ML24325A523
| ML24325A523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/20/2024 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML24276A191 | List: |
| References | |
| M241114 | |
| Download: ML24325A523 (99) | |
Text
1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
STRATEGIC PROGRAMMATIC OVERVIEW OF THE OPERATING REACTORS AND NEW REACTORS BUSINESS LINES
+ + + + +
- THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2024
+ + + + +
The Commission met in the Commissioners' Hearing Room, at 9:00 a.m., Christopher T. Hanson, Chair, presiding.
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON, Chair DAVID A. WRIGHT, Commissioner ANNIE CAPUTO, Commissioner BRADLEY R. CROWELL, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT:
CARRIE SAFFORD, Secretary of the Commission BROOKE CLARK, General Counsel
2 NRC STAFF:
MIRELA GAVRILAS, Executive Director for Operations CHRISTIAN ARAGUAS, Director, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (NRR)
JEREMY BOWEN, Director, Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-power Production and Utilization Facilities, NRR GREG BOWMAN, Deputy Office Director for New Reactors, NRR MIKE FRANOVICH, Acting Deputy Office Director for Reactor Programs, NRR LAUREN GIBSON, Chief of the License Renewal Project Branch, Division of New and Renewed Licenses, NRR MEENA KHANNA, Acting Director, Division of Risk Assessment, NRR JAMIE PELTON, Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, NRR MICHELLE ROME, Branch Chief, Environmental Technical Review Branch 1, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)
3 PROCEEDINGS 9:00 a.m.
1 CHAIR HANSON: Good morning, everyone. I convene the 2
Commission's public meeting on the NRC's Strategic Programmatic Overview 3
of the Operating and New Reactor Business Lines. The Commission is meeting 4
today to get an update from the staff on a range of important activities and the 5
reactor business line supporting our safety and security mission, including 6
strategic priorities, recent accomplishments, expected challenges, and 7
implementation of the ADVANCE Act into our activities.
8 We have two staff panels today. We'll begin first with the 9
Operating Reactor Business Line followed by the New Reactor Business Line.
10 But before we start, I'll ask if my colleagues have any remarks they'd like to 11 make.
12 Commissioner Wright?
13 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: No, I'm good. Thank you.
14 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Glad to have Commissioner Wright 15 joining us remotely this morning. So, with that, we'll get rolling and we'll begin 16 with our Executive Director for Operations, Mirela Gavrilas.
17 MS. GAVRILAS: Thank you, and good morning, Chair. Good 18 morning, Commissioners. We'll have a very busy morning today. The staff has 19 a lot of material to cover, so I'll keep my remarks short.
20 I want to remind everybody that these business lines touch 21 everybody's life in the agency. Not only does NRR have more than 500 staff on 22 board, but there are 1,700 FTE allocated to these business lines. So the broad 23
4 range of topics that you will hear about today is exemplary of that amount of 1
work that the agency conducts. Thank you and with that I'll pass it to Mike.
2 MR. FRANOVICH: Thank you, Mirela.
3 Good morning, Chair and Commissioners.
4 May I have the next slide, please. The NRC has dedicated 5
itself to establishing robust infrastructure that accelerates our efforts within the 6
Operating Reactor Programs. Upholding the principles of good regulation NRR, 7
in partnership with our other offices, has developed tools, guidance, and best 8
practices informed by data analytics to achieve mission excellence. Ensuring 9
the safe and secure operation of the operating fleet remains at the core of our 10 safety mission.
11 As we move forward we continually evaluate our priorities and 12 organizational structure enabling us to adapt the high interest areas. A central 13 focus remains on strengthening our team's capabilities through targeted hiring, 14 professional development, and retention efforts.
15 The principles outlined in this slide highlight NRR's 16 commitment, a commitment to delivering safety-focused reviews within 17 established schedules and resource limits. Through advanced project 18 management, tools, and date analytics we ensure transparency and enable 19 assessments of ongoing licensing actions. By actively engaging stakeholders 20 in public workshops we're building public confidence and gaining insights for 21 process improvements. Concepts such as the Core Review Team and the 22 Integrated Review Team provide predictable and timely outcomes.
23 The implementation of these principles enhances our 24
5 adaptability, supports effective workload management, empowers timely 1
decision making. In both panels today you'll see these principles in action 2
showcasing how they are applied to specific projects and initiatives.
3 May I have the next slide, please? This graphic presents an 4
extensive range of key accomplishments achieved by applying our mission-5 excellent principles. I will highlight a few items.
6 First, we address numerous construction issues at Vogtle 7
resulting in the issuance of the Part 52 construction lessons learned report and 8
a successful transition of Unit 4 to commercial operation.
9 Authorizing advanced risk management programs remains a 10 top priority. Nearly 200 transitions to risk-informed programs have been 11 approved to date providing operational flexibility for licensees including reduced 12 personnel radiation exposure, safety-improving plant modifications, and timely 13 maintenance while plants remain online. We've also refined the reactor 14 oversight process by revising over 40 inspection procedures and inspection 15 manual chapters. This includes introducing a new inspection procedure to 16 support the Palisades restart effort.
17 With over 170 power uprates approved we are drawing upon 18 this extensive experience to optimize regulatory guidance for future 19 submissions. We continue to host public workshops aimed at identifying 20 additional efficiencies including through the power uprate project.
21 Finally, we are improving management practices through data 22 analytics using both historical and current performance data to align resources 23 and schedules with the safety significance of each review. Technology and 24
6 dashboards at workload management meetings help to communicate review 1
progress and manage project risks effectively.
2 May I have the next slide, please? Together NRR and our 3
partners use research capabilities to develop reliable regulations and guidance.
4 I'll cover our highest priority activities each with significant stakeholder interest.
5 6
Our mission is diligently working -- our agency rather is 7
diligently working on the increased enrichment rulemaking for next generation 8
fuels. This initiative includes a comprehensive reevaluation of accident safety 9
analysis to support regulatory updates. We are integrated insights from 10 operating experience as well as engineering analysis, risk assessments, 11 advanced severe accident modeling capabilities such as using the MELCOR 12 Code alongside radiological studies.
13 Two key proposed regulatory changes include: first, 14 redefining the large loss of coolant accident as a beyond-design-basis event; 15 and second, implementing a graded approach to control room dose design 16 criteria based on plant-specific risk.
17 A significant milestone this year was issuance of the 18 Phenomena Identification and Ranking Tables. This technical report marks a 19 step forward in evaluating the importance and level of knowledge and 20 associated uncertainties with fuel fragmentation, relocation and disbursal, and 21 its potential consequences for high burnup fuel.
22 In digital instrumentation and controls we've implemented the 23 Commission's direction ahead of schedule for risk-informed alternatives. In 24
7 May we revised the staff guidance to expand policies on common-cause failure 1
enabling risk-informed alternatives to establish suitable levels of defense-in-2 depth and diversity in digital systems.
3 And lastly, our collaboration efforts across the business lines 4
has sparked a new initiative, the Reactor Accident Analysis Modernization 5
Project. Inspired by the Licensing Modernization Project used for advanced 6
reactors, the RAAM Project builds upon this framework aligning with the NRC's 7
Level 3 PRA insights.
8 Through RAAM we are reevaluating reactor accident analysis 9
methods to incorporate past lesson 10
-- licensing experiences, risk insights, and existing plant safety margins. The 11 plant -- or rather the project may lead to improving the design basis for facilities 12 and eliminating unnecessary conservatisms.
13 For instance, we're exploring modernizing the single active 14 failure criteria and also evaluating crediting of non-safety systems which could 15 streamline safety analysis particularly for core reload analyses and for new 16 reactor reviews without compromising safety. These actions and upcoming 17 steps are laying a strong foundation to support the deployment of new 18 technologies.
19 May I have the next slide, please? The ADVANCE Act has 20 been a catalyst to improve connectivity and build on existing efforts to share 21 best practices across the business lines. Our changed management activities 22 are closely coordinated through the EDO's ADVANCE Act Core Team to ensure 23 a disciplined and interconnected agency response. A myriad of ideas are 24
8 coming from within and outside the agency. I'll just touch on a few of them this 1
morning.
2 For licensing efficiencies we're examining licensing 3
commonalities across the business lines with specific increased focus on the 4
pre-application engagements and the development of associated guidance to 5
provide greater regulatory stability for applicants. Related to this work is 6
improved project management capabilities, which is a focused area that Ms.
7 Gibson will discuss further this morning.
8 Turning to oversight efficiencies, we're evaluating a potential 9
new Baseline Inspection Program while ensuring sustained good performance.
10 We initiated an assessment of the Cross-Cutting Issues Program using 11 technology, improved planning, and feedback. We're also examining ways to 12 be timelier with the resolution of low-importance issues, issues that are not 13 captured by the Very Low Safety Significance Resolution process, or better 14 known as the VLSSR process.
15 I'll now turn the presentation over to Ms. Pelton. Thank you.
16 MS. PELTON: Thank you, Mike. Good morning, 17 Commission. My name is Jamie Pelton. I'm the Deputy Director of the Division 18 of Operating Reactor Licensing in NRR.
19 Consistent with the ADVANCE Act and the NRC's strategic 20 goals, NRR is implementing numerous process improvements, as I'll describe, 21 with the Palisades Potential Restart Project, power uprates, and the use of data 22 in licensing.
23 Next slide, please. The Palisades Nuclear Plant permanently 24
9 ceased operations in May of 2022 after more than 40 years of commercial 1
operation and transitioned to a decommissioning licensing basis. In early 2023 2
Holtec expressed interest in returning the plant to an operational status and 3
provided a proposed regulatory path to reauthorize power operations. Between 4
September of last year and this May Holtec submitted six licensing applications 5
to support the potential restart of Palisades.
6 To prepare for this first-of-a-kind nature project last November 7
we convened the Palisades Restart Panel to proactively identify and promptly 8
resolve any licensing, inspection, or regulatory challenges that concern the 9
Palisades restart, leveraging best practices from the past, for example, with the 10 Watts Bar 2 Reaction Group and the Vogtle Readiness Group.
11 This panel aligns all of our partners across the agency 12 including NRR, Region III, NMSS, NSIR, OGC, OPA, and OCA. The NRC staff 13 established a risk-informed framework for the licensing and oversight of the 14 Palisades Potential Restart Project, which we're confident can be applied to 15 future potential restart applications.
We have made substantial 16 progress within the Palisades Potential Restart Project overcoming regulatory 17 and technical challenges.
18 I would first like to specifically commend the staff for 19 demonstrating flexibility in thinking about the approach to this project. We're 20 quite used to what it takes to transition a plant from operations to 21 decommissioning, but thinking about it in reverse took a lot of open-mindedness 22 and collaboration across organizations. So kudos and thank you to the entire 23 team.
24
10 This slide contains our main accomplishments since the 1
Holtec announcement. To inspire stakeholder confidence the NRC has 2
coordinated over 12 public meetings, proactively expanded the use of on-site 3
public meetings and site visits to maximize our local stakeholder engagement 4
and transparency.
5 Earlier this year, as Mike mentioned, the NRC issued an 6
inspection manual chapter establishing a risk-informed inspection guideline for 7
this and future applications. Currently the NRC staff are actively conducting the 8
safety reviews of the six licensing actions mentioned earlier to support the 9
potential restart of Palisades and return the licensing basis to that which existed 10 during operations as well as completing an environmental assessment. The 11 NRC is continuing inspection and oversight activities at Palisades and will 12 ensure that any activities undertaken in this effort are done safely and in 13 accordance with the regulations.
14 Transparency and communications is a priority for the 15 Palisades Restart Panel. For example, in September NRC staff issued a 16 preliminary notification regarding steam generator inspections that identified the 17 potential number of tubes required to be plugged would exceed the program 18 guidelines. In coordination with the Palisades Restart Panel the licensee 19 performed a root cause analysis and is proposing mitigating actions and a 20 repair methodology which would be documented in a future license amendment 21 prior to restart. From day one of the licensee's steam generator inspections 22 Region II had experienced NRC in-service inspectors on site. By the end of this 23 year the newly-named resident and senior resident inspectors will also be on 24
11 site.
1 Recently Constellation Energy announced its intention to 2
launch the Crane Clean Energy Center intending to rename it from former 3
Three Mile Island Unit 1 in 2028, if approved. Staff will utilize the lessons 4
learned from Palisades as the benchmark for this application increasing 5
licensing predictability in our review.
6 Next slide, please. Power uprates, or increasing the power 7
output of an existing reactor, can assist in meeting rising energy demands.
8 Power uprates can range from 20 percent of originally-licensed thermal power 9
and can be accomplished through more precise measurements or 10 instrumentation, higher enriched fuel, or major plant modifications.
11 Over the past 20 years the NRC has approved 173 power 12 uprates that have given the nation's electricity grid an additional six gigawatts.
13 Over 70 percent of sites surveyed recently by NEI indicated that they're 14 planning for one or more power uprates with a combined capacity of greater 15 than three gigawatts. The NRC is ready to review these power rate -- power 16 uprate applications.
17 Since our last meeting in November of last year the staff has 18 made substantial progress to prioritize and coordinate with industry in a graded 19 approach to licensing reviews. Just two months ago, in September, we issued 20 a public memorandum providing preliminary licensing recommendations derived 21 from industry feedback received at two public meetings.
22 Initial recommendations are focused on strategic bundling of 23 licensing actions, leveraging approved topical reports, and using a tiered 24
12 approach to reviews. A February 2024 topical report regarding data validation 1
and reconciliation methods provide increase accuracy of the power estimates 2
which would allow many licensees to obtain a power uprate without additional 3
plant equipment; for example, updated flow meters. In addition, we're looking 4
at our administrative processes such as delegations of signature authority for 5
power uprates to further streamline the review.
6 Staff will continue to employ the Core Team concept to 7
provide predictability and increased capacity for power uprate reviews and will 8
codify these techniques in guidance going forward. Leveraging historical data 9
and lessons learned within the Structured Project and Communication Plan the 10 Core Team is developing and communicating enhancements to prioritize 11 resources based on safety significance. Although there are currently no 12 applications in house, the NRC staff continues to engage with licensees in 13 preparation for potential applications.
14 The staff developed a regulatory issue summary requesting 15 licensee information on any power uprate-related submittals. The NRC 16 maintains a public web page and internal power uprate dashboard that provides 17 centralized means to highlight power uprate activities across the agency.
18 Next slide, please. The use of data-driven licensing increases 19 transparency and the ability to budget resources for future licensing actions.
20 Both real time and historical data analysis are available with the Operating 21 Reactor Licensing Dashboard, Reactor Program System, or RPS, and the 22 Request for Additional Information app to ensure transparency in real time 23 evaluation during the processing of associated licensing actions.
For 24
13 example, staff can quickly locate and utilize historical data and forecasting 1
information to budget resources for specific projects. We continue to hold 2
ourselves accountable through the use of agency-wide performance reporting, 3
indicators, and metrics.
4 In fiscal year 2024, the NRC internal metric for licensing was 5
shifted from a generic one-year schedule metric to a new metric focusing on 6
schedule accuracy. This metric has the estimated completed schedule 7
between 75 and 115 percent of that which is estimated.
8 This slide illustrates our historical project lane from FY '23 to 9
present with the largest sector representing a 12-month schedule and the 10 others representing some deviation. Notice, since the metric implementation in 11 FY '24 the percentage of projects utilizing a 12-month schedule decreased by 12 19 percent to only 33 percent correlating to 61 percent of projects completed in 13 less than 12 months.
14 Further, we use historical data through the Effort and 15 Schedule Estimator tool, or the EASE tool, and collaboration between our 16 project managers and technical staff to help ensure that the schedules 17 proposed are accurate. On a routine basis we conduct workload management 18 meetings to discuss performance on specific licensing actions. These meetings 19 rely on the use of real-time RPS data dashboards which enable to proactively 20 address challenges and assure accountability of staff and management.
