ML22039A110
| ML22039A110 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Issue date: | 01/28/2022 |
| From: | Holtzman B Nuclear Energy Institute |
| To: | Beverly Smith Office of Administration, NRC/NRR/DNRL |
| References | |
| 86FR71101 00002, NRC-2021-0162 | |
| Download: ML22039A110 (7) | |
Text
2/8/22, 10:31 AM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/6ea8a0d6-58d2-43aa-9cfd-eb4d66f3b717 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/6ea8a0d6-58d2-43aa-9cfd-eb4d66f3b717 1/1 PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 2/8/22 9:57 AM Received: January 28, 2022 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. kyy-qf3s-o8df Comments Due: January 28, 2022 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2021-0162 Safety Review of Light-Water Reactor Construction Permit Applications Comment On: NRC-2021-0162-0001 Safety Review of Light-Water Power-Reactor Construction Permit Applications Document: NRC-2021-0162-DRAFT-0003 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-27035 Submitter Information Email:kme@nei.org
Organization:Nuclear Energy Institute General Comment Submittal of NEI comments on draft ISG Safety Review of Light-Water Power-Reactor Construction Permit Applications, 86 Federal Register 71101, 12/14/2021 (Docket ID: NRC-2021-0162)
Attachments 01-28-22 CP ISG Transmittal Letter NRC-2021-0162 with attachment SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Carolyn Lauron, Tekia Govan, Mary Neely Comment (2)
Publication Date:
12/14/2021 Citation: 86 FR 71101
BENJAMIN HOLTZMAN Program Advisor New Reactors & Advanced Technology 1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004 P: 202.739.8031 bah@nei.org nei.org January 28, 2022 Mr. Brian Smith Director, Division of New and Renewed Licenses Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Submitted via regulations.gov
Subject:
Submittal of NEI comments on draft ISG Safety Review of Light-Water Power-Reactor Construction Permit Applications, 86 Federal Register 71101, 12/14/2021 (Docket ID: NRC-2021-0162)
Project Number: 689
Dear Mr. Smith:
On behalf of the nuclear energy industry, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)1 appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) draft interim staff guidance (ISG),
Safety Review of Light-Water Power-Reactor Construction Permit Applications. On January 19th, as part of an Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Meeting, NRC presented details on the ISG. During that meeting, NEI and its members as well as other members of the public, engaged in a dialogue with the NRC to better understand the document. This engagement helped focus our comments that are highlighted below and detailed in the attachment.
Overall, the ISG on construction permit applications has improved clarity as compared to the NRCs predecessor white paper on construction permit applications from February 2021 (ML21043A339). However, some comments provided in NEIs letter regarding the draft NRC white paper remain applicable (ML21092A115). Most notably is that the level of detail requested for the construction permit application in several areas appears inconsistent with previous construction permit applications and instead is aligned with the level of detail needed for a Part 52 combined operating license application or a Part 50 operating license application. Clarification in the guidance on this point would be very helpful to ensure that prospective applicants appropriately determine whether to use the Part 50 or Part 52 licensing process. Furthermore, 1 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is responsible for establishing unified policy on behalf of its members relating to matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect and engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations involved in the nuclear energy industry.
Mr. Brian Smith January 28, 2022 Page 2 clarification in this area would ensure that those applicants submitting applications using the Part 50 process and the subsequent staff reviewers would be aligned regarding expectations for the construction permit application yielding high quality applications and predictable efficient regulatory reviews.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely, Ben Holtzman Attachment c:
Carolyn Lauron, NRR, NRC Joseph Sebrosky, NRR, NRC
Attachment - Comments on the draft ISG Safety Review of Light-Water Power-Reactor Construction Permit Applications Page 1 of 4 Comment #
Location Comment Proposed Change 1
General The ISG is applicable for reactors that are using NUREG-0800 and not using Licensing Modernization Project (LMP).
Applicants using LMP will use the advanced reactor content of application project (ARCAP) Appendix E guidance.
However, this distinction is not very clear in the ISG.
