ML25078A003
| ML25078A003 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/15/2025 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RIN 3150-AI66, NRC-2009-0196, NRC-0164 | |
| Download: ML25078A003 (59) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Public Meeting to Discuss Options for Regulatory Flexibility in 10 CFR Part 52 During Construction and Operational Phases Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Wednesday, January 15, 2025 Work Order No.:
NRC-0164 Pages 1-58 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS OPTIONS FOR REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IN 10 CFR PART 52 DURING CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL PHASES
+ + + + +
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2025
+ + + + +
The meeting was convened via videoconference, at 1:00 p.m. EST, Daniel Doyle, Facilitator, presiding.
NRC STAFF PRESENT:
DANIEL DOYLE, Facilitator MICHELE SAMPSON, Director, Division of New and Renewed Licenses JOE COLACCINO, Staff Lead SAMUEL LEE, Deputy Director, Division of New and Renewed Licenses ALSO PRESENT:
JOY JIANG, The Breakthrough Institute SPENCER KLEIN, Nuclear Energy Institute ERIC OESTERLE, NANO Nuclear MARTIN O'NEILL, Nuclear Energy Institute
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com CONTENTS Welcome/Introductions/Logistics...................3 Background........................................8 Concepts Under Consideration.....................13 Next Steps........................................44 Open Discussion...................................46 Closing Remarks...................................54 Adjourn
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S (1:00 p.m.)
MR. DOYLE: Good afternoon, everyone.
Welcome to this virtual public meeting hosted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to discuss options for regulatory flexibility in 10 CFR Part 52 during construction and operational phases. My name is Daniel Doyle. I'm a senior rulemaking project manager in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. I will be facilitating today's meeting.
The purpose of today's meeting is for the NRC staff to obtain feedback from external stakeholders about the staff's preliminary concepts for providing regulatory flexibility in 10 CFR Part 52 during construction and operational phases including a change process for Tier 1 and Tier 2* and adjustment of tier designations. Please know that the NRC will consider the input received today but will not be preparing written responses.
Here's the agenda for today's meeting.
After covering logistics, I will introduce Michele Sampson for opening remarks. Michele is the Director of the Division of New and Renewed Licenses in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Other attendees will have an opportunity for remarks and
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com feedback later in the meeting.
After Michele's remarks, I will introduce Joe Colaccino, who will provide relevant background information for context, and then he will discuss the concepts that are currently under consideration, and we will be pausing after an overview of each of those and providing an opportunity for comment and questions from attendees. After that, I will talk about next steps related to this activity that's currently underway and then we have time set aside for an open discussion before we wrap things up with closing remarks.
A few logistical points, please note that today's meeting is being transcribed. Please mute your microphone until you intend to speak because they're not automatically muted in this meeting. That will really help us get a clean transcript, and we appreciate that. When it is time for questions or comments, please use the raise hand feature. There's a button in Teams to indicate that you'd like to speak. I will call your name in the order that hands were raised, and then you can unmute yourself to make your comment. Please clearly state your name and any organization that you're affiliated with and then mute yourself when finished.
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com I do see we have a few callers on the phone today. If you are on the phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star-5 and then unmute by pressing star-6. So star-5 to raise a hand, star-6 to unmute. And then remember to also unmute your phone if you have that muted.
Please note that the chat feature in Teams has been disabled. The presentation slides that we're showing can be found in the ADAMS library at ML24358A001.
We will be issuing a meeting summary, including the transcript, within 30 days after this meeting. If you'd like to ensure that your participation is reflected in the meeting summary, please email me your name and affiliation via the contact information in the meeting notice. And I'll just say my email address real quick. It's daniel.doyle@nrc.gov; daniel.doyle -- thats D-O-Y-L-E
@nrc.gov, if you want to make sure that you're listed in the meeting summary.
Okay, and with that, I'm going to hand it over to Michele Sampson, who again is the Director of the Division of New and Renewed Licenses in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for opening remarks. Michele.
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MS. SAMPSON: Thanks so much, Dan. And good afternoon. I'm glad to welcome everyone here who has joined us in the meeting. I really appreciate everyone's time and interest in this topic.
Back in November, the Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare a paper that evaluates options for providing additional regulatory flexibility in 10 CFR Part 52. The Commission recognizes the importance of public engagement and really wanted to ensure that we did have public engagement as we developed these options and so that is the purpose of our meeting today is to really hear from you.
We will be developing that paper and delivering it to the Commission in late March of 2025.
In preparing for today's meeting, the staff has reviewed available information on this topic and started formulating potential options, but we have not made any decisions on a preferred option at this time.
During our presentation, we'll summarize the background information to provide context and discuss our preliminary concepts that we're looking at to address the Commission's direction. We are seeking your perspective on these concepts and anything we may have missed as we continue developing the topics that
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com need to go into this paper. I would caveat that today's presentation is really a snapshot of where we are at this moment in time and we do expect for these ideas to continue evolving, especially given the input that we receive today.
At this end of this process, we'll deliver the paper to the Commission, and if the Commission approves the changes to the regulation, then there will be additional opportunities for public feedback during the rulemaking process. And you can always check the NRC's public website for additional information about our rulemaking activities. So again, thank you. We look forward to hearing your input as we go through these potential options and I'll turn it back over to Dan.
MR. DOYLE: All right. Thank you so much, Michele.
I will now introduce Joe Colaccino, who is the NRC's staff lead for this activity. Joe, just a quick bio and background for Joe for your awareness.
Joe retired from the NRC in December 2022 with 32 years of service. He's been working on Part 52 topics for over 20 years, both as a senior project manager on the AP1000 design certification review and he later held several branch chief positions in the new
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com reactors and operating reactors areas. Joe returned to the NRC in 2023, as a rehired annuitant, to work as the technical advisor on the NuScale US 460 standard design approval review, as well as a number of other special projects, most recently the options paper which is the subject of today's meeting.
All right, I'll turn it over to Joe.
MR. COLACCINO: Thanks very much, Dan.
And thank you all for attending today. I do want to emphasize something that Michele said. We are scheduled to deliver this paper in less than two months, but we've been working on it for two months and so we have a lot -- in the development of the paper for those of you who are familiar with it, and especially something as expansive as this topic --
we've developed a lot of background information for that which we'll be including in the paper.