21 Staff utilize a modernized dashboard like the Accident 22 Tolerant Fuel Internal Dashboard using real-time data from RPS.
23 NRR, in conjunction with our partner offices, has invested in 24
14 both infrastructures to support data-driven licensing as well as staff with the 1
knowledge and skill set to use the data for maximal impact.
2 Now I'll turn it over to Lauren Gibson.
3 MS. GIBSON: Next slide, please. Thank you, Jamie. Good 4
morning. I am Lauren Gibson. I am the Branch Chief for the License Renewal 5
Projects Branch in NRR. I'm excited to discuss the changes we are making to 6
license renewal and the early returns and efforts that are already underway.
7 Next slide, please. Recently we issued the Comanche Peak 8
initial license renewal. This is one of two renewals that we've issued recently.
9 It came in almost 6,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> under budget. Note that the budget had been 10 established in 2022 before the efficiency efforts were started in earnest, 11 therefore this is a good gauge of the earlier returns on the changes that we 12 have made.
13 Some of these efforts were able to be applied to Comanche 14 as they were developed, but the most significant change, the graded approach 15 to the review, was not yet available. Notably, we had only one ACRS meeting 16 instead of two and the environmental review streamlined the reasonable power 17 replacement alternative evaluation and used requests for confirmation of 18 information.
19 Our interactions with the licensee were also very positive. We 20 had extensive pre-application activities. In turn, the application was very high 21 quality. Vistra was also very responsive to our audit needs and requests for 22 information. We maintained strong communications throughout the review, and 23 it shows.
24
15 Next slide, please. More broadly, the staff is implementing 1
the SRM to achieve more streamlined initial and subsequent license renewals 2
that require no more than 14,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> and 18 months to review. We are 3
providing monthly status reports describing how well we are progressing with 4
the reviews of subsequent license renewal applications and how we are 5
applying efficiency strategies to the reviews that are already in-house.
6 We are continuing to find and pursue creative ways to 7
achieve the goals while maintaining the mission of public health and safety.
8 This meets the intent of the ADVANCE Act.
9 The most safety-significant efficiency is the tiered approach.
10 We are currently implementing it for the two most recently received reviews. It 11 is going well as the staff is applying a risk-informed graded approach to adjust 12 the depth of our reviews.
You can see on this slide what the 13 differences in reviews are and how we decide which aging management 14 programs goes into which tier. The factors include: the risk significance of the 15 related structures, systems, and components; how much oversight is later 16 performed; and whether it was evaluated in a previous review including whether 17 or not it's a fleet-wide program. This is currently in place for Clinton and 18 Dresden and we are further refining the approach to challenge ourselves to key 19 in on the aspects of the review that are the most safety-significant.
20 Next slide, please. We are also streamlining on the project 21 management side. Collaborating with OCIO and EMBARK we are easing our 22 administrative burden with a new workload management tool designed to 23 organize, structure, and disseminate information contained in the application 24
16 package to the project managers and the technical reviewers.
1 Here are screenshots of the new system. You can see a 2
dashboard interface, the ability to upload files, and views for the technical 3
reviewers. This year-plus effort has been rolled out and is in use for Dresden.
4 We are not stopping there, however.
5 Using the Agile Project Management Structure OCIO is 6
adding additional capabilities such as the ability for the reviewers to submit 7
audit questions and safety evaluation input through the system for the system 8
to automatically compile them into a document for concurrence. We are also 9
investing in further training for our project managers so that we can use state-10 of-the-industry methods to identify pinch points, track progress, and 11 communicate effectively. Our partners on the environmental side are also 12 creating efficiencies which Michelle Rome will be discussing in the next panel.
13 Both the Environmental and the Safety teams have ongoing 14 external engagement through periodic public meetings with NEI. At these 15 meetings we hear the industry's needs, perspectives, and get valuable 16 feedback on the practical implications of the license renewal road map. We 17 also communicate what we need from applicants to have a streamlined and 18 efficient review.
19 In conclusion, we are further pressing towards efficiencies 20 while ensuring safety with implementing the tiered approach, adding more 21 capabilities to our workload management tool, participating in the business 22 process improvement review, and continuing productive dialogue with both NEI 23 and the individual applicants. We are getting more streamlined and will 24
17 continue to do so.
1 Next slide. The NRC is not just focused on project 2
management of license renewals. One of our EDO's Strategic Direction 3
Initiative is to address project management across the agency. To do this we 4
are seeing how we can adapt the PM principles which are focused on creating 5
a product to a regulatory setting in which our value is ensuring adequate 6
protection of public health and safety.
7 Our PMs are already regulatory and licensing experts. Let's 8
make them even better by bringing in best practices from the broader project 9
management discipline to troubleshoot our current process and improve how 10 we manage our work. This includes enterprise-wide prioritization and 11 anticipating where bottlenecks are for quality issues or trouble spots may occur 12 and supporting efficient resolutions before an issue impedes a schedule. Even 13 though this Strategic Direction Initiative has started, efforts are already 14 underway.
15 We have two courses scheduled based on the Project 16 Management Institute standards for November and February. These are 17 geared toward NRR and NMSS and will cover the basic principles as well as 18 leadership and communication. Furthermore, throughout the agency 19 dashboards and workload management systems are being updated and 20 reexamined.
21 This is an example of an ideal single-point dashboard. We 22 want these tools to be scalable from the project level to the business line and 23 above It is important to note however that project management is not a person.
24
18 It is a mindset, an approach that permeates the organization. The Strategic 1
Direction Initiative seeks to make those best practices part of our culture.
2 Thank you. Now I will transition to Meena.
3 MS. KHANNA: Thank you, Lauren. Good morning, Chair 4
Hanson, Commissioners. I am Meena Khanna and I'm the Acting Director of 5
the Division of Risk Assessment.
6 The Operating Reactor Business Line continue to expand the 7
use of risk-informed decision making. We are successfully accomplishing this 8
by using various processes, tools, and resources available to support efficient 9
and timely decisions while continuing to assure safety.
10 Next slide, please. With regard to the increased enrichment 11 rulemaking that Mike spoke of we are revising one of the regulatory guidance 12 documents, and that is Regulatory Guide 1183, Revision 2, associated with 13 alternative radiological source terms for evaluating design-basis accidents. For 14 this effort the staff has leveraged a graded risk-informed performance-based 15 approach to propose a revised control room design criteria -- excuse me, dose 16 criteria framework to support increased enrichment fuel.
17 The Office Nuclear Regulatory Research has been a strong 18 partner to NRR in supporting this effort. A few key examples of Research's 19 support to NRR include identifying an approach on how staff can credit 20 suppression pool scrubbing, developing natural deposition models for 21 containment spray, as well as developing an in-house tool that will allow the 22 staff to assess reactor core inventories at increased enrichments. We continue 23 to be responsive to the current environment and have demonstrated our ability 24
19 to expend resources commensurate with the risk and safety significance of the 1
issues.
2 As one example, the staff authorized the use of Code Case 3
N-752 for several plants in determining the risk-informed categorization and 4
implementing alternative treatment for repair and replacement activities on 5
certain piping components. In conducting these reviews the staff demonstrated 6
a breakthrough in applying in-house capabilities to conduct real-time 7
independent what-if scenarios and to conduct our own confirmatory and 8
independent risk analyses using standardized plant analysis risk models to 9
influence the outcome of our review.
10 In speaking to the connectivity between the Operating 11 Reactor and New Reactor Business Lines I would like to take this opportunity to 12 address how we've expanded the use of risk-informed decision making for the 13 review of the NuScale Standard Design Approval Application.
14 We used risk insights provided by NuScale to identify review 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> as well as schedules for the staff's review of the application which was 16 commensurate with the risk and safety significance of the issues. We continue 17 to use risk-informed decision making to address complex issues associated 18 with this review. Also, Research has developed a NuScale internal events 19 SPAR model that staff is extensively leveraging to perform sensitivity studies 20 and verify risk insights provided by the applicant for the NuScale SDAA review.
21 This is the first new reactor application where an in-house model is available to 22 support the staff's evaluations.
23 Next slide, please. We continue to demonstrate leveraging 24
20 efficiencies and the use of risk in our reviews via the Risk-Informed Process for 1
Evaluations, or RIPE. RIPE has proven to be a very effective process ensuring 2
that our resources are commensurate with the risk significance of the issues 3
being evaluated in the licensing submittals.
4 In July NRR approved two applications using RIPE. One was 5
for an exemption for Shearon Harris where the staff completed its review with 6
less than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of review time and within the 13-week schedule for an 7
exemption submitted under RIPE.
8 The other was for a license amendment for Palo Verde where 9
the staff issued its SE one week ahead of the scheduled 21 weeks per RIPE 10 and with less than 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> of staff review time for a license amendment 11 request. We expect another RIPE submittal for the staff's review in the first 12 quarter of 2025.
13 We are in the early stages of developing qualitative criteria in 14 addition to the quantitative criteria already in place that could be leveraged for 15 RIPE. We would expand the universe of issues that could be applicable to the 16 process and we look forward to engaging with industry on this approach via a 17 public meeting that we are planning for in early 2025.
18 Next slide, please. In our effort to expand the use of risk-19 informed decision making and the use of probabilistic risk assessment the 20 agency has developed and approved several advanced risk-informed initiatives 21 that provide for additional flexibilities to our licensees while also ensuring that 22 they focus on the most safety-significant issues, thus enhancing our safety 23 focus.
24
21 These initiatives are the Surveillance Frequency Control 1
Program, 10 CFR 50.69, and the risk-informed completion times, just to name a 2
few.
3 To the staff's credit we quickly recognized that our oversight 4
framework did not specifically address PRA configuration control to ensure that 5
the licensees' decisions reflect the current as-built, as-operated plant and that 6
models continue to be updated per the approved and endorsed standards. The 7
agency conducted several external engagements to ensure that the proposed 8
approach was balanced, performance-based, and focused staff and licensee 9
resources on issues of greater safety significance.
10 Through our efforts NRR, with regional support, successfully 11 identified, developed, and implemented a balanced performance-based 12 approach with the oversight of PRA configuration control. By leveraging the 13 PRA configuration control operating -- I'm sorry -- the PRA configuration control 14 operating experience Smart Sample.
15 The Smart Sample is a great approach that focuses our 16 resources on licensees that adopted several of the more impactful risk-informed 17 initiatives such as risk-informed completion times and 50.69.
18 Further, we committed to conduct an assessment of the 19 Smart Samples at the end of each performance year to check and adjust our 20 OpE Smart Sample based on the experience obtained from each use, ensuring 21 a performance-based approach. All these insight will inform the staff's 22 oversight framework in this area which we expect to complete in 2027.
23 Next slide, please. In becoming riskSMARTer we continue to 24
22 leverage all initiatives related to risk-informed decision making internal and 1
external to the agency. We are reinvigorating Be riskSMART as a framework 2
that facilitates the effective management and use of risk for various agency 3
processes. Within the Operating and New Business Lines we continue to 4
develop tools to encourage the use of the five key principles of risk-informed 5
decision making for complex issues as well as to communicate how we have 6
used risk in our decision making.
7 We are also continuing to expand the use of risk-informed 8
licensing processes such as LIC-206, which is the used for the integrated 9
review teams; RIPE; and LIC-504, which is an integrated risk-informed decision 10 making process for emergent issues.
NRR recognizes the 11 importance of positive change management activities to assure that new and 12 existing staff are provided with the guidance, tools, and resources needed to 13 enhance their use of risk-informed decision making.
14 A few examples of NRR's positive change management 15 activities include NRR recently held four RIDM 2.0 workshops for our staff in 16 September. These workshops highlighted the staff's accomplishments in 17 leveraging risk and encouraged the staff's use of risk. Also, NRR will be 18 hosting a public risk workshop with industry in early calendar year 2025 to 19 provide for a KMKT session for new and existing staff on the 10 CFR 50.69 20 reviews as well as the associated oversight activities.
21 Further, we are exploring additional opportunities to ensure 22 resources are focused on the most risk and safety-significant issues to meet the 23 provisions of the ADVANCE Act.
24
23 We continue to benchmark with the international community 1
as well as with our external stakeholders through public meetings and other 2
forums. A few representative examples of these efforts include, we've 3
conducted a bilateral with UK ONR where we shared NRC's perspectives, 4
insights, and initiatives on how we leverage risk in our work. We also 5
conducted a bilateral with CSN, the Spanish regulator, where we shared our 6
PRA configuration control approaches. And lastly, we do participate in the 7
PWR Owners' Group/BWR Owners' Group Risk Management Committee semi-8 annual meetings which allow for a venue to exchange information on risk-9 informed initiatives between the NRC and industry.
10 I will now go to Mirela for closing remarks. Next slide, please.
11 MS. GAVRILAS: Thanks, Meena. We presented sample of 12 examples that improved the application of risk that focused on transparency 13 and the utilization of resources and focused on efficiency and timeliness. And 14 with this we welcome your questions.
15 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Thank you. We're going to begin 16 questions this morning with Commission Crowell.
17 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And 18 thank you to all of our panelists today. You packed a lot into your presentations 19 and I'm going to try to pick out a few things here to follow up on. And if I ask 20 you a question that's more applicable to one of the other panelists, please -- or 21 if it's too hot to handle, you can give it to Mirela.
22 (Laughter.)
23 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Mike, I'll start with you. You 24
24 peaked my interest when you were talking about the new initiative RAAM. Can 1
you just quickly tell me a little bit more about how that's going to work and how 2
it's going to improve things and then if it's going to be best applied in a potential 3
Part 53 context versus 50/52, or if it's agnostic on those in that regard?
4 MR. FRANOVICH: Thank you for your question. I'll start with 5
the reverse, the latter part.
6 The project is right now run by three senior-level advisors 7
between two offices and it focuses largely on Chapter 15 safety analysis where 8
we've had challenging issues in -- primarily in the new reactor area where the 9
risk profiles are very low and you're looking at traditional accident scenarios that 10 are rather prescriptive in the Standard Review Plan. And yet alternatives are 11 being proposed.
12 So this group, its charter is to look at advanced reactors, new 13 reactors, and operating reactors. So the goal is how can these techniques -- if 14 we go barrel down into the area of single active failure criteria, how can they be 15 applied in all three domains? If it works. I mean, there's other work going on in 16 Part 53 as well. But they are interconnected and there is communication going 17 on with the advanced reactor folks as well. So it's all part of the senior-level 18 advisory -- I call it a network because they're agency-level assets or resources.
19 So that's its larger goal focused on Chapter 15 analysis.
20 And when you look at the issues such as crediting of non-21 safety systems, that's a huge push for new reactor vendors and advanced 22 reactor vendors. They're particularly interested in it for economic reasons. If 23 they can demonstrate a certain level of reliability and say, you know, some of 24
25 these prescriptive type of events that you look at for Chapter 15 that are maybe 1
more frequent but there's lots of levels of defense to protect -- do you need to 2
have all that safety-related or can I show you through a compelling case that a 3
combination of non-safety-related equipment -- if it's maintained properly 4
through augmented quality, that might be sufficient.
5 So it's an exploratory work right now because it's at an 6
embryonic stage. It's been socialized with the three -- I call them three tracks --
7 advanced, the new reactor community, and operating fleet. And we got some 8
valuable feedback from different stakeholders. For example, the operating 9
reactor fleet says, hey, there may be more benefits to the single active failure 10 criterion treatment that you're not realizing, so we would like to see more work 11 in that area from a prioritization.
12 The new reactor community looks at it and says, yes, we 13 could use this guidance but let me suggest some ways of expediting that; for 14 example, use of interim staff guidance documents to get that out on the street 15 so they have something to say, okay, there's some regulatory picture and 16 footprint in this area.
