defined set of qualified operating and committee to review, evaluate, and technical plant personnel review committeeto review, disposition verification results. evaluate, and disposition the inspection, test, and verification results
NRC-2022-Part 50 Sections A-Please remove items from sections The NRC staff disagrees with this comment.
0075-scope E A-E which go beyond what is DRAFT-required in 10 CFR 50 and existing The guidance in Sections A through E of the ISG is based in 0004-32 guidance.Section XI of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and aligns with other existing guidance in RG 1.68, RG 1.33, and SRP Some of the items in sections A-E (NUREG-0800) Section 14.2. This guidance describes how an do not appear to be regulatory applicant can meet the requirements in 10 CFR Parts 50 and requirements or aligned with RG 52 related to pre-operational and startup test programs and 1.70 or RG 1.206. does not add new requirements.
No change has been made to this ISG.
9