So I want to first just go through some of the things that I'm highlighting. Now we all know that Part 52 has a long history, close to 40 years' worth of development, so the paper does not capture everything obviously there. It does what I'm trying to focus on is what is related to the SRM that was provided to us. Basically, the tiers of information and the changes that that occurs as we go through the
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
-- if you'll -- the Part 52 cycle from when you certify a design to where it's referenced in the COL to where it's construction and where it achieves operation.
So on this slide here, Part 52 was borne in the policy statement, the 1989 policy statement, where the Commission encouraged the use of standard plant design. They felt it would improve the licensing process and bring regulatory certainty. And part of that was the certification of designs. One of the benefits of certifying those designs, of course, is that you do that review once and then you have finality when it's referenced in a COL since staff doesn't have to review that again.
So along in that process there are several papers that discuss how they came about with the tiers of information which we talk about. Many of you will be familiar with Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2*. Those are the three tiers that we'll be -- that we're really talking about today. And this slide defines what those three tiers are. All of them, all of the tiers are included in the certified design. So these are exclusive to a design that is, in fact, certified.
So if there's some other process that we're looking at here, whether it's a standard design
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com approval or a custom certification that does not have that -- those don't have tiers of information. The tiers certified are certified -- included in the certified design and they will be included in the design certification appendix. That's the appendix to Part 52. The certified design is a rule. So all of those are referenced.
I will note, I want to note that Tier 2*
is not in every certified design. As a matter of fact, the last two does not include Tier 2*
information.
Next slide.
So each of the certified designs includes the change control process. It's another part of the scope of this SRM where you can make changes to Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2* information. Just to go back and note that the Commission recognized that there were going to be changes that were going to be needed.
Although in the policy papers in the early '90s, there's a quote that I pulled out that says it would be there to address fit-up issues. Clearly, that's not what happened as going forward and I'm not going to belabor that discussion, although I do have some discussion that I'll put forward in the paper, but it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that there were
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com amendments to not only certified designs which we had to produce a new process for in the 2007 Part 52 rule, but then after the licenses were issued and plants were starting to be built where amendments had to come in.
So all that was all foreseen, maybe not to the extent that we experience, but just a summary here on this slide of the changes and what's required, whether it's an amendment or an exemption.
So the SRM asked us to put together some recent experience and this is a list, a high-level list here of some recent experience. We think it means by recent experience that we included in the paper. Obviously, the construction of Vogtle 3 and 4
-- and I mentioned that. I do not want to -- I understand that Summer was under construction for a period of time but did not complete. But Vogtle 3 and 4 is the only -- are the only Part 52 plants that have completely gone through the process and are in construction. So I do focus on those.
We have the Reg. Guide 1.237, changes during construction, something that was used heavily during -- you know, by the NRC and by the licensees when the plants were being built. There have been numerous lessons learned reports that have been done
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com from -- you know, post of the issuance of the first COLs and we are involved in rulemaking right now in Part 50 and 52.
Those of you who have seen this SRM also know that the 50/52 rule, there are many provisions in there that the Commission has weighed in on. That draft rule package was out for the public, available for the public. We've received comments on that, including some increased flexibility for changes to Tier 1 information, something that we factored into some of the things that we're considering.
Finally, the licensee for Vogtle 3 and 4, Southern Nuclear, has provided amendment and exemption requests to change all Tier 1 and Tier 2* information.
So this was just a listing of all the recent experience that we're highlighting to come forward.
MR. DOYLE: So with that background, with the proposed rule, the staff's draft proposed rule being with the Commission for their review and approval, they did provide a direction to the staff in November. So this slide summarizes the direction that's relevant to the meeting today. So first of all, in that first bullet, they did approve publication of the proposed rule to update Part 50 and 52 to address lessons learned. There was a list of 32
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com items in there. After that list, they had a paragraph which is included on the next slide here. They directed the staff to provide a paper with options for increased regulatory flexibility for controlled Tier 1, Tier 2* information in Part 52 during construction and operational phases. They directed that the options include a change process for Tier 1 and Tier 2* and adjustment of tier designations. And they also said to pause issuance of the proposed rule until the Commission provides direction on the options paper.
So this meeting is focused on the options paper that is due to the Commission in March and then they would provide direction on that and then we would move ahead with the rulemaking.
So Slide 12, this is that paragraph I was mentioning. This is from SRM-SECY-22-0052, so that includes what I just explained there. They did, as Michele said, direct the staff to engage with external stakeholders. They set the 120-day due date for that.
They said the staff should also provide proposed rule language, if applicable. So that's the Commission direction there.
Okay, so the staff will now discuss each of these concepts that are currently under consideration to address the Commission's direction
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com that I just discussed. Again, we have not made any final decisions. We are open to other ideas and again, we'll talk about each of these one at a time and then we'll pause to see if there's any questions, comments, or feedback on each one before moving to the next one.
Okay, so that's the plan. We'll turn it back over to Joe for the first one.
MR. COLACCINO: So I've labeled the first concept editorial changes, but as Michele said earlier, when we snapshotted these slides, editorial changes was the phrase I had selected, but since then, it may be more appropriate to call this concept administrative changes because there may be some changes and I think I was looking at the record of amendments and exemptions on Vogtle 3 and 4 where there were changes that were not -- you know, editorial implies that there's an error or there's something that's mislabeled or something like that versus something that if you wanted to name a line, you know, like some piping run or something like that, you wanted to change the names, that was not only a Tier 2, but in Tier 1 information, then actually you were required to make some sort of change for that.
So that's what that is. It might be a little more
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com appropriate to call that administrative changes.
So this may be less of an issue going forward in future certified designs, just reference some more recent, more recent certified designs that have used more recent staff guidance. There's two SECY papers, 17 -- I've forgotten the other number, 17-0075 on Tier 2* information and then 19-0034 on design certification content where we looked at a little more refined approached to how to define what was in Tier 1 and Tier 2* information. So this might only be an issue with the earlier certified designs where there appears to be -- not appear, there is much more information within Tier 1.
Any questions on that? Any comments?