17 That's a little bit of a long answer, but it --
18 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: I appreciate it. And I knew it 19 would be a long answer and I was interested in hearing it. It sounds like it's 20 focused in the right direction, so I'll be interested to see how it plays out going 21 forward. So thanks, Mike.
22 Jamie, turning to you, so for these restarts you mentioned 23 Palisades will help inform other similar efforts that have been announced or 24
26 may come along. But each restart is unique in its own right, you know, the 1
condition of the plant and its operating lifetime and then how long it had been 2
not operating or how far into decommission it went. So I'm kind of curious, how 3
much is one restart or recommissioning effort going to really inform the others if 4
there's a big discrepancy in the state of the plant or the experience of the 5
operator?
6 MS. PELTON: That's a great question. Thank you. So what 7
I can say for Palisades was fundamentally it -- we've laid the framework for the 8
exemption process for an exemption from 50.82. And the basic amendments 9
that are typical for plants that go from in-operation to a decommissioning status.
10 With that said, you're exactly right. Each plant may have chosen a slightly 11 different path or had different licensing actions or different paths to 12 decommissioning that we need to evaluate as each potential restart comes in.
13 In terms of plant condition, resources will be different from 14 regional inspections: how the regions respond, what activities need to be done, 15 and what needs to be overseen focusing on the most risk and safety-significant 16 areas. And as such, as we engage with Holtec, Constellation, and any potential 17 future applicant we'll evaluate those scenarios and adjust accordingly.
18 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Are you concerned about any 19 discrepancies and how one region versus another may have performed their 20 work to date or is -- looking at the current prospects for restart is there a 21 consistency issue we need to worry about across regions and how we're 22 looking at restarts?
23 MS. PELTON: So one of the things that we've done -- I 24
27 mentioned the Palisades Restart Panel. And the inspection manual chapter 1
that we've established for transitioning plants from decommissioning to restart 2
lays out a framework for establishing a panel between headquarters with 3
representation from the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, the Division of 4
Reactor Oversight, and the particular region to help ensure that consistency.
5 So those panels -- we have not yet established the Crane 6
Clean Energy Center Panel, but we're in close communication with Region I.
7 We're in close communication with Region III. And we are all working together 8
to make sure that we are consistent.
9 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And for an instance like 10 Palisades where they're looking at restart and I think also license renewal in the 11 near term -- maybe I'm confusing plants, but they're also looking at potentially 12 co-locating advanced reactors on the same site. How does that either 13 complicate or lengthen the review or approval process? What impact does that 14 prospect of new build advanced reactors on the same site as a restart?
15 MS. PELTON: Right. So I'll speak to the Palisades example.
16 Holtec is engaged with DRNL for the potential placement of small modular 17 reactors on the site. So there are environmental considerations that are 18 considered for the restart project. NMSS/REFS looks at the current action and 19 what's potentially foreseeable. So that will be factored in to the environmental 20 assessment that's being done. But from a safety review they're independent 21 reviews. So we're conducting the safety review of the potential restart 22 independently. I believe Holtec had stated March of 2026 they would come in 23 for subsequent license renewal and they would follow each of those licensing 24
28 processes separately.
1 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: At our most recent meeting 2
with ACRS when we talked about license renewal and subsequent license 3
renewal we kind of came up with what I thought was an apt analogy of it's kind 4
of like going to the doctor as you get older. But each person that goes to the 5
doctor is going to have a different result from their checkup depending on how 6
well they're taking care of themselves, their genetics that are not within their 7
control, and things like that.
8 So is that an applicable analogy for license renewal and how 9
do we manage expectations with the regulated community in terms of 10 expectations for license renewal when it could be very different depending on 11 the state of their individual health when they come for license renewal?
12 MS. PELTON: If I could defer Lauren.
13 MS. GIBSON: Are you referring to just the plants that are 14 restarting or overall?
15 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Overall.
16 MS. GIBSON: Overall?
17 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Actually put aside the plants 18 that are restarting and just talk about ones that are operating and looking for 19 license extensions. I mean, they've all had a different experience leading up to 20 license renewal so there are similarities, but there's differences. And I'm just 21 wondering how we're incorporating those differences.
22 MS. GIBSON: Yes, that is part of our normal review. We look 23 a lot at the operating experience, not just from the plant, but also what's been 24
29 happening at the plant to determine if the generic aging lessons learned 1
programs are still appropriate for the plant. And we make adjustments as 2
necessary for that.
3 And there are also additional AMPs that we require going 4
from 60 to 80 years that we didn't require for 40 to 60. Consistent with going to 5
the doctor when you're older, you may need additional things as well.
6 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And are there any issues 7
related to consistency across regions as we look at this -- as we look at license 8
renewal for plants in all four of our regions?
9 MS. GIBSON: I'm not aware of any major inconsistencies.
10 We do have a group that meets, all of the four regions together with 11 headquarters, in order to discuss current inspections that are ongoing and 12 disposition of any concerns that arise.
13 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Great. I'm out of time, but I 14 appreciate everyone's input. Thank you.
15 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Crowell. Good 16 morning, everybody. Thanks for being here. Thanks for your presentations. I 17 think there's a lot of really positive forward momentum and just want to thank 18 the staff for all your efforts in this area.
19 Jamie, if I could start with you, I want to pick up on --
20 Commissioner Crowell was talking about RAAM, this Reactor Analysis 21 Assessment Modernization. What's the relationship of that going to be to power 22 uprates?
23 MS. PELTON: I think I'm going to defer to Mike.
24
30 MR. FRANOVICH: The short answer is I'm not sure the 1
scope of the team looked at that aspect quite yet about power uprates. I mean, 2
on power uprates you'd have to make the cases as an applicant that your 3
envelopes for performance and safety margins and defense-in-depth -- those all 4
have to be preserved.
5 Is there a nexus between the target areas that they're looking 6
at that could provide relief? I would say -- and I should clarify when I say 7
there's a nexus. There are mentions in the report about, for example, the 8
increased enrichment rulemaking effort, but what the group said is that is an 9
ongoing effort. And rather than this smaller group focus on that, which would 10 add more resources -- those resources are already being applied.
11 So for example, if we're looking at the treatment of large 12 break LOCA -- that was one of the topical areas they looked at and they said 13 the motion -- the wheels are in process of looking at that already in the reg 14 basis for the rulemaking as well as the rulemaking guidance and the Regulatory 15 Guides that are being written. Therefore, they did not recommend that we 16 apply effort in that area.
17 So they did do a systematic look at the things that are being 18 actively worked on, but that one in particular they said, look, there's already an 19 infrastructure in place to look at it and proposals that are being developed and 20 therefore we don't think we need to go spend the resources on that.
21 And so they were using a very resourced and focused effort 22 to say are we duplicating? Is this helpful or not? What areas are not being 23 focused on as much? Maybe the single-failure-to-act criteria could be an areas 24
31 where -- with the level of effort not being as significant and duplicative. So it's 1
baked into what they looked at, but they didn't go and say we're going to do a 2
de novo review of that area.
3 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. This is kind of the first time I've 4
been learning about this. I'm really keenly interested in that. And if you think 5
about -- again, this is at a very, very high level for me, but if you're thinking 6
about increased enrichment, higher burnup, the idea of bundling that with 7
power uprate applications, right, that's part of the LAR bundling that we've been 8
talking about, right, because the analysis is so similar.
9 Well, what is that analysis? Obviously it's a lot of the 10 defense-in-depth and other kinds of safety systems that come into play, but it's 11 also that reactor analysis itself. And so if we're modernizing that, how do these 12 things ultimately -- I would hope at least from my reasonably high level that at 13 some point they'll kind of come together. And just maybe we can continue to 14 hear more about that going forward.
15 MR. FRANOVICH: There's connectivity. It's actually 16 interesting. It's the same community of people working on it, which is a real 17 advantage. The other thing I want to just clarify in power uprates, not all 18 applicants that we've had pre-application discussions with will be depending on 19 high burnup or increased enrichment.
20 CHAIR HANSON: Well, I understand.
21 MR. FRANOVICH: There are some that said, hey look, I don't 22 need that for my facility and what I intend to do.
23 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. I want to tee off that. I'm going to 24
32 try to come back to Jamie. I noticed for the reactors that want to pursue both 1
the increased enrichment and increased burnup that potentially there's some 2
efficiencies to achieve by bundling those with your extended power uprate 3
applications. But what about the folks who are -- maybe there's a mismatch in 4
terms of the timing or availability of higher enriched fuel to be able to put into 5
the reactor?
6 If they want to do an extended power uprate now, they're 7
going to do that reactor systems analysis now, can that analysis then be 8
leveraged down the road, I mean, as part of the efficiency effort. We're talking 9
about bundling, right, so there's some overlap in the amount of analysis, but if 10 the timing doesn't work for some applicants, do they have to kind of start over if 11 they come for enriched burnup -- increased enrichment or can they leverage 12 what had probably reasonably recently already been done?
13 MS. PELTON: So in general we're extremely focused on 14 where we can be as efficient as possible in these reviews. Key to that is ample 15 preapplication engagement. So we understand exactly what each applicant, 16 what each utility is looking for in a power uprate. So were an applicant or a 17 utility to request something like that, that upfront engagement would be very 18 important to ensure that we were all on the same page so we could have the 19 most efficient review possible.
20 CHAIR HANSON: I see. Okay.
21 MS. GAVRILAS: I'm going to help out a little bit in this area, if 22 I may. So there are certain aspects that are unique to each type of fuel, let 23 alone to fuel that has different enrichment.
24
33 CHAIR HANSON: Right.
1 MS. GAVRILAS: But the staff is able to isolate those aspects 2
and only do the analysis that need to be done given the changing conditions.
3 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Thanks. Lauren, if I could turn to 4
you, if I remember some of the information that's come to the Commission, 5
Dresden and Clinton are the most recent SLR applications we've gotten.
6 MS. GIBSON: Yes.
7 CHAIR HANSON: And obviously the Commission directed 8
staff to target 14,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />, right? Fourteen is the ceiling, not the floor.
9 MS. GIBSON: Yes.
10 CHAIR HANSON: And so what is the schedule then for 11 Clinton and Dresden?
12 MS. GIBSON: Clinton --
13 CHAIR HANSON: The resource estimate. Excuse me. Are 14 they meeting --
15 MS. GIBSON: Dresden is 14,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />.
16 CHAIR HANSON: Yes.
17 MS. GIBSON: I believe Clinton is, too, but I would have to go 18 back.
19 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. All right. Yes.
20 MS. GIBSON: Yes, as soon as that SRM came out, we made 21 it work so that could be --
22 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. All right. Good. Without sacrificing 23 safety obviously.
24
34 MS. GIBSON: Obviously.
1 CHAIR HANSON: And then what are we doing -- we have a 2
number of these things in process at various stages of review. Can you talk a 3
little bit about how the Commission's direction is being applied to the things --
4 you referenced it obliquely, but could you get into a couple of details about how 5
the Commission's direction is being applied to the things that are maybe six 6
months or a year or something into the SLR review?
7 MS. GIBSON: Yes, we are looking at schedules. And when 8
we're able to tighten them up, we are tightening then up. We are using the 9
project management processes that we've developed on those ones. For 10 example, combining all the audit reports. Some of those administrative burdens 11 that we've identified we're able to apply across the board as they go.
12 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Yes, we encourage staff to 13 continue to do that.
14 MS. GIBSON: Yes.
15 CHAIR HANSON: And, Mirela, you're going to reference a 16 slide that I'm actually going to turn to next, I think, maybe on slide 15, that's 17 important. I don't know if you want to jump in here.
18 MS. GAVRILAS: So I just wanted to say that I'm excited 19 about what appears on slide 15 because it actually has factors that are rather 20 specific that will be considered in determining what kind of approach, and then 21 it also specifies what approach is going to be taken for things that are 22 considered high, medium, and low significance. So I'm looking forward to 23 seeing what's going to happen, but that's being piloted now. That's being 24
35 applied now. So we don't have information.
1 CHAIR HANSON: So I think it's great that we were talking 2
about high, medium, and low safety significance in this, but can I just run 3
something by you? I mean, just because something is of high safety 4
significance doesn't mean that we don't have a lot of experience or a lot of 5
knowledge in house or whatever, right? I mean, at some point the relationship 6
between safety significance and review focus or review resources is not linear, 7
right? Because we have a tremendous amount of experience, we have a lot of 8
knowledge, we have a lot of data. Is that fair?
9 MS. GAVRILAS: Absolutely.
10 CHAIR HANSON: Okay.
11 MS. GAVRILAS: And we believe that the staff's approach 12 actually credits the maturity of programs in actually determining the level of 13 review and what's going to be reviewed.
14 CHAIR HANSON: Yes, I would certainly expect it to.
15 MS. GAVRILAS: Yes.
16 CHAIR HANSON: Right.
17 MS. GIBSON: And so risk significance is one of many factors 18 that is considered.
19 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Very good. Man, I got a whole 20 minute left.
21 Okay. So, Jamie, on slide 12 -- so I think it's great that the 22 staff has kind of moved away from this blanket 12-month standard thing for 23 approvals, right, and actually said, no, we're going to look at this thing and 24
36 we're going to come up with something that we think is realistic.
1 The next question, which I don't think is on this slide, then is, 2
okay, I set six months for this; I set nine months for that; how close did I come?
3 What's the actual cost in schedule performance, right, getting into those project 4
management principles we were talking about. I think Meena talked about 5
those a little bit, right?
6 So how are we -- it's not in this slide, I don't think. So how are 7
we doing?
8 MS. PELTON: So we've met the metric for FY '24. So the 9
metric is again between 75 and 115 percent of the schedule accuracy, and over 10 80 percent of your actions were within that range. So we met the metric and we 11 were actually 92 or 93 percent accurate with our schedules.
12 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. I think as data display that would 13 have been here. I think that could have been a pretty great message.
14 MS. PELTON: Thank you.
15 CHAIR HANSON: All right. Thank you.
16 All right. With that, I'll hand it over to Commissioner Wright.
17 Commissioner Wright, you still out there?
18 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: I am still here.
19 CHAIR HANSON: Fantastic.
20 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes. Thank you for the 21 presentations today. I know it takes a lot of work to put these meetings 22 together. And it takes a lot of people to help back you up, so thank you to your 23 teams for preparing you.
24
37 I want to pick up on the last thing, Chair, just to follow back 1
up. That last slide that was shown, you're talking generally into percentages of 2
actions. Are there numbers that back that up as far as like how many actions?
3 You, now, 61 percent of 5 isn't a lot, but 61 percent of 100 is a whole other 4
number, right? So do you have those numbers, too?
5 MS. PELTON: Yes, I don't have the exact number in front of 6
me, but the number is on the order of hundreds versus single digits. So it was 7
a substantial change.
8 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: And that's what I was trying to 9
understand, that part. And we may reach out for that.
10 Mike, I'm going to come to you right now. You spoke about 11 operating reactors are leveraging data and identifying opportunities to improve 12 the reviews. Can you tell me a little bit more about how the efforts are going?
13 What kind of improvements are we seeing?
14 MR. FRANOVICH: Well, I'll give you more of a personal 15 perspective. I would say when we use the data -- and we're talking about --
16 make sure I have an understanding of your question -- the operating data in 17 terms of the performance of the staff in terms of hours spent on the review of 18 each project. What I see is not only do we have our periodic workload 19 management meetings, but we have -- also individual project managers meet to 20 monitor their projects. So we have instances where we have seen project 21 managers say look, you know, the burn rate on this project is starting to be very 22 high.
23 And we want to intervene because we do have checkpoints 24
38 that says if you're deviating by a certain forecast and going above a certain 1
amount of hours, you need management approval to do that. We should not be 2
proceeding down a track that says at the end we're way off of our estimate and 3
we didn't -- we missed our opportunity to intervene.
