ML23303A203
| ML23303A203 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/2023 |
| From: | Cayetano Santos NRC/NRR/VPOB |
| To: | Lauren Nist, Susan Vrahoretis NRC/NRR/VPOB, NRC/OGC |
| References | |
| Download: ML23303A203 (5) | |
Text
November 1, 2023 MEMORANDUM TO: Lauren A. Nist, Director Vogtle Project Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Susan H. Vrahoretis, Assistant General Counsel Reactor Programs Office of the General Counsel FROM: Cayetano G. Santos Jr., Senior Project Manager Cayetano Digitally signed by Vogtle Project Office Cayetano G. Santos Date: 2023.11.01 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation G. Santos 09:45:16 -04'00'
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF OCTOBER 24, 2023, COMMENT GATHERING PUBLIC MEETING ON LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE ITAAC HEARING PROCESS FOR VOGTLE UNITS 3 AND 4 On October 24, 2023, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a virtual comment gathering public meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to gather insights from external stakeholders on lessons learned from the adjudicatory proceedings for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle) Units 3 and 4 associated with inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC). The staff will use the comments it receives during the meeting to inform a report on lessons learned from the Vogtle ITAAC proceedings. This meeting did not address broader issues of how the ITAAC hearing procedures may, or should, apply to reactors or reactor deployment models that differ significantly from reactors or deployment models that were assumed in the development of the ITAAC hearing procedures. The NRC staff may separately engage with the public on whether contemplated future reactors or deployment models may warrant changes to the ITAAC hearing procedures.
The meeting notice and agenda are available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML23293A033. A list of attendees is enclosed.
CONTACT: Michael A. Spencer, NRC/OGC 301-287-9115
L. Nist, et al. The final ITAAC hearing procedures were published on July 1, 2016 (81 FR 43266) and served as the basis for case-specific notices and orders for the Vogtle ITAAC proceedings. In the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) (ML16092A099) for the final procedures, the Commission provided the following direction to the NRC staff: Upon completion of the ITAAC hearings for the Vogtle and Summer projects, if held, the staff should conduct a lessons learned review and propose changes to these procedures, as appropriate. As discussed below, ITAAC adjudicatory proceedings were instituted for Vogtle Units 3 and 4. No such proceedings were held for Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3, and the combined licenses for those units were terminated.
The Vogtle Unit 3 ITAAC proceeding was noticed on February 12, 2020 (85 FR 8030), and one hearing request was filed. The Commission denied this hearing request on June 15, 2020 (CLI-20-6, 91 NRC 225, ML21168A338). On August 3, 2022 (87 FR 48201), the NRC made the finding under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 52.103(g) that all acceptance criteria in the ITAAC for Vogtle Unit 3 are met. The Vogtle Unit 4 ITAAC proceeding was noticed on February 2, 2022 (87 FR 5851), and no hearing request was filed. On July 28, 2023 (88 FR 50919), the NRC made the finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g) that all acceptance criteria in the ITAAC for Vogtle Unit 4 are met. As provided by 10 CFR 52.103(h),
the ITAAC are no longer requirements for the licensee after the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding is made.
Mr. Michael Spencer, an attorney with the NRCs Office of the General Counsel who was lead counsel for the NRC staff during the Vogtle Unit 3 ITAAC proceeding, provided background information on the ITAAC hearing process and summarized the NRCs experience during the Vogtle ITAAC proceedings (ML23293A005).
Mr. Stan Blanton, an attorney with Balch & Bingham who was lead counsel for the licensee, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, during the Vogtle Unit 3 ITAAC proceeding, described his perspectives on the ITAAC hearing procedures (ML23293A004).
Mr. Blanton was the only external stakeholder who provided views during the meeting. The following discussion summarizes the perspectives he provided in his slides and orally during the meeting:
Attempting to draw lessons learned on the ITAAC hearing process from Vogtle Units 3 and 4 is challenging because there were no evidentiary hearings, but licensee and NRC staff experience leading up to the resolution of the Vogtle Unit 3 ITAAC hearing petition provides some lessons that could be useful in future proceedings.
One of the biggest concerns was with how the NRC and licensees would deal with multiple ITAAC challenges (5, 10, or 20 challenges) in the compressed timeframe for ITAAC proceedings.
The NRCs engagement with stakeholders and the public during the development of the ITAAC hearing procedures contributed significant improvements to a first-of-a-kind hearing process. In addition, publishing the procedures well in advance of the hearing process assisted in the predictability and efficiency of that process, in particular by allowing external participants to understand the requirements ahead of time.
The hearing procedures effectively balance timely resolution of contentions, which are expected to be technical in nature, with a robust process that provides a fair hearing to intervenors.
L. Nist, et al. The NRCs choice to base the default hearing process on 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L, Simplified Hearing Procedures for NRC Adjudications, makes the most sense, but the procedures also provide flexibility to adapt the hearing process to the particular issues in the case.
The opportunity for early submission of uncompleted ITAAC notifications and the consequent early publication of the notice of intended operation builds margin into the process, which would be especially important for particularly complex ITAAC challenges or multiple ITAAC challenges. Critical to this process was early engagement between the licensee and the NRC staff on uncompleted ITAAC notifications so that complete and adequate notifications could be submitted as early as possible. These are crucial lessons learned, and the NRC should encourage licensees to engage with the NRC early on uncompleted ITAAC notifications and to submit them early.
Depending on the issues in the case, 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart N, Expedited Proceedings with Oral Hearings, with only oral hearings and no written testimony could be conducted much more quickly. The NRC should consider using a Subpart N approach. The Subpart N process could be used for simple factual contentions such as whether or not a specific metric was met during a test (e.g., a dispute over a visual observation of a reading, such as whether the light was red or green). Subpart N might not be well suited to a contention that is more technical or involves a lot of engineering analysis.
The Commission faithfully implemented the procedures, and complied with the schedules and policy underlying them, in resolving the sole contention in the Vogtle Unit 3 ITAAC proceeding.
The staff did not receive any Public Meeting Feedback forms.
Enclosure:
List of Attendees cc: Listserv
LIST OF ATTENDEES OCTOBER 24, 2023, COMMENT GATHERING PUBLIC MEETING ON LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE ITAAC HEARING PROCESS FOR VOGTLE UNITS 3 AND 4 Name Organization Cayetano (Tanny) Santos Lauren Nist James Gaslevic NRC/Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation William (Billy) Gleaves Christopher Welch Nanette Valliere Michael Spencer Reuben Siegman NRC/Office of the General Counsel Blake Vaisey Joe Gillespie NRC/Commission Staff Julie Ezell Stan Blanton Balch and Bingham None Identified Themselves Members of the Public Enclosure
PKG ML23304A025 Meeting Notice ML23293A033 ITAAC Hearing Process ML23293A004 Lessons Learned ML23293A005 Meeting Summary ML23303A203 *via email NRR-106 OFFICE NRR/VPO/PM NRR/DORL/LPL2-2* NRR/VPO/D NAME CSantos RButler (KGoldstein for) LNist*
DATE 10/31/2023 10/31/2023 10/31/2023 OFFICE OGC NRR/VPO/PM NAME SVrahoretis* CSantos DATE 10/31/2023 11/1/2023