MR. DOYLE: So we're going to pause for each one of these. Again, we welcome any feedback, any suggested
- changes, thoughts, agreement, disagreement on each of these. And again, you can raise your hand by clicking the button in the app or if you're on the phone by pressing star-5. And I will also just mention there is an option for sharing your camera. You're welcome to do that. That is allowed in this meeting, so completely up to you though.
I do see we have our first hand up. Eric.
Eric Oesterle, please go ahead.
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. OESTERLE: Yes, hey, good afternoon.
Can you hear me?
MR. COLACCINO: Yes.
MR. OESTERLE: Great. Thanks. So this is Eric Oesterle from NANO Nuclear and hello, Joe, hello, Dan. I think considering a change from editorial to administrative is a good change.
MR. DOYLE: Okay. Great. Sounds good.
Thank you, Eric. I see Sam Lee.
MR. LEE: Yes, thanks. And Joe, you may have said this already and forgive me if you have and, in my effort to try to multi-task here, I may have missed it, but I think it's an important point. If I'm reiterating, so be it. And I think this particular option that we're proposing is that the flexibility would be allowed for not only in the post start stage during the operation, but also during the construction phase. And I think that's what it's meant to cover. But it covers the flexibility in both phases, correct?
MR. COLACCINO: Correct. And Sam, and I'll take that opportunity because it's not included on the slide. And you were right, I did not mention it, but we've corrected it, so this is another thing.
This option applied -- remember, the Commission asked
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com us to consider during construction and operation, so this would apply to both, construction and operations.
Thanks.
MR. DOYLE: Okay, great. Thank you. I don't see any other hands up, so we'll move to the next one which is Slide 15.
MR. COLACCINO: Okay, so this one looks at the Tier 1 information and taking Tier 1 information and integrating it back into Tier 2. Tier 1 information is a subset of Tier 2. That's what it's derived from. And Tier 2, as the other slide -- I don't know if the other slide said it or not, but it should be understood that generally the design-specific FSAR information, it roughly corresponds to what's required by 52.47. So this would take -- so it probably already exists in Tier 2 in some way, shape, or form. It should exist. And so this would incorporate that back into Tier 2 and we're being very broad in that because my understanding, I just found out about this, that different licensees put Tier 1 in different places. So I don't want to be prescriptive about that because we obviously allowed it when we licensed those facilities. So it's like, okay, so --
and the reasoning behind this is the plant has been built. The ITAAC are no longer applicable which is
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com part of Tier 1. ITAAC were conditions on the license.
The ITAAC goes away, as the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding, so all you have left is the Tier 1 information.
Now the Commission did say that Tier 1 was supposed to last for the life of the facility and in the earlier policy papers they were very explicit about this. In this rule, they're explicit about this, so this would be a change from that.
The other thing I want to point out here is I picked a milestone or suggested a milestone, I should say, that's in the existing regulations already and it's there for Tier 2* when after the plant --
there's two categories of Tier 2*, is that what lasts
-- and it's really divided into what lasts -- what remains after the plant achieves first full power. So that was phraseology that was already in the regulations, and so I have just put it here just for convenience because that is something that we already recognize.
And I understand there might be -- the first question might be well, what is plant achieved first full power? Shouldn't it be some other thing?
Shouldn't it be commercial operation? Could it be anything else? So I'm just expressing my logic here, but that was something that was already in the regs,
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com already in the design certification appendices. And this does not -- just to go back to that point earlier, this is only after that point, Tier 1 would not be -- this concept is that you wouldn't revise Tier 1 during construction. Okay, any questions on that? Comments?
MR. DOYLE: And again, you can raise your hand by pressing the button in Teams or pressing star-5 if you're on the phone. So it looks like we have two hands up. I'll start with Eric.
MR. OESTERLE: Yes, thanks, Dan. So Joe, this looks like a positive change for flexibility because at least in my mind, once the licensee achieves that first full power and that license incorporates by reference the design certification and the certified design materials, all of the changes associated with that license are already controlled by a specific change process.
So as you mentioned, the ITAAC information in Tier 1 the ITAAC goes away once those are all completed. But what remains is this certified design material, but as part of the license that references that design, in my opinion it doesn't matter anymore because all of the information is controlled by that license and the certified design material associated
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com with the design certification itself still remains as part of that rulemaking and that appendix in Part 52.
So I think this sounds like a positive change for flexibility.
MR. DOYLE: Okay, great. Thank you.
Thank you, Eric. I see we have Spencer Klein, if you could introduce yourself and any affiliation, please?
MR. KLEIN: Yes, good afternoon, good morning. My name is Spencer Klein. I'm a Senior Project Manager with the Nuclear Energy Institute in our Technical and Regulatory Services Division.
I would just like to echo Eric's sentiments. We really like this change. I do have one question. Throughout the presentation, it does say a few times that the staff would amend Part 52, or the NRC would amend Part 52 and its appendices. Does this indicate that the staff would change the design certification rules for each of the existing NRC-approved designs?
MR. COLACCINO: It's my assessment that yes, I mean, in short, yes. That's what we would recommend to do.
MR. KLEIN: Got it.
MR. COLACCINO: Good question.
MR. KLEIN: Thank you.
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. DOYLE: Okay, great. Thank you. I see another hand up. Martin O'Neill, please go ahead.
MR. O'NEILL: Yes, this is Marty O'Neill at NEI, one of Spencer's colleagues. I'm Associate General Counsel in the Legal Division.
Yes, we, Spencer and I, had been chatting about that specific issue so at this point, do you think that would envision that the changes to the appendices would be done as one comprehensive rulemaking, or would it require individual rulemakings?
And then I guess the second question is for future design certs. Would you likely, or presumably would, build in the same flexibility, right? I mean, in those rulemakings?
MR. COLACCINO: So, Martin, I believe in the 2007 rulemaking that changes were made to each design certification appendix.
MR. O'NEILL: Uh-huh.
MR. COLACCINO: So, I believe the answer to that question is yes. I can't think of a specific provision, but I do believe that individual changes were made, and it was all part of a single rulemaking.
MR. O'NEILL: Yes, yes, okay.
MR. COLACCINO: We'll take that back
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com though.
MR. O'NEILL: Yes, and I can look, too again. I just was curious. Okay, and again --
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MR. COLACCINO: I know the person to ask here.