4 Some of that intervention may be, hey, wait a minute, there 5
are challenges there with the applicant and we need to have a public meeting 6
on this. Maybe our RAIs aren't clear, or they are clear, but there are challenges 7
in ability for the applicant to actually respond for numerous reasons.
8 Organizations have a number of reasons.
9 So I see it being used in a live sense. it still requires a lot of 10 diligence and oversight to make sure it's happening, not just at the individual 11 PM level, but also through the management reviews and the monthly workload 12 management forums that we use.
13 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay.
14 MR. FRANOVICH: I don't think that's --
15 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you.
16 (Simultaneous speaking.)
17 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes, I think, I mean, it could be 18 anything. I think it's all of the above, the things that you're talking about. I 19 mean, we're looking -- if we're leveraging data somewhere and we're identifying 20 opportunities, that could be about anywhere. So I thank you for your answer.
21 I'm going to switch to the Reactor Accident Analysis 22 Modernization Project you spoke about a little bit. And it's a pretty -- I don't 23 know that I heard it. If I did, I'm sorry. If you mentioned it and I missed it, I'm 24
39 sorry, but when will these improvements to the reactor analysis methods --
1 when will they be in place? And I guess what is the proposed timeline for 2
implementation?
3 MR. FRANOVICH: Great question. So, right now, we're at a 4
decision-making point where the working group has briefed the NRR executive 5
team. And we have to come to decision points of the four items they distill 6
down. Which ones do we want to give higher priority and set the team in 7
motion to develop an implementation plan?
8 There are some items that we think could be done in a shorter 9
term, within a span -- within less than a year and others that may take longer.
10 Because the thing we have to offset is where are those resources coming from 11 that are currently dedicated, the experts, to doing active reviews? And so that's 12 the part we haven't worked on yet. That's still to come.
13 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay. Do you have an idea of 14 the timeline? Maybe can you give me a target?
15 MR. FRANOVICH: Well, I think if we look at the single active 16 failure criteria -- and that's -- I mean, I don't want to overstate because I have to 17 work with my colleagues -- I think that some draft form of guidance could be 18 done within the next year.
19 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay. Thank you.
20 Jamie, thank you for your presentation. I know Palisades is a 21 very interesting and a hot topic. We've gotten a lot of good feedback. And I've 22 heard feedback from external stakeholders in this area as well. How is this 23 project -- if at all, how is it I guess affected by the ADVANCE Act? And if it is, 24
40 how is the Core Team approaching it?
1 MS. PELTON: So, fundamentally, my view of the ADVANCE 2
Act is ensuring that we conduct our activities as efficiently as possible with 3
safety at the forefront, and with the communication that we've had across 4
organizations, with Palisades, we all have that same focus.
5 So, for example, in the safety review, one of the things that 6
we thought about early on is the plant was operating safely two years ago, and 7
in a licensing basis, that was safe and demonstrated to be safe two years ago.
8 So, we are focusing the review on those things that are different.
9 And so, if changes are proposed, if things have changed over 10 the last two and a half years since the plant shut down, those are the areas 11 where we are focusing our review. So, that's from the licensing perspective.
12 From an inspection perspective, the Region III team is 13 focusing on those areas that are most risk significant, and those fundamentals 14 are outlined in the manual chapter. So, all of those things put safety at the 15 forefront with an eye towards efficiency in accordance with the ADVANCE Act.
16 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Right, okay. I got one general 17 question here. Your metrics, you said you hit 92 percent, 95 percent, 18 somewhere like that. Is that correct?
19 MS. PELTON: Yes, for schedule accuracy, yes.
20 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay.
21 MS. PELTON: For FY24, thank you.
22 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Right, so, and I think it's a good 23 number, right? You all should be pleased and happy with that, but when you 24
41 get to like a 92, 95, 97, you know, percent hit, do you think that maybe it might 1
be time to take a look at the metric? Are you measuring the right stuff? Is there 2
something you can -- I mean, you know what I'm saying?
3 MS. PELTON: Yeah, so actually let me correct one thing I 4
said. So, 80 percent of our actions fell within that window, and I don't want to 5
get too much into the exact numbers because I don't have them right in front of 6
me, but fundamentally, your point is that we need to set stretch goals, and that 7
is one thing that our team in DORL, that we work with EMBARK and across the 8
offices. We're continually evaluating our data and seeing where can we stretch 9
ourselves?
10 So, what I'm so proud of the team for is in that change of 11 metric, it has shown positive progress in just one year of implementation, so 12 that shows that setting stretch goals works, and we're continually evaluating.
13 And as part of the ADVANCE Act Section 505 team, we are looking at where 14 can we stretch ourselves? So.
15 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Well, that's encouraging.
16 MS. GAVRILAS: If I may just chime in?
17 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Sure.
18 MS. GAVRILAS: Those generic milestones that we had, we 19 inherited them from the time when we didn't have computers and we didn't have 20 the ability to track not just resources, but milestone-related resources for 21 absolutely every action.
22 So, now we have those and we plan on leveraging those to 23 adjust generic milestones should that become necessary, and to also -- but 24
42 most to personalize the milestones according to each project that's in front of 1
us.
2 So, rather than saying I'll need 12 months for this project, if 3
we need eight months, just say eight months, and track resources and timelines 4
towards the completion of that individual project. Thank you.
5 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, Mirela.
6 MR. FRANOVICH: If I may add, I think the strength of that 7
system is -- you know, there's a tendency to overestimate. It happens in 8
numerous areas, budgeting. It's the inherent nature of the engineers to be 9
conservative, but that's not good if you're trying to optimize the performance of 10 an organization.
11 You need to be -- you know, you don't want to be delayed, but 12 if you're overestimating the amount of resources -- so this new system allows 13 us to challenge that piece. So, you achieved it in half the time than you 14 forecasted. That's great. On the other hand, your estimation wasn't very good, 15 so you have to roll that back into the next project.
16 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Exactly. I mean, that's kind of 17 the point, right? You want to keep, you always want to keep refreshing, right, 18 when you can and where you can. I appreciate it. That's good information.
19 And Chair, I'm out of time, so I'll pass it off.
20 CHAIR HANSON: Okay, thank you, Commissioner Wright.
21 Commissioner Caputo?
22 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Good morning. Thank you all 23 for your presentations. It's good to hear about a reinvigorated focus on 24
43 efficiency, particularly in the wake of the ADVANCE Act. I want to align myself 1
with the Chairman's remarks about there seems to be a lot of forward 2
momentum mentioned here and a focus on efficiency.
3 I'm glad to hear about the Reactor Accident Analysis 4
Modernization project. It's gotten a fair amount of attention this morning. I 5
hope it's building on the lessons of SOARCA in moving that area forward.
6 As an agency, we aspire to be a modern, risk-informed 7
regulator, and this is reflected in our efficiency principle which states 8
Regulatory activities should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction 9
achieved, so the staff has discussed several stellar examples of that this 10 morning.
11 We also espouse data driven decision making, which the staff 12 has also described repeatedly this morning, consistent with our reliability 13 principle which states Once established, regulations should be perceived to be 14 reliable and not unjustifiably in a state of transition.
15 Probabilistic risk assessment or PRA is a valuable tool to 16 inform our regulatory activities. As noted in the Commission's PRA policy 17 statement, it should be used in regulatory matters, where practical, to reduce 18 unnecessary conservatisms and to support the proposal of additional regulatory 19 requirements in accordance with the backfit rule.
20 Unfortunately, we have situations where the staff is elevating 21 PRA beyond its use as a tool to the level of a regulatory requirement, creating a 22 compliance regime in and of itself. Part 52 requires that a PRA must be 23 upgraded every four years regardless of whether any new standards are issued 24
44 during that time.
1 This goes well beyond the PRA configuration control that Ms.
2 Khanna mentioned and creates work for both the NRC and the licensee PRA 3
experts without a clearly defined safety benefit. In fact, a review of the Part 52 4
rulemaking preamble shows an indication of a view of PRA as an end to itself 5
rather than a tool to reduce unnecessary conservatisms.
6 The preamble highlights the thinking at the time that the 7
agency expected everyone to continually upgrade PRA codes and standards to 8
improve their quality and comprehensiveness, but without any mention of safety 9
benefit.
10 The Part 50-52 alignment proposal pending before the 11 Commission includes an expansion of this requirement into Part 50, once 12 again, ironically, without a clear analysis demonstrating the safety benefit of 13 doing so and contrary to the backfit rule.
14 This will likely impose significant regulatory burden since 15 approvals and modifications can incur significant debate over the model itself, 16 the assumptions made, the treatment of uncertainties, and what constitutes 17 compliance. As an example, look no further than the significance determination 18 process within the ROP itself.
19 Adding this requirement to Part 50 becomes a backfit on 20 existing licensees which has not been analyzed. With regard to new reactors, 21 companies developing license applications under Part 50 would be confronted 22 with a rule that is unjustifiably in a state of transition by adding requirements 23 that lack a corresponding safety benefit.
24
45 PRA requirement can be a hurdle for some novel 1
technologies that lack an operating history substantial enough to support a 2
PRA. The ACRS is on record noting that an alternative evaluation of risk 3
insights proposed in a Part 53 rulemaking should be expanded to Parts 50 and 4
- 52. In the case of microreactors, the ADVANCE Act instructs the agency to do 5
just that.
6 More isn't always better. Sometimes it's just more. PRA is a 7
valuable tool, but any effort to expand it beyond that should be based on a 8
data-driven decision demonstrating substantial safety benefits that are cost 9
justified in accordance with the backfit rule. Otherwise, the agency undermines 10 its efficiency and regulatory reliability, contrary to congressional direction in the 11 ADVANCE Act.
12 I believe it is time for the staff to take a hard look at what 13 constitutes an appropriate role of PRA in general. At a minimum, there should 14 be a thorough backfit analysis of costs and benefits before expanding PRA 15 requirements or endorsing new PRA standards. Mike, can you tell me whether 16 or how the staff considers those costs and benefits?
17 MR. FRANOVICH: May I ask a little clarification because 18 there's a little bit I have to unpack? In the context of the 50-52 rulemaking 19 itself? Okay.
20 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: In the context of PRA 21 requirements as a compliance mechanism, as a compliance requirement.
22 MR. FRANOVICH: Yeah, in the current operating fleet, as 23 you know, without the 50-52 rulemaking, unless you voluntarily sign up for 24
46 50.69, there really is no mandate for PRA specifically in the regulations. That's 1
known.
2 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Yet.
3 MR. FRANOVICH: And yet we've shown that we can 4
effectively implement a number of risk-informed regulations without having the 5
PRA requirement.
6 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Yes.
7 MR. FRANOVICH: So, the maintenance rule is an excellent 8
example.
9 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Yes.
10 MR. FRANOVICH: It does not say you have to have a PRA.
11 In practice, they're there and they're used, and so --
12 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: As a tool.
13 MR. FRANOVICH: -- we have shown -- yes, and a vital tool 14 for the daily operation for maintenance taking equipment out of service. In 15 terms of the licensing of new reactors, I can't tell you and I haven't studied the 16 construct of the 50-52 rulemaking package that went up in terms of is that 17 specifically analyzed as a deaggregated item in the rulemaking. That's 18 something I personally would have to go back and look at.
19 In terms of the maintenance and periodicity of PRAs and 20 things like that, I think we do have an opportunity here, through the current 21 inspection activities going on that Meena mentioned, to say hey, look, if we've 22 been prescriptive to say how often you need to maintain and update your PRA, 23 or upgrade it --
24
47 Because there's a standard there. If you upgrade, it triggers 1
more review by industry peer review. Have we really gotten what we needed 2
out of that? If things are stable and the practices are fine, then maybe we 3
should feed that back into our process, but I would have to go back, to be 4
honest with you, to go study that 50-52 rulemaking and understand --
5 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you. Thank you. So, the 6
Chairman and Commissioner Wright both raised Jamie's slide 15 and the 7
metrics. I really want to commend the effort to develop what I would consider a 8
bonafide metric, and I appreciate and recognize the intent of pursuing stretch 9
goals.
10 I do want to just make a comment reflecting on Project AIM 11 from almost ten years ago, that 85 percent of license amendment reviews 12 require 300 hours0.00347 days <br />0.0833 hours <br />4.960317e-4 weeks <br />1.1415e-4 months <br /> or less. So, I would hope that that business process review 13 forms an input to how to size goals appropriately, because I think that might 14 drag some of those time frames down a little bit more toward efficiency.
15 Lauren, a quick question for you. You talked a lot about the 16 Commission's direction and how license renewal efficiencies are being pursued.
17 Historically, the agency executed 12 license renewal reviews at a time.
18 At this point, the agency has positioned itself to handle only 19 six. Is that under reconsideration? Because we heard from former EDO Luis 20 Reyes yesterday that the agency was anticipating and preparing for subsequent 21 license renewals as far back as 2008.
22 So, this is a wave of work that we have known about for a 23 very long time and prepared for, for a very long time, and it seems to be quite a 24
48 question for me that, given the technology in place now compared to our 1
knowledge, experience, and tools from 20 years ago, that we would have a 2
hard time achieving a similar rate of review.
3 MS. GIBSON: We are addressing that issue. We are trying 4
to come up with ways to be able to work on more reviews at the same time, 5
especially since it does not appear that industry will be able to stagger their 6
applications to the extent that would have been necessary to meet that. So, I 7
don't have an answer for you today about exactly how, but I can tell you that 8
that is on our mind and we're trying to tackle it.
9 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: I think one of the things that I 10 have a concern about is just the nature of the fact that this is a workload wave 11 that we've known is coming. There is workload out there that we didn't 12 necessarily foresee, like power uprates, and plus increasing expectations on 13 new reactor work.
14 So, to the extent that there is room to improve the nature of 15 how we manage that workload that we know about, I think it behooves the 16 agency to position itself as well as possible given the nature of the fact that our 17 workload going forward may have a measure of unpredictability to it that we've 18 not seen before.
19 MR. FRANOVICH: Commissioner, if I may add, I think the 20 other thing we need to overlay is, so we're forecasting efficiencies. While 21 workload anticipated is coming in, the offset is if we achieve these efficiencies, 22 what does that picture look like?
23 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Exactly, thank you.
24
49 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Caputo.
1 All right, we've reached the end of our first panel. Thanks to 2
all of our presenters this morning. We're going to take a short break. Why 3
don't we reconvene a little after 10:25, some place in there? And thanks, 4
everybody, again.
5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 6
10:17 a.m. and resumed at 10:30 a.m.)
7 CHAIR HANSON: Okay, we're back. We're going to have the 8
second panel for the New Reactor Business Line. And with that, I'll hand it over 9
to you, Mirela. Thank you.
10 MS. GAVRILAS: Good morning, and again, I'm going to ask 11 all of the speakers to introduce themselves, and we're going to dive right in 12 because we have a lot to discuss. Thank you.
13 MR. BOWMAN: Thank you, Mirela. My name is Greg 14 Bowman. I'm a Deputy Office Director for New Reactors at NRR. Good 15 morning, Chair Hanson and Commissioners. I'm very happy to be here this 16 morning to talk about our performance in the New Reactor Business Line. Our 17 speakers this morning will cover several important business line activities, focus 18 areas, and accomplishments, with an emphasis on our progress towards 19 addressing our strategic priorities. Next slide, please.
20 So, as you'll hear in our presentation, the new reactor 21 business line has successfully completed a significant number of activities. Our 22 success to date has been driven by proactive and deliberate foundation building 23 to ensure we're ready to license new reactors.
24
50 To highlight some of the key accomplishments for the 1
business line over the last several years, we continued to work with our federal 2
partners, such as DOE and DHS, to complete ten MOUs focused on advanced 3
reactor collaboration. We worked with our international counterparts and 4
issued eight joint reports with Canada on small modular reactor technology.
