ML24253A072
| ML24253A072 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/2024 |
| From: | Williams J - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Andrea Veil Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML24243A100 | List: |
| References | |
| LAR 17-037 | |
| Download: ML24253A072 (1) | |
Text
From:
Joe Williams To:
Subject:
[External_Sender] Perspectives on Proposed Removal of Tier 1 and Tier 2* Requirements Date:
Thursday, August 15, 2024 11:25:28 AM Attachments:
Non-concurrence text no annotations.pdf
- Andrea,
I recently became aware of SNCs proposal to remove Tier 1 and Tier 2* requirements from the licenses for Vogtle Units 3 and 4.I dont have an opinion one way or another about whether or not the amendment and exemption should be approved.However, NRC should take care to ensure the process used to make its decision can withstand strong scrutiny, consistent with the agencys stated values.To do so, there are several issues that should be addressed.
A fundamental change in a Part 52 license must be consistent with explicit Commission policy decisions on issues introduced by this proposal.For example, what are the implications of the proposal on the Commissionsstandardization policy?Tier 1 requirements are the foundation of a Part 52 certified design.Perhaps no more AP1000s will be built, but NRCs decision on SNCs proposal would set a precedent for future Part 52 plants.A Commission paper is the appropriate mechanism to assess and clearly document the agencys position on this issue, and to ensure other issues are identified and addressed.
Clarity of strategic policy provides an essential framework for staff guidance to assess specific proposals, especially first-of-a-kind items like SNCs.Clear Commission policy also demonstrates ownership for strategic decisions at the highest levels of the agency and provides the public with a better understanding of the basis of the agencys actions.Staff development of a paper thoroughly evaluating policy issues and making fully informed decisions is the proper means to ensure decision makers have the whole story before making up their minds.
My perspective in this regard is informed by my involvement with a 2018 amendment affecting many Tier 2* topics at Vogtle where I noted the need to address policy questions.However, in that case, informal Commission feedback was received only very late in the review, with no documented basis for that decision that I am aware of.It appears that the informal Commission decision on the 2018 amendment was based on incomplete information.The licensees drop-in meetings and NRC management
briefings didnt address all issues with the Commission; after I conducted Open Door meetings with each Commission office, I received feedback that at least one Commissioner expressed disappointment that they had not received the full story.Staff development of a paper thoroughly evaluating policy issues is the proper means to ensure decision makers have complete information before making up their minds.
Another problem encountered in review of the 2018 Tier 2* amendment that is likely to be pertinent for the pending LAR was the absence of any defined acceptance criteria for the review.Ordinarily, staff has resources like the SRP and Regulatory Guides, but there were no such resources in place for the first-of-a-kind licensing action.The absence of clear criteria crippled the staffs ability in 2018 to write meaningful RAIs or a thorough safety evaluation.The lack of criteria also left the public in the dark about the basis the staff used for the review, unlike other reviews with criteria established by public processes.It is unclear to me how the staff can complete the LAR acceptance review and issue a Sholly notice if it isnt clear how the final decision is going to be made.
It is also essential that staff feels comfortable to raise issues and have confidence that they will be heard without prejudice.The most troubling thing I saw during the 2018 Tier 2* review was staff intimidation by management.For my part, I raised issues with the proposal even before the LAR was submitted, and continued to do so for several months in the face of considerable resistance, eventually culminating in a non-concurrence in concert with other staff.Aside from my personal experience, several staff told me anonymously that they agreed with much of what I had to say, but they did not feel comfortable supporting me.There was a consistent impression that a decision had been made by management based largely on interactions like drop-in meetings, that staff was expected to rubber stamp a decision already made.One staff member said that This is a strange process that has been shoved down our throats.An open discussion of issues and documentation of positions in a Commission paper can help eliminate this impression.
I used to tell folks that you cant hold someone responsible for something you dont tell them.Im not looking to revisit decisions made in 2018, and I dont want to get any further encumbered with this action; Ive already spent far more time thinking about it that I had intended.If Im not telling you anything you dont already know, that these issues are already being effectively addressed, thats great.However, I would like to have confidence that NRC remembers that history and continues to apply the lessons learned.It appears to me that there is a significant risk that institutional knowledge and
awareness of licensing experience is lacking, evidenced by the mischaracterization of Tier 2* in the construction lessons learned report issued earlier this year.I also admit that Im not confident that you would receive any of this feedback if I chose to provide it via public comment on the LAR.
Ive attached a copy of the non-concurrence I wrote regarding the 2018 LAR so you can decide for yourself if there are any parallels to current circumstances.I have a lot of respect for you and the difficulty of your job, so I am very appreciative of the time you spend considering these thoughts. I would also appreciate it if you would ensure this email is placed in ADAMS for the reference of the public.
Best wishes and good luck.
Joe Williams