MR. O'NEILL: I think I do, too. So, okay, and again, same thing, and maybe it's a bit hypothetical at this point, but presumably you would try to build in similar flexibility into future design cert rulemakings, I would imagine, so.
MR. COLACCINO: So, yes. So, just to emphasize that, the design certification appendices are pretty much the same.
MR. O'NEILL: Yes.
MR. COLACCINO: They're really -- as they're certified, they're pretty much the same. The only thing, I mean the only real technical difference that I see is that what is within the scope of Tier 2*. And the last two certified designs, APR 1400 and NuScale US600, do not have Tier 2*.
MR. O'NEILL: Okay, all right, thank you.
MR. DOYLE: All right, thank you. I don't see any other hands up for this one, so we will move on to slide 16.
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. COLACCINO: Can I just go back?
MR. DOYLE: Oh, sure.
MR. COLACCINO: I did get confirmation on that answer about revising the design certification appendices. That is what we did, and there are many approaches that we can do.
So, thank you.
MR. O'NEILL: Thanks.
MR. COLACCINO: Sorry again.
MR. DOYLE: No problem. Where are we?
PARTICIPANT: Slide 16, Tier 2* after construction.
MR. COLACCINO: So another option that we're -- another concept that we're looking at is there are certified designs in existence that have Tier 2* after construction.
Maybe looking at seeing -- looking at changes to eliminate that Tier 2*. This would be a more challenging rulemaking, in my opinion. It would be more technical.
As has been noted, there are some information that would have been controlled by a license condition.
So, this might resort in more -- you have to go back and look at, engage on changes to the
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com license. I mean, I looked at -- it's a concept you're looking at, but I looked at it also as being much more technical.
Another aspect of this is, and this was written in the early policy papers, too, when they proposed Tier 2*, is that Tier 2* is really Tier 1 information.
And so, the staff requested to use Tier 2*
to gain more flexibility. But if the Commission wasn't going to approve Tier 2*, they would see --
want to see this information as Tier 1.
So, the Commission did approve the use of Tier 2* -- and forgive me, I don't have that reference in front of me. I should, but it's in the paper. But it's currently in the paper right now.
So, I float this as a concept that could be used, but at the same time, I think that this is a much heavier lift from a technical standpoint.
Because then we'd have to look at each of those things and see what the impact is. Not only in the certification but possibly in the license itself.
I'm not exactly sure how we go about that but yet it was a concept. It's still something there.
It gives greater flexibility because then you don't have to give amendments. But could we come across to
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com that point? I don't know.
One of the things, if I could, before we go to questions. One of the things we've tried to do here, and I think those have looked ahead for all the options, is to see all the concepts that we've looked at is, we've considered a wide variety of things.
So, we've kind of, like, opened our minds to what the possibilities are with the purpose of informing the condition of all the options we considered.
Okay, any comments on that?
MR. DOYLE: Okay, so again we're going to pause for each of these items. If you'd like to make a comment or ask a question, please raise your hand by clicking the button in the app. Or if you're on the phone, you press star-5.
I am just repeating myself. Thanks for your patience. I know some folks are joining during the meeting, which is totally fine.
All right, I see we have a hand up. Eric, please go ahead.
MR. OESTERLE: Yes, thanks, Dan. This is Eric Oesterle from NANO Nuclear again.
So Joe, I think this is also another move towards providing flexibility. And I view it as being
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com consistent with the previous slide, slide 15, considering the fact that Tier 2* was always thought of as sort of like Tier 1-light. Much closer to Tier 1 than Tier 2.
So, if we are successful with the approach on slide 15, I don't see that the approach to making Tier 2* Tier 2 would be that much more difficult after the plant first achieves full power.
And I think we're only dealing with maybe a subset of Tier 2* information as well, because I think there's some Tier 2* information that sunsets into Tier 2 information, at first full power.
So, that's my feedback on that approach.
MR. COLACCINO: And if I could just comment. Eric, you are correct, there is a portion.
That's why I said there was two categories. Maybe I didn't explain that very well.
There's your whole set of Tier 2*
information that's -- that the licensee at that point during construction would have to come in for an amendment.
But then after the plant achieves first full power, a subset goes away and there's a smaller subset that's left. And so, that's the one that I'm referring to here with this option.
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com I still think that this would be -- it's not clear cut as being just all of Tier 1.
And it also, I think, at least in my opinion, as I've gone through this, that's kind of fortified by the fact that not -- the last two certified designs did not
- need, or did not incorporate, Tier 2* information in there.
So, how that information made it into --
you know, how does staff resolve that, I think, is a factor that has to be considered.
So, and just stepping one back. I didn't want to get too deep into the weeds here. Tier 2*
information already exists within the FSAR.
It is just information that's highlighted.
I think it's italics and brackets, and things like that. So, really, taking that designation away is just then taking the -- is just saying okay, this is no longer special.
And just to make sure that we understand from a technical standpoint, and a regulatory standpoint, that it's okay to do that, I think would just be a little more of a lift.
MR. DOYLE: Okay, oh, we have another hand up. Mr. O'Neill, go ahead.
MR. O'NEILL: Yes, and I'm sorry to press
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com you on this, I'm just trying to understand. I guess you said from a technical standpoint it would be more challenging.
I guess to me it's obvious from a procedural or a legal standpoint, if you've got license condition in place.
Could you just maybe elaborate on that a little bit? I mean, is the fact that something is designated Tier 2* a direct reflection of its unique technical or safety considerations?
Just trying to understand that a little bit better.
MR. COLACCINO: Yes, and that's a fair question. And I believe it, without going in -- and we're talking just from generic terms here.
I believe it is that you'd have to look at each one of those individually. And we try to allay that. Maybe we're a little too cryptic in our slide there where -- I have to go back and look.
There may be a condition that's on -- this would have been a condition on the license. Instead, we made it Tier 2*.
So, what does that look like? And you'd have to look at it. I believe that you'd have to look at that individually. Because we made those -- I
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com would like to think that we made those decisions for a reason versus all of Tier 1 information.
We know why all Tier 1 information exists.
It exists there to support the ITAAC, and also it's a fundamental -- it's approved and certified in the design. So, that's what referenced in the rule.