5 The staff addressed more than 35 policy issues and 6
developed more than 60 guidance documents to provide clarity for the industry 7
with their applications. We engaged with more than 20 vendors in pre-8 application activities, and new policy issues identified through those 9
engagements are being considered by the Commission or assessed by the 10 staff.
We held more than 140 public engagements each year on 11 advanced reactor topics, including workshops. We reviewed more than 90 12 topical reports and white papers, and those reviews were completed, on 13 average, more than 30 percent faster than the generic schedule.
14 And we also issued the Kairos Hermes 1 and Abilene 15 Christian University construction permits, and completed the associated safety 16 reviews faster than the generic schedule and with fewer resources than 17 estimated.
18 Now, none of those accomplishments would have been 19 realized without outstanding collaboration between NRR, Research, NMSS, 20 NSIR, OPA, OGC, and all our other partners. Continued collaboration will be 21 critical for our future success.
22 For example, we're working with Research to complete 23 advanced reactor reference plant models, enabling us to leverage enhanced 24
51 analytical tools and computer codes to conduct efficient, independent 1
assessments for a variety of advanced reactors. We're also working closely 2
with NSIR on new approaches being considered by applicants for physical 3
security, cyber security, and emergency preparedness.
4 And finally, since the summer of 2023, through coordination 5
with OPA, OCIO, and OEDO, we've established a communication strategy to 6
advertise that the NRC is advanced reactor ready. We continue to use this 7
strategy to highlight the work we've done and set the stage for a lot of 8
opportunities for future accomplishments. Next slide, please.
9 So, similar to what you heard from Mike in the previous panel, 10 on this slide, we've highlighted our top three priorities for the safe and secure 11 execution and the new reactor business line. We're addressing those priorities 12 by improving the use of data and risk insights to enhance our decision making 13 by focusing on hiring, developing, and retaining our workforce, and by 14 continuing to optimize our processes.
15 The new reactor business line was successful in 2024 and 16 we're ready for the future. However, we're certainly not declaring victory. We 17 understand we need to build on what we achieved and further incorporate 18 efficiencies into how we work.
19 So, key focus areas for us going forward include using the 20 lessons we've learned over the last year where we completed a number of first-21 of-a-kind reviews to improve our performance on future reviews, using the Be 22 riskSMART framework to establish a graded approach for our reviews where 23 we're focusing on key safety and risk significant areas, and plan project 24
52 management tools and data analytics in an innovative manner to obtain real-1 time information to support resource management and timely resolution of 2
project challenges, transforming how we communicate with both internal and 3
external stakeholders to ensure that all stakeholders are getting the information 4
they need in a form that's useful to them, continuing to support pre-application 5
engagements, which have been critical to both enabling high-quality 6
applications and supporting early identification of new technical and regulatory 7
issues so they can be addressed proactively, continuing with implementation of 8
core and integrated review teams, and finally, adapting, assessing, and quickly 9
adjusting to fact-of-life changes to we can allocate resources where needed.
10 Next slide, please.
11 So, as we all know, the ADVANCE Act that was passed 12 earlier this year requires us to take a number of actions, including several 13 associated with new reactor licensing, while maintaining our core mission of 14 protecting public health and safety. The Act sends a strong message of 15 bipartisan support for new and advanced reactor deployment in the U.S., and it 16 acknowledges the important role of the NRC in that deployment to enable us to 17 meet existing and future energy demands in this country.
18 So, this slide shows some of the key provisions of the 19 ADVANCE Act that are directly relevant to the new reactor business line. We're 20 in the early stages of implementing many of the provisions of the Act, but we're 21 already seeing tangible results.
22 For example, the working group for Section 206 of the 23 ADVANCE Act which deals with brownfield site licensing has identified potential 24
53 modifications to our regulatory approaches to streamline licensing reviews at 1
those sites, including for environmental reviews.
2 We've initiated an engagement with DOE to establish an 3
MOU associated with advanced nuclear fuels. The MOU will augment existing 4
MOUs and streamline processes for interagency collaboration. A draft of the 5
MOU is currently under DOE review.
6 And we've been working with OCFO to develop the necessary 7
accounting structure to ensure timely and effective implementation of Section 8
201 of the Act, which established reduced hourly rates for advanced reactor 9
applicants and pre-applicants beginning in fiscal year 2026.
10 Of course, we're also continuing to see progress on activities 11 that were underway before the ADVANCE Act, but that directly support its 12 objectives. For example, we made progress on key rulemaking activities for 13 advanced reactors, including Part 53, and rules on EP and physical security.
14 We've made progress in developing a graded and risk-informed approach for 15 advanced reactor construction oversight.
We've developed and 16 issued guidance for contents of applications for advanced reactors, and we've 17 established challenging metrics and milestones to support timely reviews and 18 better enable us to hold ourselves accountable for carrying out our mission 19 efficiently.
20 Engagement with our external stakeholders, including 21 industry and our federal partners, is also critical to successful implementation of 22 the Act. We've already benefitted from extensive feedback related to advanced 23 reactors, and we expect that to continue into the future.
24
54 So, while effective implementation of all of the new 1
requirements in the ADVANCE Act will necessitate a lot of hard work and 2
outside the box thinking, I'm confident that the investment we make today will 3
ultimately enable the business line and the agency to significantly improve how 4
we achieve our mission into the future. Now I'll turn the presentation over to 5
Jeremy to provide additional information on activities related to advanced 6
reactors.
7 MR. BOWEN: Thanks, Greg. Good morning, Chair Hanson 8
and Commissioners. My name is Jeremy Bowen. I'm the Director of the 9
Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-power Production and Utilization 10 Facilities. We need a shorter name.
11 As Greg shared, the new and advanced reactor programs 12 have had many notable successes over the past year thanks to the cooperative 13 and innovative thinking across the agency. We recognize there are still 14 challenges to address, but recent achievements further reinforce the agency's 15 readiness and capability to license advance reactors in a timely and predictable 16 manner. Next slide, please.
17 This slide highlights some of the key milestones of our 18 regulatory framework development in the past year. First, the staff revised the 19 draft Part 53 rule, consistent with Commission direction, and it was issued for 20 public comment on October 31.
21 Since its inception, the rule has benefitted from stakeholder 22 feedback, and the staff looks forward to this latest round of engagement and 23 applying lessons learned from prior interactions to maximize the benefit and 24
55 deliver a draft final rule to the Commission.
1 The staff also published a proposed rule that would 2
streamline reviews by codifying the new reactor generic environmental impact 3
statement, and the NRC amended its regulations to include alternative 4
emergency preparedness requirements for new technologies, acknowledging 5
advancements inherent in new reactor designs.
6 The staff also issued multiple guidance documents to support 7
applicants and provide further clarity on the regulatory process. Highlights 8
include nine documents related to the advanced reactor content of application 9
project, which builds on the licensing modernization project.
10 Guidance was also issued on site suitability to provide 11 alternative approaches and modifications for advanced reactors, and multiple 12 documents were developed discussing the inherent safety of microreactors and 13 how the regulatory framework could support plant licensing and deployment 14 models.
15 Finally, we continue our collaboration with the international 16 community. We expanded our memorandum of cooperation with the Canadian 17 Nuclear Safety Commission to include the United Kingdom's Office of Nuclear 18 Regulation. A noteworthy success was the exchange of information on novel 19 topics related to the BWRX-300 small modular reactor.
20 These interactions directly supported CNSC's evaluation of an 21 application to construct at the Darlington site in Canada. Additional work 22 products have been identified and interactions are already underway. Next 23 slide, please.
24
56 Moving from framework development to licensing, the NRC 1
staff has completed several first-of-a-kin reviews this past year. These were all 2
completed ahead of schedule and used fewer resources than anticipated 3
without compromising our safety, security, or environmental assessments.
4 We were able to achieve these accomplishments by applying 5
enhanced licensing practices such as the use of core teams, extensive use of 6
audits, streamlined documentation of staff findings, and the use of data to drive 7
our decision making.
8 With the issuance of the construction permit for the Kairos 9
Hermes 1 test reactor in December 2023, we established a new benchmark for 10 how much time and resources should be assumed for the review of an 11 advanced reactor application.
12 The staff's safety review was completed in 18 months, ahead 13 of schedule and below the initial resource estimate. This was the first non-light 14 water reactor approved for construction since 1973.
15 Leveraging information and experience from the Hermes 1 16 review, the NRC staff followed up by completing the safety evaluation for the 17 Hermes 2 construction permit in just ten months. The Hermes reviews provided 18 numerous learning opportunities, including various process improvements that 19 the staff plans to leverage for subsequent or nth-of-a-kind reviews.
20 Two months ago, the agency issued the construction permit 21 for the Abilene Christian University Molten Salt Research Reactor. This review 22 was completed in 21 months and was also below the initial resource estimate.
23 ACU was noteworthy not only because it was the first research reactor 24
57 construction permit issued in over 40 years, but because there was a change in 1
the design in the middle of the NRC's review.
2 This experience highlighted the staff's ability to leverage our 3
enhanced processes and adapt quickly to new information. We continued to 4
ensure safety with a minimal impact on the review schedule, and we were able 5
to make our regulatory findings well ahead of the applicant's needed date.
6 Although not licensed by the NRC, the staff employed the 7
concepts for advanced reactor reviews in its evaluation of the Navy's Columbia 8
Class Submarine Propulsion Plant. The review demonstrated that the value of 9
the core team approach and the staff's ability to assess technical information 10 with a risk-informed and safety-focused mindset. The review was completed in 11 ten months, ahead of schedule and under budget.
12 The final lesson I'd like to highlight from these experiences is 13 the tremendous value of a quality application and productive interaction with the 14 NRC. In each case, the staff was able to establish and execute a timely 15 schedule because of robust pre-application engagement and very productive 16 interaction by the applicants when outlining the bases for their safety, security, 17 and environmental conclusions. Next slide, please.
18 The staff remains diligent in capturing effective licensing 19 practices and making appropriate adjustments with each subsequent project.
20 Building on the successes and experience I just discussed, the staff has the 21 data and the motivation to continue establishing schedules and resource 22 estimates that are more aggressive, but do not negatively impact the quality of 23 our reviews.
24
58 Two new reactor applications are currently under review. The 1
US, pardon me, the NuScale US460 standard design approval was set for 24 2
months, which is ahead of the 42-month generic milestone. This schedule was 3
established by leveraging similarities to the previously approved US600 design 4
and pre-application engagement by NuScale.
5 Over half of the chapters for the staff's safety evaluation are 6
complete and the rest are on track to be issued to support issuance on 7
schedule. The staff is also working with the Advisory Committee on Reactor 8
Safeguards to maximize efficiencies in the schedule. Similar coordination was 9
instrumental in the success of the Hermes reviews.
10 A 27-month review schedule was established for the 11 Kemmerer Unit 1 construction permit and Terra Power's natrium reactor design.
12 This schedule is ahead of the 36-month generic milestone, leverages 13 execution from past reviews, and supports TerraPower's overall plans. The 14 schedule was also enabled by pre-application engagement and the 15 completeness and the quality of the application.
16 Less than six months into the review, several chapters of the 17 staff's safety evaluation are already drafted, and the core team continues to 18 interact with the applicant to expeditiously identify, assess, and resolve 19 questions about safety, security, and environmental impacts.
20 To elaborate on the point about pre-application engagement, 21 effective use of these interactions has been one of the most impactful factors in 22 our reviews. Pre-application benefits include early understanding of new and 23 novel technologies, reducing regulatory uncertainty, and identifying mitigation 24
59 strategies for items that may introduce potential delays in the licensing process.
1 More than 20 advanced reactor vendors are currently 2
interacting with the NRC in some capacity. Early engagement will become 3
even more critical to supporting further streamlined reviews and to achieving 4
the desired predictability and stability to support the anticipated demand. Next 5
slide, please.
6 This is an exciting time. Industry has increasingly indicated 7
that rapid large-scale deployment of advanced reactors is likely. We recognize 8
that the NRC will need to continue to evolve and expand our current 9
capabilities.
10 To ensure success, we are focused on five key areas. The 11 first is staff capacity. We're dedicated to retaining our exceptionally qualified 12 staff. We're aggressively recruiting, hiring, and training additional talent, 13 leveraging the flexibilities afforded by the ADVANCE Act, and we're establishing 14 contract support in critical areas. Engagement with potential applicants helps 15 us refine each of these needs and identify where we should place additional 16 emphasis.
17 For example, we recently initiated an effort to help with 18 knowledge management. Staff from across the agency who are new to 19 advanced reactor projects are provided with opportunities to shadow other 20 experienced staff so that they are prepared to take on larger roles in future 21 projects.
22 Next, we must continue to establish the appropriate regulatory 23 landscape. As previously mentioned, one area that is prime for modernization 24
60 is microreactors. We've been actively engaged with developers and end users 1
for several years, and have made substantial progress towards providing further 2
clarity in this area. The staff is currently finalizing a notation vote paper to 3
provide the Commission with options for enhancements to the regulatory 4
framework for microreactors.
5 We're also focused on effective implementation of our 6
licensing processes. In addition to the activities outlined in my prior slides, we 7
are leveraging cross-organizational groups to share best practices and lessons 8
learned across all business lines and licensing organizations, and we are 9
identifying practical methods to further streamline our reviews. Examples 10 include our review of brownfield sites and the NEPA process, which Michelle 11 Rome will expand on shortly.
12 Regarding communication, we routinely interact with 13 stakeholders to maintain awareness of planned submittals, understand 14 business models, and assess information needs. These interactions not only 15 help with our budget process, but they allow us to identify potential challenges 16 with planned licensing actions early enough to address them in a timely 17 manner. We're also enhancing our external communication platforms to 18 provide clear and accessible information to all of our stakeholders.
19 Finally, continual learning and refinement of all aspects of our 20 work remains essential, and we welcome all opportunities to continue our 21 evolution. This concludes my remarks and I'll now turn it over to Michelle.
22 Thank you.
23 MS. ROME: Thanks, Jeremy. Good morning, Chair and 24
61 Commissioners. My name is Michelle Rome and I'm one of the Branch Chiefs 1
in the Environmental Center of Expertise. In the past year, we have received 2
an historic level of applications for new and operating reactors, and the case 3
work is expected to increase.
4 Today, I plan to discuss the fundamental changes and 5
efficiency tools we are implementing to tackle this volume of work while 6
improving environmental review quality, cost, timeliness, and predictability, and 7
meaningfully engaging with tribes and stakeholders. Next slide, please.
8 This past month, we celebrated the fifth anniversary of the 9
Environmental Center of Expertise, and one year ago, we realigned into five 10 fully integrated branches with matrix staffing. This new structure allows for 11 efficient sharing of lessons learned across business lines and more agile 12 staffing to support workload surges.
13 Another fundamental change is meeting time and page limits.
14 This was required based on the 2023 NEPA amendments, and in May of 2024, 15 staff submitted a notation vote paper which included six recommendations to 16 further transform and streamline environmental reviews, such as allowing 17 applicants to prepare draft environmental assessments and environmental 18 impact statements.
19 One of the most significant changes that can fundamentally 20 streamline environmental reviews is to prepare environmental assessments 21 rather than environmental impact statements for actions without reasonably 22 foreseeable significant impacts.
23 For example, at the Hermes test reactor site, staff issued an 24
62 exemption to prepare an environmental assessment for the Hermes 2 1
application, and then relied upon and referenced analyses in the Hermes 1 2
environmental impact statement. As a result, the environmental assessment 3
was 60 percent shorter, used 40 percent less resources, and was prepared in 4
nearly half the time.
5 Based on the results of the Hermes 2 environmental 6
assessment, staff are implementing a risk-informed decision making framework 7
to efficiently and consistently determine the appropriate level of documentation 8
for all reviews. This framework takes into account a technical analysis, risks, 9
and whether an exemption or communication to the Commission would be 10 warranted.