I understand it's all referenced in the rule, but the Tier 1 piece is something that we can wholly, I believe after the plant achieves full power, is a concept where I think saying well, what's the need for that information versus Tier 2* highlighted that information for a reason. And is it then appropriate to be.
It may be very well that yes, it is appropriate considering where you are when you get to operation. But we did that for a reason.
MR. O'NEILL: Okay, yes.
MR. COLACCINO: And so, that's what I want to -- that's what I think we would need to understand.
And I think that's where it would be because then you'd not only be working with the certified design, but then the licensees that have actually referenced that.
MR. O'NEILL: Okay, I got you, thanks.
MR. COLACCINO: You're welcome.
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. DOYLE: Great, thank you. Oh, we have another hand up. Eric?
MR. OESTERLE: Yes, thanks. Eric Oesterle, from NANO Nuclear.
So Joe, as I'm thinking back, I think one of the considerations for making Tier 2* information was that that information was thought of as -- or at least some of it was thought of as Tier 1 information that had a good likelihood of changing over time, or during construction.
And so, it was highlighted as Tier 2*.
But that may not have been the only criteria, but that was one of the considerations that I remember.
MR. COLACCINO: And Eric, you're correct.
And that's highlighted in a policy paper, that one that I talked about before that I can't remember which one it is.
Maybe somebody in the meeting here knows which one it is, where the staff had said that for additional flexibility, we'd like to designate this information as Tier 2*. And so -- and have the change by amendment.
But if the Commission did not want to do that, did not want to approve that, then this information would be Tier 1.
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com And the Commission in a follow-up SRM said yes, you can designate Tier 2*. We're talking in the mid-90s for the, I believe that would be the ABWR.
And as is with all of the certified designs, and all of the change processes, it just kept
-- they adopted that convention as you went through the certified designs, up until APR 1400, which had no Tier 2* information.
MR. OESTERLE: Right, right. And, as Jerry used to say, now there's a new sheriff in town.
MR. DOYLE: All right, okay, thank you so much. Appreciate the questions and the feedback on this.
I don't see any other hands up on this one. Let's see, we've got a few more.
MR. COLACCINO: Should be slide 17.
MR. DOYLE: Slide 17, yes.
MR. COLACCINO: So, one of the things, I believe this is -- so I know that the amendments and I know that lessons learned reports -- so, let me back up here for a minute.
When you're issued a combined license, you're issued a license to build and operate the plant.
So, once you progress through
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com construction, you have to maintain the current licensing basis.
I know this has been a bit of contention.
I don't -- I've looked at some of the lessons learned reports that cite some examples of some things where this was a problem.
Or they cite some issues, but I've consulted with the
- region, and construction inspections, and they've looked at the information.
I've written here on that.
They think I've got it captured correctly in that this was not a major problem. But nevertheless, there was some -- it was definitely --
there was a burden here on having to maintain the current licensing basis.
I believe that this Reg Guide -- I mean every license, every COL that's issued, has a license condition allowing the licensee to use the preliminary amendment request, or PAR process. And I believe that this Reg Guide talks about how to do that PAR process.
I'm not going to describe the PAR process here at all. That's not the purpose of this meeting, but it's more about the flexibility of that.
And so, and I believe that this is an idea that came in that we decided to elevate as a concept
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com where you would actually be allowed to modify Tier 1 information.
But you would have to -- before you declared a change SSC or component operable, you would still need to obtain all the required amendments, or exemptions.
So, I think that this concept kind of addresses that. Now, and I can think of questions.
Right off the bat is what does it mean to be operable when your plant is under construction?
Is it when the system is turned over from the constructor to the -- I mean, from the then construction organization to the plant for operation?
Does it mean when it hits commercial operation? Does it mean 103(g)?
So, there's a lot of things that would need to be resolved in this, but I think it -- this essence is we wanted to capture something that conveyed, and communicate to the Commission, one of the things that we heard in comments.
Any questions or comments on that?
(No audible response.)
MR. COLACCINO: I believe part of this I saw, we saw, in an NEI comment from some place, so?
MR. DOYLE: Yes, and it was, we actually
34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com listed it in a bullet in the recent activities slide.
So, that does have a link to the comment and the page number there. But yes, there is that.
MR. COLACCINO: So if NEI wants to comment on that, that would be preferred; that would be great.
MR. DOYLE: And we have a first hand up.
Eric?
MR. COLACCINO: Eric wants to weigh in because Eric cannot find a question that he does not want to weigh in on.
MR. OESTERLE: No, Joe, I'm providing positive feedback on the direction NRC is heading on this. So, Eric Oesterle, from NANO Nuclear.
So, I think this is another good, positive change towards flexibility. And just from a high level, maybe philosophical approach, I think this change reflects the fact that, yes, licensees are supposed to be in conformance with their -- or in compliance with their approved licensing basis.
However, the licensing basis reflects the plant in its as-built state, right? And does not reflect the interim configurations that you experience during construction.
So, I think by allowing some more flexibility during construction, to allow that
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com progress towards complying with the approved licensing basis at the end-state, however it's defined. Whether it's transferring systems, structures and components from construction organization to the operations organization, or upon completion of all ITAAC, or first full power or something like that, I think this is another positive step towards providing flexibility.
So, thanks.
MR. COLACCINO: I think I might only take issue with one thing you said, Eric, and I'm trying to figure out how to capture it.
But, so you refer to that the license is supposed to be reflective of a plant's end-state, and maybe I'm paraphrasing you.
Which conceptually, I think we can all say this is what the ultimate end game is. The plant that you're going to operate is built, and it looks like this.
But that's not what Part 52 -- that's not what this combined license is. You start by building that. You start by building the plant.
And it was understood that you would build what was licensed. And so, when you're deviating from that, then you're not building what was licensed. And
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com that wasn't what was originally thought of.
Now remember, I'll go back to that quote that I pulled out where the Commission -- and granted, I keep pulling this out because, I don't know, back in the early '90s when they wrote we need some change to address fit-up issues. What were they really thinking? And I could only postulate what they were thinking over 30 years ago, is that they would get --
have more complete designs.
But Part 52 never requires you to have a complete design. It had a -- it was -- the staff was to approve a design with the appropriate -- if we were provided the appropriate scope and level of detail to resolve all safety issues, that's what we would base our approval on.