11 We are also updating our resource goals and models. For 12 license renewal, we've developed a 5,500-hour and 18-month model per 13 review, which will meet and exceed historic resource goals. This model was 14 based on Commission direction in combination with our efficiency tools and 15 approaches. We are also actively planning how to further reduce these levels.
16 Next slide, please.
17 We've been able to conduct high-quality reviews using less 18 resources by applying the right set of tools for which some are listed on this 19 slide. For license renewal, for example, we were able to set the 5,500 model 20 based on rulemakings, process improvements, and new staffing approaches.
21 In terms of rulemakings, the publication of the final generic environmental 22 impact statement allows staff to generically disposition 74 percent of the 23 environmental issues.
24
63 For process improvements, we are applying novel 1
approaches to scope and risk inform technical reviews. For example, under the 2
Endangered Species Act, we are piloting a new approach where licensees can 3
serve as non-federal representatives.
4 Under this process, the licensee develops required analyses 5
and works directly with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and 6
Wildlife Service to answer requests for information while saving NRC staff time 7
for the most complex aspects of the consultation such as developing mitigation 8
measures to protect endangered species. This approach is expected to reduce 9
NRC staff hours by 50 to 80 percent, and can be applied to both new and 10 operating reactors.
11 The last toolbox is for staffing approaches. Matrix staffing 12 under our realignment means that staff who worked on the Hermes 2 13 environmental assessment are now involved in streamlining license renewals in 14 the Palisades restart environmental assessment.
15 In addition to increasing our capabilities, we are increasing 16 our capacity through historic levels of hiring. Within the past two years, we've 17 hired 20 people, an incredible growth of 35 percent, and once the most recent 18 hires are onboarded, we will be at fully funded levels of staffing. Next slide, 19 please.
20 Staff have applied a risk-informed approach to streamline 21 consultations while strengthening tribal engagement and prioritizing aspects of 22 the consultation that benefit tribes. We are optimizing internal procedures for 23 consultations under the National Historic Preservation Act, and are continuing 24
64 meaningful outreach to tribes.
1 Over the past year, we've consulted with over 200 tribes, sent 2
out over 480 letters, and led 27 tribal meetings. We are creating trust 3
relationships by meeting with tribal elders, attending tribal conferences, and 4
participating in tribal ceremonies, which builds off of the important efforts of the 5
tribal relations team and our regional state liaison officers.
6 Our interactions have helped provide information in a more 7
digestible manner and ensure that our environmental analyses address 8
concerns most important to affected tribes. In addition, we've been able to 9
facilitate site visits and ensure that licensees update procedures to protect 10 important cultural resources and allow tribal monitors during ground disturbing 11 activities.
12 Our documents are now more inclusive of tribal perspectives 13 and help tell their histories and their stories. Taken together, these activities 14 have resulted in stronger working relationships and earlier resolution of project 15 concerns.
16 We are already seeing the return on investment as we consult 17 with the same tribes on multiple projects. For example, on the Hermes 2 and 18 Clinch River environmental assessments, staff built upon the relationship forged 19 with tribes on the Hermes 1 review, and as a result, no concerns, challenges, or 20 delays were raised during the tribal consultation. Next slide, please.
21 In accordance with the ADVANCE Act, staff have developed 22 and are considering several ways in which technology can help both modernize 23 our reviews and increase meaningful stakeholder engagement. Last week, 24
65 staff published an updated and expanded external website which for the first 1
time provides a one-stop shop of integrated information on environmental 2
reviews across all business lines.
3 This website also includes the external version of our 4
environmental review blueprint which illustrates new and existing initiatives to 5
strategically prepare and advance the environmental review program and 6
include stakeholders in the process. Each year, we conduct 20 to 25 public 7
meetings and receive approximately 3,000 comments which we respond to 8
using aggregated technologies across multiple platforms.
9 To ensure we are reaching underrepresented audiences, we 10 use a variety of outreach tools such as translating materials into multiple 11 languages, setting up 1-800 numbers to encourage comments in any language, 12 advertising public meetings at libraries, on local radio stations and in 13 newspapers, meeting with community and religious leaders, talking to staff 14 running support services, and emphasizing the importance of in-person 15 conversations during outreach events.
16 Most recently, we have found that a balance of in-person and 17 virtual meetings are allowing us to reach a broader audience, especially as 18 advanced and new reactors continue to be proposed in more remote areas in 19 the west and Alaska. I will now turn it over to Christian.
20 MR. ARAGUAS: Thank you, Michelle, and good morning, 21 Chair and Commissioners. My name is Christian Araguas. I am the agency's 22 new Standards Executive, as well as the Division Director for the Division of 23 Engineering in our Office of Research. As you know, the Office of Research is 24
66 a partner office that provides valued support to all business lines in the agency.
1 2
Research staff have a wide range of technical expertise 3
across a variety of technical disciplines to ensure the agency's readiness to 4
tackle the most complex issues facing the operating fleet, as well as new and 5
innovative nuclear technologies. However, the focus of my presentation is on 6
the agency's codes and standards enhancement initiative. Next slide?
7 Consensus codes and standards are essential to the NRC 8
licensing process, offering a framework that ensures regulatory stability and 9
consistency across diverse regulatory actions. By adhering to consensus 10 guidelines, licensees and applicants can be evaluated more effectively by the 11 staff, especially if graded approaches are used that incorporate risk and 12 performance-based insights.
13 Use of voluntary consensus codes and standards instead of 14 government unique standards is required by the National Technology Transfer 15 and Advancement Act of 1995. Use of consensus codes and standards is also 16 aligned with the NRC's principles of good regulation, particularly in the area of 17 enhanced openness, clarity, and reliability across our licensing decisions.
18 Application of NRC-endorsed consensus standards increase 19 the potential for approval efficiency during first-of-a-kind licensing.
20 Endorsement also supports the potential for large-scale, high-volume licensing 21 by providing clear regulatory expectations and reducing uncertainty.
22 Participation by agency staff in codes and standards 23 development fosters collaboration among various stakeholders, which facilities 24
67 a more efficient regulatory environment that prioritizes both safety and 1
innovation within the nuclear sector.
2 The NRC maintains a robust codes and standards program 3
that is led out of my division, but with agency-wide impact. Over 180 dedicated 4
staff from across the agency currently participate through engaging with various 5
standards development organizations.
6 These professionals externally coordinate efforts across 36 7
government agencies and 12 different standard organizations. As of today, 8
NRC staff are contributing to the development of over 200 new or revised codes 9
or standards through these organizations' activities.
10 This is accomplished by NRC staff's active participation on 11 various codes and standards committees and working groups alongside 12 participants from academia, research institutions, vendors and manufacturers, 13 and utilities. Staff participation in this program ensures the agency remains 14 informed on the latest technological advancements and best practices in the 15 industry. To date, the NRC staff have issued more than 320 regulatory guides 16 that endorse codes, consensus codes, or standards.
17 I'd like to highlight some recent accomplishments by the 18 program. One example is the staff's endorsement review of the 2023 edition of 19 ASME boiler and pressure vessel code for high-temperature reactors.
20 Endorsement of this part of the ASME code will help provide regulatory clarity 21 and stability for several advanced reactor developers.
22 By initiating preparatory research in parallel with development 23 of associated ASME code changes and code cases a few years back, staff 24
68 completed their endorsement review in substantially reduced time. Staff 1
estimate the research shaved approximately one and a half years off staff's 2
review time compared to the previous endorsement.
3 This expedited review also benefitted by maximizing staff 4
participation during ASME code week meetings and reprioritization of other staff 5
work to complete the review. Another accomplishment is the issuance of 6
several reg guides that directly support future reactor licensing.
7 These include several reg guides that endorse specific 8
divisions of the ASME boiler and vessel code, a reg guide that endorses IEEE 9
guidance on environmental qualification of fiberoptic cables for safety systems, 10 and a reg guide that endorses industry guidance on a technology-inclusive 11 application methodology for non-light water reactor applications. Next slide, 12 please.
13 While the existing codes and standards program has served 14 us well, we listened to stakeholder feedback that the program may not be 15 positioned to serve us efficiently or effectively in the future.
16 In February 2024, staff from the NRC and the Idaho National 17 Laboratory issued a coordination plan with the objective of sharing expertise 18 and knowledge in codes and standards, development to identify opportunities 19 that could focus NRC's program, and optimizing support in areas that benefit 20 new and advanced reactors.
21 On April 4, 2024, the NRC and the INL cohosted a public 22 workshop to gain insights on high priority consensus standards needed to 23 successfully deploy new and advanced reactors, explore how to best focus 24
69 NRC's support to codes and standards organizations, and explore endorsement 1
efficiencies for new or revised standards.
2 Feedback noted that today's endorsement standards are 3
predominantly focused on large light water reactor designs and predominantly 4
rely on deterministic approaches. Additionally, the stability benefits afforded by 5
use of the rulemaking process may not be advantageous for advanced reactors 6
seeking endorsement in the near term.
7 Finally, many of today's endorsed standards do not facilitate 8
efficient construction or the rapid large-scale deployment envisioned by today's 9
new reactor developers.
10 Staff recognized the evolving desire for endorsing more 11 technology-inclusive codes and standards that accommodate the diverse 12 landscape of nuclear innovations, particularly for advanced reactors. By 13 promoting innovative solutions to endorse high-priority codes and standards, an 14 enhanced NRC program could ensure that the regulatory frameworks remain 15 relevant, timely, and effective.
16 The codes and standards program should promote the 17 inclusion of graded approaches that utilize risk and performance-based 18 insights, which allows for a more tailored regulatory process addressing the 19 unique safety profiles of new technologies.
20 Finally, program resources should be strategically refocused 21 by prioritizing staff support to high-priority standards' activities informed by 22 external stakeholder feedback to ensure the program remains responsive and 23 aligned with industry advancements and future licensing submittals. Next 24
70 slide?
1 Based on input from the workshop and a broad range of 2
stakeholders, the codes and standards action plan was issued in August of this 3
year. This plan identifies key areas for improvement, focusing on increasing 4
timeliness and efficiency while promoting risk and performance-based insights.
5 It comprises 17 items categorized into three program areas.
6 The figure on the left of the slide illustrates the makeup of the action plan 7
components. The action plan's implementation involves a phased approach 8
with defined time frames that include swift actions to be executed within one 9
year, intermediate actions to be developed over two to four years, and ongoing 10 program enhancements aimed at sustained long-term improvements.
11 The first enhancement area is on the standard development 12 process improvements. These activities aim to focus NRC staff participation on 13 high-priority standards' development activities. Enhancements in this area also 14 include solicitation of external input to tell us which consensus standards should 15 be considered high priority and might benefit from NRC staff engagement.
16 The second enhancement area focuses on NRC 17 endorsement processes. The action plan items investigate creation of more 18 explicit criteria for endorsements to foster greater transparency in the decision 19 making process.
20 Intermediate activities include an update to Management 21 Directive 6.5 on staff participation and use of consensus standards to identify 22 enhancements for early deployment and flexibility in the endorsement process.
23 And the third enhancement area focuses on leveraging 24
71 commercial standards. This area evaluates the potential use of commercial 1
standards that are traditionally non-nuclear standards.
2 As an alternative to traditional nuclear-specific standards, 3
some new and advanced reactor designers have identified commercial 4
standards for use based on the relative risk of their structures, systems, and 5
components in the design, and their limited impact to the safety of plant staff 6
and the public.
7 Action plan program enhancements in this area will solicit 8
input on which standards are of greatest interest to industry, and a pilot, a test 9
case for potential NRC endorsement with the goal of developing future 10 guidance for use in endorsing additional commercial standards.
11 In closing, this action plan aims to create a more focused and 12 efficient codes and standards program by realizing the evolving needs of the 13 nuclear industry, while ensuring the highest safety standards. The plan was 14 developed with awareness of external environmental drivers such as the 15 ADVANCE Act Section 401, which discusses seeking stakeholder input from 16 standards development organizations.
17 This action plan also aims to foster staff innovation, enhance 18 regulatory effectiveness, and to continue supporting the safe licensing of 19 nuclear technologies using risk and performance-based insights. Now I will turn 20 the presentation to Mirela for closing remarks.
21 MS. GAVRILAS: Thank you, all, and we are ready for your 22 questions.
23 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you. We'll begin again with 24
72 Commissioner Crowell.
1 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and 2
thanks again to all of our panelists. It was great information. Christian, I'm 3
going to start with you down there so that seat doesn't look neglected, but I'm 4
not going to take the most risk-informed approach because I don't know your 5
area as well as I know some of these other areas, so I hope I ask this question 6
correctly.
7 Your approach to codes and standards, I mean, it makes 8
sense to me, but I'm trying to think about how it applies and the relative level of 9
importance in the context of first-of-a-kind reviews where you don't have any 10 data, you know, no historical data from other, you know, from other operations 11 or anything much from the applicant who is proposing the new reactor design.
12 So, how do you incorporate codes and standards in an environment where you 13 don't really have any run time and data?
14 MR. ARAGUAS: So, thanks, Commissioner, for the question.
15 And so, I think that is one of the challenges with development of codes and 16 standards. It is a fairly lengthy process.
17 I think it's aimed particularly more at creating efficiencies for 18 nth-of-a-kind reactors, but that doesn't preclude us to learn a fair amount 19 through engagement through the various standards organizations of what the 20 issues are and what are the needs in a way that maybe allows us to pivot.
21 We don't have to necessarily wait for a code to be developed 22 to support licensing. It could be that an applicant may elect to submit a topical 23 for approval of a new or novel approach, and so I think to the extent that, you 24
73 know, we're participating actively in those areas of high priority, we can be 1
informed to make sure that we're best prepared, particularly in Jeremy's area, to 2
support timely licensing of those areas.
3 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: I appreciate that, and do you 4
think that leveraging the potential opportunity to leverage commercial standards 5
is going to be an area where we can gain, save some time, or not duplicate 6
things or gain efficiencies?
7 MR. ARAGUAS: So, yeah, so I think so. Again, thanks for 8
the question. I think there's been quite a demand signal from the industry in 9
leveraging, you know, existing commercial standards, particularly in applying 10 those to areas where the risk is significantly lower.
11 So, I think for us, there's value in looking and understanding 12 what particular commercial standards are of interest and making sure that we're 13 focusing on looking at how we can endorse those quickly to support their use.
14 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you. Michelle, thank 15 you for your presentation. I noted that you used the phrase risk-informed 16 approach to streamline consultations, and I like the sound of it, but how do you 17 do that and where are the opportunities to streamline without undermining 18 appropriate levels and scope of participation?
19 MS. ROME: Thank you, Commissioner. That's a great 20 question. So, for example, for tribal consultation, we've really focused on 21 streamlining our internal processes, so, for example, how quickly we can get 22 letters out, which wouldn't have an impact on how much time we're spending 23 with the tribes, and so we're looking at it that way, so internally.
24
74 And then the other way we're looking at it is what's the return 1
on investment for our approaches for engaging tribes? So, for example, we've 2
found that if we spend the same amount of time reaching out to tribes and 3
meeting with them earlier in the process, ideally during the pre-application 4
phase and in-person, doing those same set of meetings earlier than later in the 5
process has a higher return on investment because we're able to build those 6
working relationships ideally by the time the application comes in, and then 7
more efficiently and effectively address any of their concerns during the review 8
process.
9 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And are those relationships 10 that you try to establish early, do they endure over changes in tribal leadership 11 or do you have to start all over again?
12 MS. ROME: That's a great question. So, yeah, it depends.
13 As you're aware, there is a lot of change in tribal leadership, so we try to make 14 sure that we're meeting with the right group of people, and that we are always 15 working with the tribal liaison team and our other partners throughout the 16 agency so we have a one NRC approach so that it's more continuous 17 relationship building across the agency and working with the tribes, and then on 18 our own side, to decrease any sort of turnover.
19 Because we now have matrix staffing, we're able to staff 20 people based on geographic area rather than by business line, so that means 21 the same staff can work with the same tribes no matter what business line the 22 project is under.
23 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And for initial license 24
75 applications, is it possible for you to identify like what the typical long pole in the 1
tent is on completing environmental review? Is it Section 106 consultation? Is 2
it -- I mean, you know, what takes the longest or is the most challenging right 3
now?
4 MS. ROME: So, for each review, it's quite site specific as to 5
what is going to be most technically difficult or take the most amount of time, 6
and so what's really important that we're doing is during the pre-application 7
phase, really looking at what do we think is going to be the most challenging 8
and how can we mitigate those risks, and also looking at the flip-side of are we 9
right-sizing the review and risk informing it, so for areas that aren't as 10 challenging, to make sure we're spending the right amount of time on that as 11 well.
12 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And do the relationships that 13 you build with tribal leadership, do they -- oftentimes we find that the tribe, we 14 send out communications, but then we find out later that they either, they were 15 missed or weren't received. Do we make sure that when we're communicating 16 with tribes that it's received? Because there's just such a variety of ways that 17 tribes receive information and sometimes one thing will work with one tribe and 18 wont with another.
19 MS. ROME: Yeah, great question, yes. So, we make sure 20 that we send the letter to the appropriate tribal contact, and again, we're 21 working with our colleagues in the tribal relations team to make sure we have 22 that, and then our staff work at the staff level to make sure they're reaching out 23 to their counterparts and then following up via email and phone calls.
24
76 And then we try to meet the tribes where they want to, so 1
whether it's in person, a quick phone call, a virtual meeting, and so it's really 2
important that we do that extra level of effort to make sure we are reaching the 3
right person, and especially the decision maker among the tribes so that we're 4
being as effective as possible during our conversations with them.
5 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Yeah, just for a little 6
commentary, even for tribes that have or, you know, use technology more, I still 7
feel like the in-person engagement, particularly on the front end, pays huge 8
dividends as you go through the process.
9 Greg and Jeremy, both of your presentations were insightful 10 and helpful. All I can think of as you go through all of that is how we're going to 11 do all of this, and, you know, what is our biggest challenge to doing all of this 12 going forward? Is it staffing? Is it skill set? Is it standardization by industry 13 that's going to make the difference? Is it project management, like --
14 MR. BOWMAN: So, we may have different perspectives. I 15 would say from my perspective, I think we're very well positioned to review what 16 we have in-house today for the next year or so. I think our challenge is going to 17 be building the capacity we need to review applications when they come in on 18 the nth-of-a-kind scale several years down the road.
19 So, I think that's our biggest challenge and Jeremy is doing a 20 lot of great work to build our capacity across the Office of NRR, and across the 21 agency actually, to help with those reviews. We've done a lot of work kind of 22 within Jeremy's division, but we're now trying to branch out to get that capacity 23 built up. I think from my perspective, that's our biggest challenge, but --
24
77 MR. BOWEN: Yeah, so it's a good thing I'm in line with my 1
boss.
2 (Laughter.)
3 MR. BOWEN: So, I'd agree. I think like Greg said --
4 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: I'll watch Mirelas face while 5
you speak.
6 (Laughter.)
7 MR. BOWEN: We're set up for success for what we foresee 8
for the near term. We have areas where we --
9 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Near-term being a year or 10 two?
11 MR. BOWEN: Two, three, four years, and it's really building 12 on the additional efficiencies we've seen from the first few reviews and kind of 13 enhancing on that. I think it's what comes after that in the four or five, six-year 14 time frame, when now we're not looking at one, two, three applications at a time 15 and we're looking at potentially ten, 12, 15 applications at a time.
16 Certainly, there's opportunities in there for nth-of-a-kind 17 reviews and efficiencies there, but there's going to be new first-of-a-kind 18 reviews as well. So, that's kind of what we need to look for is how do we build 19 that capacity for when we get to that stage of licensing?
20 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And Mirela, maybe I'll punt 21 this to you, but, you know, how confident -- I mean, I know we're making some 22 plans based somewhat on insight from licensees and applicants about, you 23 know, receiving these things in a staggered way, but best laid plans are what 24
78 they are.
1 It's very likely that that staggeredness won't match, won't be 2
as pronounced as we hope, or we just end up with a deluge of applications at 3
the same time across a range of topics. If that happens, are we in a world of 4
hurt or are we able to triage and make it happen?
5 MS. GAVRILAS: We'll have to make it happen. So what 6
gives me some comfort is the level of detail to which these guys are tracking 7
the likelihood of an application materializing and the kind of factors that they 8
look at when they evaluate the possibility of having something in-house next 9
year, the year after that.
10 So there are concrete things that they are looking at that give 11 us additional insights. So we're tracking that. But even with that, there will be 12 surprises, and we'll be prepared for them. And when they come, we are going 13 to need to prioritize and figure out a way to prioritize. We just are starting to 14 think about that.
15 MR. BOWMAN: If I can add just one thing. So preapplication 16 engagement has been a huge element of the program that we've been 17 emphasizing with the applicants. So while it's true that everything could 18 converge and cause us resource challenges, we should have a hand on that 19 pretty early through the preapplication engagement we are having. That's 20 giving us a pretty good handle on when things are coming and at what time 21 frame.
22 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And the quality of the material 23 relates directly. Thank you.
24
79 Thank you to my colleagues for indulging me with a little extra 1
time.
2 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Crowell. I 3
mean, I think the conversation about capacity is a really, really good one in how 4
we're going to accomplish that. And I think in speeches recently, several of you 5
have heard me say that in addition to kind of continuing the risk-informed 6
thinking that we are permeating throughout the agency, I think Meena gave a 7
great presentation in the previous panel about this about Be Risk Smarter, the 8
reinvigoration of the Be Risk Smart approach in the agency, right?
9 They were kind of in my view three additional things in what I 10 call consistency, sustainability and then the third one being capacity.
11 Consistency being, I think of it as the horizontal, right, where people are seeing 12 similar kinds of decisions coming out of the agency, risk-informed decisions 13 regardless of where you interact with the agency, whether that's Greg in your 14 division or whether that's license renewal or whether it's fuel facilities or 15 whatever, right?
16 Sustainability I see is kind of the vertical, right, where we're 17 seeing the right kinds of decisions being made not just at the top of the 18 organization, but all the way down into the branch chief and project manager 19 piece as well.
20 And then that last piece is capacity. And I think, you know, 21 you hit on a lot of the really good things.
22 Mirela, you were talking about -- I was thinking about this as 23 Jeremy was giving his presentation, the prioritization is going to be really 24
80 important, the add/shed work that's getting started under the ADVANCE Act is 1
going to be important.
2 We have a lot of really smart people in this agency who 3
maybe are pointed at things, and we are going to need them in this other area.
4 And we are going to need to think about where we have to qualify people now 5
to be able to get ready down the future.
6 And so it's reassuring to me that we've got the folks for the 7
next couple years. I don't know if I'm -- I spent a lot of time thinking about the 8
timing of the wave and how we are going to be ready for that and so on and so 9
forth. And there is no great pool of people out there in the world.
10 You know, we're going to continue to hire. We're going to 11 continue to focus on this. The emphasis that some of my colleagues have had 12 on strategic workforce planning is exactly right, continuing capacity through the 13 right metrics.
14 You know, I want to associate myself with Commissioner 15 Wright and Commissioner Caputo about having the right metrics and being 16 aggressive about revising those. And, you know, if we've got something we're 17 hitting 95 percent of the time, we might need a better metric, et cetera.
18 So there's a lot that's really going into this in addition, I think, 19 Jeremy to the knowledge management stuff that you brought up.
20 There's not really a question there, but I will give Mirela a 21 chance to respond if she wants to.
22 MS. GAVRILAS: Oh, a couple of things, which is why I think 23 the project management initiative that we're hearing about a lot will matter so 24
81 much. We need to know that when we are spending time on something, we are 1
spending the right amount of time on something so that every capacity that we 2
have available can go to support the emergent issues and issues that we all 3
care about.
4 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Great. Thank you. So with that I've 5
got actually a couple questions. Michelle, I'm going to start with you if I can.
6 And it was just something that Commissioner -- usually it's when I go last where 7
all my questions have been taken. This time I'm going second and all of my 8
questions have been taken. No, no, you're good.
9 But you were talking about tribal consultation and early 10 engagement. Is that -- you know, we've got this process under the Endangered 11 Species Act where licensee participation has been baked into that, right?
12 Where you said -- and I'm going to have a couple questions on this. But you 13 said that licensees can go work with National Marine Fisheries or Fish and 14 Wildlife or whatever, kind of independently and then we get kind of the readout 15 of that for our purposes.
16 Is there a similar kind of process or opportunity under Section 17 106 in terms of like state historic preservation organizations, et cetera, there?
18 MS. ROME: Thank you, Chair, for the question. So there is 19 for working with the State Historic Preservation Office but part of the Section 20 106 consultation also includes tribal engagement. And that would stay with the 21 NRC.
22 CHAIR HANSON: Got it.
23 MS. ROME: And so we've considered this in the past 24
82 whether we want to use this approach. But what we've determined is that there 1
is a higher risk with this approach the way it is set up like that and that there are 2
other approaches we can implement that have a higher return on investments, 3
similar to what I was talking about with front loading consultations in-person and 4
then also really encouraging the licensees or applicants to do a lot of that 5
outreach with tribes earlier as well.
6 CHAIR HANSON: Is that because we really want to honor the 7
government-to-government relationship that we have with the tribal entities?
8 MS. ROME: Exactly, yes. Thank you. So we're really 9
striving to build that trust relationship with the tribal governments.
10 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Great. Thank you. You had 11 mentioned by having the licensee participate directly with these other agencies 12 on ESA, endangered species stuff, that we were saving 50 to 80 percent. Is it 13 just on that piece or are we saving 50 to 80 percent across the board?
14 MS. ROME: Thank you for that question. Let me clarify it is 15 just on that piece, on the Endangered Species Act consultation --
16 CHAIR HANSON: Okay.
17 MS. ROME: -- specifically.
18 CHAIR HANSON: And is that baked into the 5,500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> on 19 SLRs or is there going to be -- are we going to be able to see some additional 20 efficiency on that?
21 MS. ROME: That is not yet included because we are just 22 starting to pilot it with some licensees that are currently operating right now.
23 We have not started implementing it yet on license renewal.
24
83 CHAIR HANSON: I promise not to hold you to it, but do you 1
have a thumb in the air kind of estimate on that?
2 MS. ROME: Well, we're actively reaching out to licensees 3
right now, including on the material side, to gauge who would be interested so 4
we need them to also want to do this.
5 And so far we have heard mixed results. So some want us to 6
do it and some dont want to do it. But we will be reaching out to all licensees 7
that plan to come in so let them know about this approach assuming that the 8
pilots work well.
9 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you.
10 MS. ROME: Thanks.
11 CHAIR HANSON: I really appreciate it. All right. Christian, 12 thank you for the work that you and the Office of Research are doing on the 13 codes and standards.
14 I wanted to ask -- I was really intrigued by Slide 44, or 15 something right, where you're talking about kind of the three areas. And then 16 you've also got swift actions kind of near-term and then longer-term things.
17 So, you know, in the area of leveraging commercial 18 standards, what would be an example of like a swift action in that space, like a 19 near-term kind of output?
20 MR. ARAGUAS: Yes. So thanks for the question. I think the 21 first thing I would sort of view as one of the swift actions is just getting a handle 22 on what the interest is across the industry. What are the needs? What are the 23 commercial standards that exist out there that are being contemplated for use 24
84 and for advanced reactor developers? And then getting a sense of timing.
1 And then I think for us is making sure kind of tying back to 2
what falls under how we engage on the codes and standards committee is 3
making sure that we're prioritizing having the right focus, the right people there 4
and participating with them to ensure that we can enable timely creation of 5
those standards and then more importantly that we're well-positioned to do the 6
endorsement as quickly as we can.
7 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Okay. So I want to connect, if I 8
can, the two ends of the table here, right, between what you're doing and what 9
maybe Jeremy is seeing in terms of applications that are coming in, alternatives 10 to particular codes and how that might be informing your work.
11 So how are you guys coordinating some of this?
12 MR. ARAGUAS: Go for it.
13 MR. BOWEN: So thank you for the question, Chair. Yes, 14 that's definitely an area of focus for us. Again, Christian has been doing a 15 tremendous effort to help us out there.
16 Kind of behind your question, there are alternatives that are 17 coming in. And it's based on the new materials, new uses, you know, a lot of 18 unanticipated challenges that are being developed as designs are being 19 matured and everything so applicants are proposing new and different 20 approaches.
21 You know, we anticipated there would be a lot of interest in 22 ASME Section 3, Division 5, for high temperature materials, but that has 23 created challenges in and of itself. So theyve proposed different aspects of the 24
85 code.
1 So some of that we've worked with Christian's group, and he's 2
helping kind of us figuring out well, how can we kind of compare and contrast 3
the codes and standards that are being proposed with the codes that we've 4
endorsed? What challenges do we foresee? Is this an area that we even need 5
to be interested in at this point? What testing is being planned?
6 So not just what the applicants are doing, but what else might 7
be out there in an industry that we can leverage to kind of help move the review 8
forward.
9 MR. ARAGUAS: And I'll just second. So, again, I probably 10 should have prefaced with I'm some two months into the job. But I will give 11 credit to my predecessor Michelle Sampson, who was doing a fantastic job I 12 think coordinating with the DANU folks and across the agency. And so, you 13 know, my role I think is to continue the great work, making sure that we're 14 plugged in with Jeremy and his team and, you know, making sure that they 15 understand the work that we're doing and vice versa.
16 CHAIR HANSON: Now, I know that this is a topic that's super 17 detailed and a little weedy as we say. But when, you know historically reactor 18 construction, 70 percent of the cost has been steel and concrete. And we have 19 these new designs that, you know, leverage functional containment, leverage 20 atmospheric pressure and other kinds of things, I think it's timely to revisit, you 21 know, what really needs to be -- what codes and standards were endorsing 22 and for what applications and also potentially what components and other kinds 23 of things need to be what we called N stamped or nuclear grade and which 24
86 ones aren't.
1 So I appreciate the effort here. And with that, I will hand it 2
over to Commissioner Wright.
3 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, Chair. This has 4
been a good conversation. This panel is loaded with information and 5
opportunity to talk about stuff.
6 Michelle, I'm going to come back to you and start. I really 7
appreciated your exchange with Commissioner Crowell and then with the Chair 8
on the tribes.
9 I want to ask a -- you know, I think you noted in FY24 that you 10 had consultations with like 200 tribes. Is that an increase over past years or is 11 that pretty standard?
12 MS. ROME: That's typical for the amount of tribes that we 13 reach out to in a typical year. It could vary slightly depending if we happen to 14 have more projects in-house or less projects in-house. And Ill say what's really 15 changed most recently as I was mentioning is how we're reaching out to tribes 16 and just making sure we're being as effective as possible when we do get to 17 meet with them and figuring out how to meet with them on their terms to make 18 sure that we are effectively building that trust relationship.
19 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yeah. I'm wanting to drill on 20 that. My initial thought was to ask you a question like, you know, what kind of 21 feedback were you getting from tribes. But you kind of made it -- let us know in 22 your conversations here that you all are trying to be proactive and do things 23 better or, you know, just make sure that you're getting to the right person, 24
87 maybe the right way.
1 Is that coming from feedback that you got from the tribes on 2
how they wanted to be approached or is that coming from just your read of how 3
things might go? Because the follow-up question for me is going to be, you 4
know, are the tribes happy with our engagement process with them?