And you know we threw around, some of you may know, we threw around a figure for many, many years that tried to outline that it was not 100 percent of the design.
So, that was -- it was clear that we weren't -- that the early, the constructors were not dealing with fit-up issues.
They were being -- they were dealing with a plant that had, that was, where the design was being completed and found out it did not conform with what
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com was in their license. So, there were required amendments.
And that's the reality. So, this is --
we've been asked to look at options for flexibility.
This idea was given to us.
It's not new, quite frankly, because I think we heard it all through construction and it's captured in lesson learned reports. But I think it's appropriate to put out there and not ignore.
MR. OESTERLE: Yes, I agree with you, Joe.
If there is changes to the design during construction that are necessitated by fit-up or other design changes, that those changes definitely have to go through the process.
But my only point was to say that you comply with the approved licensing basis after the --
when the plant is completely finished.
You can't expect the plant to six or nine months into construction, to comply with its licensing basis because the licensing basis just reflects a completed plant.
It doesn't reflect all of the interim configurations that you might have experienced during construction.
MR. DOYLE: All right, thank you Eric.
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Another hand up, Martin O'Neill, please go ahead.
MR. O'NEILL: Yes, just I think I was involved in drafting those comments, but it's been a few years. But I think really, this is kind of that whole concept of at-risk, right?
I mean, that the licensee can proceed with these changes at-risk, meaning that the NRC would ultimately have to approve them down the road before you can declare the change SSC operable, right?
Is that kind of what you were thinking of in terms of the comments?
MR. COLACCINO: And yes. And I mean, I think that there's -- I mean I think that concept exists right now with the PAR, the preliminary amendment request/license amendment request, where in that process, the staff gives and says okay, we think
-- I forgot what the exact phrase that's used, but we think this looks good, but you are proceeding -- if you proceed with construction, you are going to proceed at-risk, as they review the amendment.
MR. O'NEILL: Yes, but the idea is this would be I guess, simpler and more expeditious right, than the PAR process.
MR. COLACCINO: I think this would be an
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com expansion of that the way that I see it.
Again, this is at a high level.
MR. O'NEILL: Yes.
MR. COLACCINO: I don't think that we were
-- this is the concept. I like that phrase concept more and more now.
Because in the time that we have, we are trying to put as much on the table as we can. We're trying to put as much into this paper as we can in the time that we have.
MR. O'NEILL: Okay, thanks.
MR. DOYLE: Okay, great, thank you. And I do see another hand up. Sam?
MR. LEE: Yes, Dan, thanks.
And just to follow up on those comments, I think it's fair to say that conceptually, to follow on Joe's theme here, that it's fair to say that PAR process was instituted because of the LAR process we had instituted at that time. And that was kind of the way to finesse that.
So going
- forward, yes, what we're envisioning conceptually is a more efficient process than what we had before.
How that pans out in detail is yet to be seen, but certainly it's envisioned to be more of an
40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com efficient process going forward.
MR. COLACCINO: Okay, thanks. Slide 18?
MR. DOYLE: Okay, great, thank you, moving on to slide 18.
MR. COLACCINO: So we had other ideas, too. And I've just listed them here, and I'll just talk about them. I'll talk about them briefly.
I think at the NRC if -- you always have to talk about a risk informed change process. Risk informing, so maybe risk informing the change control process. That is one thing to do.
In the time that we have, I think mentioning that we could do risk informed, we at least raised this a concept that could be established, I think is reasonable.
But I think that this would be, in the time that we have to develop this paper, I think this is about all we can do with this.
I would look at this as fairly complicated. I would look at it as like how do we have this in line with the plant-specific PRA.
Now, for Part 52, they all have plant-specific PRAs. How that is effective, we had not engaged -- I have not engaged with the appropriate people to see how this would look like, because we're
41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com just trying to get this paper out and through the door.
But I would think that we have to at least mention this, that we at least thought that this -- is there a way to do this? And no easy way fell out for me. And so -- but I feel like I had to mention it in the paper.
So another thing is -- and I do feel that this is within the scope of the SRM, whereas the next one where a vendor actually petitions to rulemaking to modify the certified design.
And when I say modify, it's like okay, if another COL applicant wants to reference a certified -
- a design that's already certified, perhaps they, a vendor in advance of that, comes in with an amendment to modify their Tier 1 information.
Or modify their Tier 2* information if it does have anything like that.
Now, that's not within the scope of the SRM, but it's still something that's available. The 2007 update to Part 52 includes a process to amend the certification. Westinghouse used that for their --
for the upgrade of the -- or update of the AP1000.
Exemptions is always a route that can be considered. And I know that the current -- you know,
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Southern Nuclear did go through this process, at least to engage with the staff on this.
Ultimately, they decided for the Tier 1/Tier 2* piece to withdraw that, withdraw those exemptions.
But that's something that clearly is a tool, but you then have to have the underlying purpose of the -- understand what the underlying purpose of the rule is.
And quite honestly, because of the way that Part 52 with its emphasis on standardization, I think there are policy issues that are introduced for an exemption.
Which may be the reason why the Commission asked us to do this. I'm not going to speculate on what the Commission's reasoning was in giving us this task.
The next one -- now we're really getting out of the ballpark here, where -- okay, it looks like that a Part 52 plant doesn't -- what if a Part 52 plant wanted after they were -- and at some form, maybe during operations, didn't want to be Part 52 plant anymore, they want to be a Part 50.
Well, okay, something that the agency has not considered before. Lots of policy implications,
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com but it's something that we felt like that we needed to put out there.
And the last one is, it's there because Tier 2* changes during construction, again, that's not
-- it's another option that's there.
I don't think it's -- again, when you're constructing a plant, things become more complicated.
I think a better point is once the plant has been fully completed, is that a Part 52 plant?
Is there an opportunity there to look at those Tier 2* items that go beyond, that were not intended to extend beyond when the plant achieves first full power?
So, just wanted to briefly highlight some of those things. I know there -- like I said, we tried to give every concept that we could here for this public meeting today.
So, any questions? Comments?
MR. DOYLE: Okay, I don't see any hands on this one. We'll move ahead. Thank you, Joe. Slide
- 19.