5 MS. ROME: Thank you for the question. So it is a 6
combination of this is our procedures of how we reach out are consistent over 7
the years. But we always strive to make sure we ask the tribes how they want 8
to be engaged and how they want us to communicate with them.
9 So for example one of our first meetings with them is always 10 that question. Do you want emails? Do you want us to call you? Do you want 11 newsletters? So really taking the time to build that relationship in a way that 12 they want to hear from us.
13 And I will say that the most consistent feedback we've heard 14 from tribes is that they appreciate in-person meetings very early in the process.
15 So ideally during pre-app if we can get out and meet with tribes, that has the 16 highest return on investment for us.
17 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: That's great. Thank you for your 18 efforts in that area. I think that's critically important. And I think we do it better 19 than anybody in government quite honestly. So you should feel good about 20 things. And any way we can support you, we want to do that.
21 Christian, I want to come to you real quick. The codes and 22 standards conversation has been good. And it seems like that everything that 23 we're focused on, we're doing advanced reactors, you know, trying to identify 24
88 efficiencies going forward, this seems kind of like aligned well with the spirit of 1
the ADVANCE Act.
2 Keeping that thought, are there actions that you are thinking 3
about that might similarly enhance our codes and standards program for the 4
operating fleet?
5 MR. ARAGUAS: Yup. Thanks, Commissioner Wright for that 6
question. And, yes, I think that some of the items that I identified, particularly in 7
the process enhancements areas aren't going to be unique to our focus on 8
advanced reactors.
9 Certainly, I think the push right now, because of the timing 10 right now in the interest for supporting advanced reactors, that's our focus. But 11 if I could kind of highlight some of the areas where I think we could also apply 12 some of the process improvements, it would be how we engage -- or how staff 13 engage in the actual standards committees.
14 You know, certainly as we engage if there are things that we 15 are seeing as potential challenges, you know, we are thinking about having 16 public meetings to get our positions -- our draft positions out early and making 17 sure that we're getting stakeholder feedback and bringing that into the 18 standards discussions. So I think that's not unique to advanced reactors.
19 I think on the endorsement side, similarly, you know, we are 20 going to start to look at developing the endorsement reg guides no longer going 21 with the serial approach but doing it in parallel with the codes and standards 22 that are being developed.
23 So, you know, we are anticipating that being an efficiency 24
89 gain that, again, we can apply for any standards that would need to be 1
endorsed for the operating feet going forward.
2 So I think there are certainly things that are going to apply to 3
the operating fleet. And, you know, just even thinking a little bit more broadly.
4 You know, even some of the standards that we are going to be focusing on for 5
new technologies, they are not even unique to just advances reactors. And I 6
think about advanced manufacturing technologies.
7 And so I think to your question, and I appreciate again, I think 8
there is certainly going to be things that we can apply to the operating fleet.
9 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you for that. Jeremy, 10 good morning to you.
11 And you do have the longest title of most of the team at the 12 NRC. I'd ask you for a business card, but I don't have a wallet big enough.
13 So you spoke about the -- how the new reactor business 14 lines evolving to meet future demand. Can you tell me a little bit more about 15 this? I mean, can you expand on some of the lessons learned maybe from the 16 reviews that have been conducted in the past year and maybe how those will 17 lead to more efficient reviews hopefully in the future?
18 MR. BOWEN: Yes, sir. Thank you. for the question, 19 Commissioner. Quite honestly, I could probably talk about this for an hour or 20 longer. But I'll try and kind of keep it summarized, keep it at a high level and 21 kind of put it in different groups.
22 So I would say the first issue -- the first area for learning for 23 us is how we look at technical issues. We had a great discussion about the 24
90 codes and standards, the materials. The more we are understanding all these 1
different designs, we're seeing, like, where do we actually need to look? Where 2
do we need to focus? And where is it not as important? Where can we kind of 3
gain some efficiency back in our review?
4 So I think that's one area, relearning some of the lessons 5
about construction permit versus operating license, what sort of different 6
technical information did we need at each stage of the review? Our research 7
and test reactor versus a power reactor, the differences there. Right now we're 8
learning a lot about the first implementation of the licensing modernization 9
project and how that all fits together, how we can look at the application 10 comprehensively with the review of Natrium. So I would say that's our first 11 group, kind of the technical aspects.
12 The second area where I think we have a lot of learning is 13 what I call process discipline and communications. So what I mean by that is 14 there is a lot of processes that we have had in place. And we need to be more 15 disciplined in applying them.
16 So developing a draft safety evaluation before we go out with 17 questions to the applicants so that we have a clear understanding and are able 18 to communicate what the regulatory concern is and making sure that we are 19 going through that.
20 How we are implementing the core teams, right? The core 21 team concept, the integrated review idea, it's really -- you know, we've learned 22 a little bit. The concept was out there before. But the ability to actually put it 23 into practice, okay? How is the communication of the team working? How did 24
91 they interact? What happens if one individual on the team identifies an issue?
1 How is that brought it to bear?
2 We have weekly meetings on each of the projects. So we 3
discuss, like, areas of challenges and how can we work through those 4
collectively? And we kind of hold each other accountable there.
5 And then building on that from the communications 6
standpoint, I touched on it briefly. But recognizing that we are not talking to the 7
same type of licensee that we've been talking to for 50 years. This is a different 8
group of applicants, and they're not all the same.
9 And we need to recognize that we need to meet them where 10 they are and be able to communicate to them in clear and plain language of 11 what the expectations are and why and be able to, again, meet the applicants 12 where they are. So that's the second group.
13 And then third group, I say, is really just leveraging the data 14 and process enhancement. So I talked about the details about our schedule 15 estimates and our resources. We've got three data points at this point, four if 16 you count the Navy. I think that's helping inform where we're going forward.
17 As you probably saw, we've overestimated in some cases. I 18 think we need to get better in that. But also I'll go a level deeper about some of 19 our process enhancements of finding where the pinch points are in the review 20 process.
21 So a great example is the Hermes 2 safety evaluation. It was 22 the first time we had used a full template from the beginning and where we had 23 incorporated by reference another safety evaluation. The first time that had 24
92 ever been done. We weren't really sure how to do it.
1 A great partnership with our colleagues in the Office of 2
General Counsel -- Brooke, thank you to your staff to kind of put that together --
3 and figure out how we could do that. That saved hundreds of hours, hundreds 4
of hours on the staff's part, hundreds of hours on the OGC's part. So stuff like 5
that we can find -- we have the data. We can kind of drill down and find out 6
where can we make it more efficient so.
7 A long-winded answer, but I hope that helps, sir.
8 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Well, it does help. And two 9
things that you made comments of that are really important to me, and that is 10 that you are meeting them where they are because they are a different group, a 11 different breed. And I am glad that you recognize that and that you all are 12 making that effort.
13 And, you know, the second thing, which I would ask Jeremy 14 as well -- but, I mean, Greg as well, but we don't have time, this whole metrics 15 thing that you all are also reviewing and keeping that forward in thought so that 16 we're making adjustments if we need to. And so I appreciate the presentations.
17 This has been a great meeting. So Chair, I am done.
18 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you Commissioner Wright.
19 Commissioner Caputo.
20 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Good morning. Thank you all 21 for your presentations. I am going to start with Mr. Araguas. Welcome.
22 MR. ARAGUAS: Thank you.
23 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: I'm recognizing since you're 24
93 new, this question is going to be a little bit unfair. So if you need to take the 1
question and follow-up with me later, I'm fine with that.
2 But I have a question regarding American Society of 3
Mechanical Engineers Code Case N-8833. This has been an issue for several 4
years. The Code Case is intended to allow the production of certain 5
components before an owner is identified, which seems important concerning 6
manufacture of microreactors.
7 So the NRC endorsement of this Code includes an odd 8
bureaucratic limitation that within the U.S. the only people who can use this 9
Code Case are those that already meet the ASME definition of owners as 10 holders of construction permits, operating licenses or combined licenses.
11 But as owners, the Code Case would then be irrelevant. So 12 it's unclear why the Agency expended the effort to endorse it but with a 13 limitation that precludes its use in the U.S. And furthermore, it sounds like 14 ASME is now revising the Code Case to add holders of manufacturing licenses.
15 So I am concerned that this is going to end up being a Catch-16 22 that becomes a problem for anyone considering a business model that 17 includes deployment of significant numbers of microreactors. Are you familiar 18 with the issue?
19 MR. ARAGUAS: So I will just pivot really quickly. And I'll say, 20 Commissioner Crowell, you thought the seat wouldn't get a lot of love, and it's 21 getting a lot of love.
22 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: I jinxed you. I apologize.
23 MR. ARAGUAS: I appreciate the question and also 24
94 appreciate the -- before I take that, I did just want to see if there was somebody 1
else on the panel that had a bit more background before I took it away.
2 MR. BOWMAN: Did you want to talk to that or did you want 3
me to start? So we did a lot of work as part of reviewing the application of that 4
Code Case, the NuScale. Obviously, you're aware of that.
5 What we ultimately found out was that there are Atomic 6
Energy Act prohibitions against applying the Code Case the way NuScale 7
wants to apply it. We tried through our review of the Code Case to give options 8
that we could.
9 Some of those are short-term options. Some of them are 10 longer-term rulemaking options. I think we know that the outcome is not 11 probably satisfying to NuScale and other people that might want to use it. But 12 we are limited by what the Atomic Energy Act allows us to do.
13 I do understand completely kind of the circular logic in the 14 Code Case saying that you have to be an owner. You can't use -- I understand 15 the circular logic. I'll just put it that way.
16 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So is it unique to NuScale or is 17 it a matter that would then affect anyone who attempts to use the Code Case, 18 which then raises the question why did we spend the time and effort to endorse 19 it if it's actually not applicable to anyone in the U.S.?
20 MR. BOWMAN: I think the idea was that it could be used 21 internationally, I believe. But you're right, that in the U.S. it wouldn't be -- it 22 could not be used in the U.S. based on our framework.
23 Mirela, did you want to add anything or was that --
24
95 MS. GAVRILAS: I don't have anything to add to it.
1 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. So there's no apparent 2
resolution to the issue?
3 MR. BOWMAN: So we did provide --
4 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Is there a limitation in the 5
Atomic Energy Act that would preclude --
6 MR. BOWMAN: If you're an applicant --
7 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: -- the manufacture of anything 8
before an owner is identified?
9 MR. BOWMAN: If you are an owner or an applicant or -- an 10 applicant would be someone who is considered an owner. So one option that 11 we discussed with NuScale is apply for a manufacturing license. When the 12 application is docketed, you become an applicant and an owner. And so then 13 you could apply the Code Case.
14 That's a decision for them to make. But we have committed 15 to working with them to discuss options, other options that they might want to 16 consider. So, yeah, go ahead, Mirela.
17 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: But this is going to preclude if 18 manufacturing licenses are now rolled into this Code Case. You can't have a 19 manufacturer who then proceeds to manufacture things for which the owner is 20 not identified.
21 MR. BOWMAN: So if they are an applicant for a 22 manufacturing license, they are an owner and the Code Case would be 23 irrelevant. They're owner and they can --
24
96 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: I think you are missing my point.
1 MR. BOWMAN: I'm probably --
2 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: If someone wants to build a 3
factory to manufacture microreactors, they would be the holder of the 4
manufacturing license. But could they then manufacture microreactors if they 5
don't actually have identified customers who sign contracts?
6 MS. GAVRILAS: We believe so. So if they hold a 7
manufacturing license, then they can manufacture and be subject to everything 8
else that they needed. So that's my understanding right now.
9 MR. BOWMAN: That's my understanding.
10 MS. GAVRILAS: Yes. All it would take for NuScale to be 11 able to avail themselves of the code is for them to have a manufacturing 12 license.
13 MR. BOWMAN: Not have a manufacturing license, apply for 14 a --
15 MS. GAVRILAS: Apply.
16 MR. BOWMAN: -- manufacturing license.
17 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. I'm thinking more broadly 18 than just the NuScale example. But we're going to have to follow up I think a 19 little bit more on this because I think this is potentially not necessarily a good 20 place for us to be in if people are looking at wide scale deployment of 21 microreactors.
22 MS. GAVRILAS: We're also contemplating rulemaking on the 23 subject.
24
97 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Because this is going to be a 1
broader supply chain issue than just NuScale.
2 Greg and Jeremy, both of you are new to your current roles.
3 So thank you for stepping up and taking on those responsibilities. So I am now 4
going to ask a question -- well, put forward a discussion on something that 5
transpired before you took on those responsibilities.
6 Regarding the recent publication of the Part 53 proposed rule, 7
when NRC needs to act to ensure adequate protection of public health and 8
safety, that action will be taken regardless of cost. In all other cases, the 9
efficiency of a regulatory action has always played a role or should always play 10 a role.
11 This was recognized when the Commission established its 12 Safety Goal Policy Statement, "An explicit policy statement on the safety 13 philosophy and the role of safety and cost tradeoffs in NRC safety decisions.
14 That policy, together with the backfit rule provided a framework for determining 15 whether regulatory actions that are not necessary for adequate protection 16 should be pursued in that framework if a proposal provides a substantial safety 17 benefit that is cost justified, it warrants regulatory action. This approach is both 18 risk-informed and efficient, focusing agency action on safety significance with 19 appropriate consideration of cost.
20 The reason I raise this again is because in its current state, 21 Part 53 proposed rule includes a requirement to establish a comprehensive risk 22 metric, something the agency has heretofore abstained from for 50 years. This 23 is one area that needs robust stakeholder feedback to ensure that Part 53 will 24
98 be an efficient framework to ensure the safe and secure licensing of advanced 1
reactors.
2 Staff has emphasized that this metric is not to be interpreted 3
as a real-time speed limit for risk. However, that seems overly optimistic. It 4
seems more likely that compliance with this metric will supplant the backfit 5
rules mandate to consider safety significance and cost.
6 And in its decision on the Part 53 proposed rule, the 7
Commission rejected codifying the quantitative health objectives from the 8
Safety Goal Policy Statement, otherwise known as QHOs. The Commission 9
rejected codifying the QHOs as a regulatory requirement, but a majority of 10 Commissioners voted to include an undefined comprehensive risk metric.
11 The preamble to the now published proposed rule states that 12 the QHOs could be used to satisfy the requirement for that metric, something 13 the stakeholders have commented would make the rule unworkable.
14 This seems to be an attempt to sidestep Commission 15 direction by requiring applicants to use the QHOs or bring the staff a rock or 16 some other proximity solution. At a minimum, it's a cautionary tale for 17 Commissioners on why it's important for the Commission to take ownership of 18 and responsibility for rule text.
19 Some of my cautionary comments during the previous panel 20 apply equally to Part 53.
21 As currently contemplated, all three licensing frameworks, 50, 22 52, and 53, would include a regulatory requirement for PRA superseding its role 23 as a tool contrary to the PRA Policy Statement and adding regulatory burden 24
99 without a compelling analysis of safety benefits or cost justification. It's 1
exceedingly difficult to square this with our principles of good regulation or the 2
direction provided in the ADVANCE Act.
3 Our nation is coming to a time where our energy security 4
needs are quite likely to become profound and the country will need us to 5
perform more effectively and efficiently than this agency has in decades.
6 The demands upon us are going to be significant. To me it 7
seems like common sense that the NRC would enable the safe and secure use 8
of nuclear technologies by efficiently licensing and regulating civilian uses for 9
the protection and benefit of public health and safety and the environment.
10 Unfortunately, what I have described here today diverges 11 from this. Thank you.
12 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Caputo. We 13 are at the end of our time together this morning. Thank you to both panels.
14 Thanks to the staff for your preparation. Thank you for the substantial 15 information density associated with all of your presentations. I think it prompted 16 a good discussion among the Commission.
17 Thanks to my colleagues for your questions. And, with that, 18 we are adjourned.
19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 20 11:48 a.m.)
21