MR. COLACCINO: Yes, so this is we've just kind of put here a little summary of what the four changes that we -- the four concepts that we've discussed in detail here.
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Looking at -- and we grouped them this way and we're -- you're going to probably when the paper comes out, you're going to -- one of the things you always do, want to do when you write, when you respond to one of these is make sure that we've answered what the Commission has asked.
So, you'll probably see maybe not this exact thing, but you'll see where we've captured --
tried to capture what the Commission has asked us to do.
And basically focusing and they asked us to provide increased flexibility during construction and operation for Tier 1 and Tier 2* information and moving of information between the tiers.
Okay, so that's just a summary for you all to help really. I wasn't looking to speak on that in great detail.
MR. DOYLE: Yes.
Okay, slide 20 is back to me to give an overview of the next steps that are related to this.
So again, we have this, the options paper directed by that Commission SRM in November, due in 120 days.
So, the options paper is due to the Commission in March 2025, and then it will be with
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com them for review.
So, the Commission will vote on that, and then provide direction back to the staff. The staff would then implement the Commission's direction.
And we're anticipating that that would be included and part of the 50/52, the Part 50/Part 52, lessons learned proposed rule.
So, that would involve another comment period. Probably one or more public meetings, interactions, opportunities for input on that proposed rule.
So, the policy changes coming out of the options paper are expected to be included as part of that rulemaking.
So, there would be the public comment period, and then the sort of typical rulemaking process.
Staff will address the public comments.
We prepare a draft, like an internal NRC version of the final rule, that the staff provides to the Commission for review.
The Commission would review that draft final rule, provide direction back to the staff, and if approved, then the staff would address any direction, any changes from the Commission, and then
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com go ahead and publish the final rule.
Okay, great. So, that was the staff presentation. We gave some background information, and we talked about some recent activities related to this.
Went through some of the preliminary concepts in a little more detail, and some others were mentioned with a little bit less detail and the path forward and the next steps. So, that's mainly what we wanted to cover. The main purpose, again, for this meeting was to get engagement.
So, we are -- I think do I have another slide after this one?
MR. COLACCINO: You have one after this.
MR. DOYLE: Right. So again, this is the opportunity for more just open general feedback. You can feel free to comment on any of those concepts that we discussed.
If you have any questions about any of the other slides, that would be fine. Or if you want to express your opinion on anything.
So we're just trying to keep it focused on the purpose of the meeting, which is the engagement related to this options paper and the Commission direction on that.
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com But yes, so are there any other approaches that we should be considering as we are get into the last couple months of putting this paper together?
Any other questions or feedback, you can raise your hand in the app by clicking that raised hand button. Or if you're on the phone, you can press star-5.
And I do see we have a few people lined up, so great, we are here for you. We do have this scheduled for some more time and we'll see how it goes. We may take a break at some point, but yes, let's jump into it.
So, Martin O'Neill, please go ahead.
MR. O'NEILL: Yes, again, Marty O'Neill, with NEI, and thank you for the presentation and the insights.
And just a couple questions, and one is just really procedural. You mentioned revisions to the Reg Guide, what was it, 1.237, I think.
But would that be done basically in parallel with the rulemaking, once you get direction from the Commission to proceed?
Would that really be provided as part of the rulemaking package? The revised Reg Guide?
MR. DOYLE: I do think it would be. It's
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com maybe a little hard to tell. There are sometimes situations where guidance can't be updated as part of a rulemaking.
That's not the expectation from the Commission. That's not the norm. So, we do typically try to update the guidance, have draft guides out at the same time as the proposed rule is published for public comment. That's what we would try to do, if possible.
MR. O'NEILL: Okay, thanks.
And then, I guess just the second question. And it's more just a question out of curiosity.
As you went through this -- and I recognize you're pretty time constrained. You have to respond to the Commission's directive.
But did you kind of retrospectively maybe look back at this and see, like, how this would have -
- like, had these proposals been in place, how they would have affected how things were done, for instance with Vogtle 3 and 4?
Kind of almost like a retrospective tabletop, or are you just -- you know, kind of give some thought to how these procedures had they been available, would have expedited matters, or not?
49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. COLACCINO: So, I'll say that, so --
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MR. O'NEILL: Even if they're high-level, sorry.
MR. COLACCINO: Yes, no, no. Short answer, when I talked to the folks that were involved in Vogtle 3 and 4, either from our licensing side or from the construction inspection side, that's not the thing we were looking for, I was looking for.
I was looking for have I captured what was done correctly. And have I captured in the information I have prepared, have I captured that correctly? And the answer I got was yes. So, had we said, how much time could we have saved? No, we have not done that.
MR. O'NEILL: Yes, okay, and I wasn't suggesting that you need to. It was just more of a thought, I guess, or a curiosity, so thank you.
MR. DOYLE: Okay, great, thank you.
I'll move to the next hand up, Spencer Klein, please go ahead.
MR.
KLEIN:
- Yes, thanks for the opportunity, and thank you for the presentation. This has been very informative and great.
This is Spencer Klein from the Nuclear
50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Energy Institute.
I just want to express NEI's appreciation for the staff's efforts to address the lessons learned from Part 52 licensing activities, as part of the development of your options paper and encourage your consideration of all stakeholder comments prior to finalizing the options paper for the Commission.
This will be a mechanism for identifying opportunities for improving the efficiency and timeliness of licensing new reactors, as you're aware.
Overall, staff proposals seem reasonable, helpful to industry, and responsive to our earlier comments on these topics as you've referenced.
One reference that is not included that you may or may not have looked at previously, is our NEI white paper on first principles for design certification Tier 1 information and inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria, that was dated June 2017.
It's one of our older white papers but still relevant, and it's aimed at providing clarity and consistency around what we feel is appropriate for Tier 1 and ITAAC in the applications.
So, if you haven't looked at that, I would consider taking a look back at that and we're happy to
51 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com provide another copy of that, if desired.
MR. COLACCINO: So, Spencer, that's NEI --
is that the draft white paper NEI 15-02?
MR. KLEIN: Let me see off the top of my head. No, that is a different one. There's more updated from that, that I can find. I'll send you a copy of it. I forget the ML number off the top of my head.
MR. COLACCINO: So, it's a 2017 letter?
MR. KLEIN: Correct.
MR. COLACCINO: If you can give us a reference, that will be very helpful.
MR. KLEIN: Absolutely.
MR. COLACCINO: Because I believe -- and this is the purpose of this meeting to make sure that I've captured everything. That we've all captured everything.
So if we did not get that -- I'm familiar with that 2017 letter, but I appreciate you raising that.
MR. KLEIN: Absolutely.
MR. DOYLE: Okay, thank you. Next hand up, Eric Oesterle, please go ahead.
MR. OESTERLE: Yes, thanks, Dan. Eric Oesterle, from NANO Nuclear.
52 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com So, yes, thanks for the presentation, and thanks to the staff for your considerations and how to make this process more flexible. Looking forward to the paper when it comes out.
I would just offer one suggestion that to make the paper more easily understandable for the Commission, the staff, and the public, I think it would be helpful to include a sort of comparison between what are the existing processes, what are the proposed new processes, what specific flexibilities they provide, and the benefits that the new processes provide to both the staff and the applicants -- or not applicants, but licensees.
MR.
COLACCINO:
- Thanks, Eric.
I understand the request. And I know that we've had a couple of requests internally, too, to kind of lay out the different things.
Because like you observed, we're talking construction, we're talking operation in different tiers, pros, cons.
We're looking at different ways to present that and trying to do it as quickly as possible. So, we're in kind of a little -- that's one of the -- I'm not going to say it's one of the challenges we have, but it is.
53 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com It's just trying to get this done efficiently so that we can get it -- we can meet the Commission's date of towards the end of March.
MR. DOYLE: Okay, great, thank you. Thank you, Eric.
So again, yes, this is the opportunity for general feedback, any other questions, thoughts, suggestions.
Unfortunately, with the limited time frame, this is really the only public interaction that we have on this schedule. There's not a separate comment period specifically on this options paper.
But as I said, whatever the Commission's direction, it would be integrated into the rulemaking and go through the comment period.
It's part of the rulemaking process later, but we do appreciate the folks attending this meeting today.
I'll just check again if any other questions, comments, thoughts for now. We do have just a few more slides before wrapping up.
Okay, all right, I don't see any other hands so we will, yes, we'll keep moving ahead and be efficient, appreciate everybody's time.
Okay so as we have some time for closing
54 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com remarks, just to kind of reflect on the input that we got today, Michele, is there anything you'd like to share?
MS. SAMPSON: I just again want to appreciate the time for people who joined us. The good discussion and feedback on the options that we have in front of us.
As Joe opened with, there is a long regulatory history on Part 52, and we certainly are taking that into consideration.
We appreciate raising the different inputs that have been provided in the past, and we are making an effort to try to review all of that information as well.
Before I completely close, do you want to share one more comment or anything?
MR. DOYLE: Yes, I do. And I see that we have another hand up so let's -- we're going to --
we'll check on that before we move ahead too much further.
Joy Jiang, I see your hand is up. Please go ahead.
MS. JIANG: Hello, can you hear me?
MR. DOYLE: It's not very clear. If you could speak slowly and maybe get a little bit closer
55 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com to the microphone, please?
Yes, please go ahead.
MS. JIANG: Okay, I'll try. Hi, this is Joy with the Breakthrough Institute. And the reason that I raised my hand after the comment (audio interference).
I just have one simple question. Do you have a timeline regarding the Part 50/Part 52 lessons learned proposal that you mentioned in the next steps?
Because you mentioned the paper would be through the Commission in March 2025, and that's (audio interference).
MR. DOYLE: Okay, thank you. Yes, so just to repeat that it was a little bit hard to hear but I heard so Joy Jiang, from the Breakthrough Institute, and your question was about the timeline for the Part 50/52 lessons learned rulemaking.
So, thank you for the question. We do not have a hard timeline for that right now so I can't give you a specific month and date.
It is going to depend on a few different things. So, it's going to depend on when the Commission votes on this options paper. They did say to pause the 50/52 rulemaking until they provide direction on the options paper. So, it is going to be
56 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com paused.
Then the Commission provides that direction. It's then -- the next sort of unknown there is going to be what, if any, policy changes are we going to be implementing in there. And then, how long does it take to do that? And that is anticipated to be folded into the 50/52 rulemaking.
So, I think that's the best I can do for now. We don't have a specific timeline.
The other thing I'll just share is that on the NRC website, the NRC public website, we in the rulemaking area, we have a list of all of our ongoing rulemaking activities. So, the lessons learned rulemaking, the 50/52 lessons learned rulemaking, is one of the activities that's listed in there.
And we will keep that updated with whatever the current estimated publication date is.
So, as time goes on, anyone is welcome to check that and see what is the estimated publication date as of today.
So what we would typically do if something is with the Commission, we would estimate maybe a few months for voting and then the time needed for the steps after that.
So, just to point out is that you can
57 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com check that website and continue to check it in the future, if you wanted to see whatever is the current estimate for publications.
So hopefully, that's a helpful answer there. Thank you for the question.
- Great, any other questions?
Good participation throughout. We appreciate it.
Okay, I'll move on. So, just in sort of a closing here, we do welcome your feedback on how today's meeting went.
Please consider filling out the NRC's public meeting feedback form. So this would just be for the meeting itself, not the paper, but as far as how the meeting was noticed and conducted and held.
You can use this meeting feedback form.
You can access that by scanning the QR code there shown on the slide or click the link in the meeting details page. And your opinion will help us improve future meetings, so please take a moment to let us know what you think. And I'd like to thank all meeting participants for taking their time to support the discussion today.
Again, we will be issuing a meeting summary within 30 days that includes the transcript.
And then, with that, I would just
58 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com reiterate one more time, if you'd like to ensure that your attendance today is reflected in the meeting
- summary, you can shoot me an email at daniel.doyle@nrc.gov.
We do have the attendance list from Microsoft Teams, but just for anyone on the phone, that would be more helpful -- or from the attendance list, I can see the name, but I wouldn't be able to see the affiliation.
So, if you'd like to have that included, please shoot me an email. Daniel.doyle@nrc.gov.
Thank you all very much, and that concludes our meeting. Have a great day.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 2:19 p.m.)