Please clarify in the text under what circumstances applicants would use this ISG and under what circumstances applicants would use the ARCAP guidance.
2 General It's not clear the distinction being made between the level of detail requested for the construction permit (CP) application compared to an operating license application. If there is no distinction between the information considered necessary and sufficient for a Part 50 CP and operating license application, including information that may not be available for a preliminary design, then there would be no purpose in using a Part 50 licensing pathway. The Part 52 combined operating license application would avoid the need for a subsequent operating licensing application associated with the Part 50 process. The text should avoid the impression that the only acceptable CP application is one with a finalized design.
Please review the ISG to ensure the CP requires a level of information consistent with past CP applications that NRC has approved.
Please consider developing a CP acceptance review template to reduce uncertainty and subjectivity of application development and reviews.
3 Guidance p.5 The draft guidance doesnt incorporate the NRCs approach for addressing aircraft impact for micro reactors as described in an NRC paper on the subject.
Please revise the ISG to incorporate a reference to NRCs guidance for micro reactors for applicable designs.
4 Appendix p.16 The ISG text denotes "Many SRP sections retained separate guidance for the review of a CP application, while other SRP sections consolidated that guidance in the review procedures for applications submitted under 10 CFR Part 52. It would be helpful to state explicitly what sections of the SRP retain separate guidance for the review of a CP application.
Please state which sections of the SRP retain separate guidance for the review of a CP application.
Attachment - Comments on the draft ISG Safety Review of Light-Water Power-Reactor Construction Permit Applications Page 2 of 4 Comment #
Location Comment Proposed Change 5
Appendix p.16 Industry agrees that CP application reviews should be risk-significant and safety-significant commensurate with their significance, however, it's not clear from the ISG how this would be implemented when the overall design may still be in finalization.
Please provide any additional detail available on how the risk details would be evaluated to help ensure regulatory stability and predictability for CP applications and reviews.
6 Appendix p.17 The text "Finally, the NRC staff should note that the information in this appendix is not intended to include all topics expected and reviewed in a CP application." If this is the case, how can an applicant have a reasonable expectation of what material would be expected for a CP application?
Please clarify the intent of this line and consider developing a CP acceptance review template to reduce uncertainty and subjectivity of application development and reviews.
Attachment - Comments on the draft ISG Safety Review of Light-Water Power-Reactor Construction Permit Applications Page 3 of 4 Comment #
Location Comment Proposed Change 7
Transient and Accident Analyses p.18 The detail and specified completion of safety analysis in this section goes beyond what the industry believes should be required for a construction permit (CP) application.
Specifically, the draft guidance notes that the review of transients and accident analyses requires an evaluation of analytical methods, inputs, and results of analyses. There should be an option for qualitative arguments that provide justification of why certain transients or accidents are bounding. The draft guidance notes that all credible accidents are considered and evaluated during the CP application stage, but there should be an explanation with that paragraph that provides a description of the acceptability of the use of a bounding events approach.
The guidance states that for the selected events that are limiting, the reviewer verifies that the applicant systematically analyzed and evaluated the limiting events in each category using a detailed quantitative analysis. This seems to imply that all events are required to be fully analyzed for the CP application. A construction permit should not need design finalization.
This seems to go beyond the specified level of completion of analysis that should be required at the CP application stage and conflicts with the ISG text referencing 10 CFR 50.35, some technical and design information may reasonably be left for a later stage of licensing.
Please clarify the level of detail expected for a construction permit that is not requested final design approval.
Attachment - Comments on the draft ISG Safety Review of Light-Water Power-Reactor Construction Permit Applications Page 4 of 4 Comment #
Location Comment Proposed Change 8
Protective Coating Systems p.21 The information in this section of the Appendix does not specify what aspects of information needed for an operating license would be required for the construction permit application.
Please differentiate what information is needed for a CP and what can be deferred to the operating license application.
9 Instrumentation and Control p.21 The ISG highlights the value in NuScale's design-specific review standard guidance, which was developed as part of NuScales design certification, combined operating license, and early site permit reviews - not a construction permit.
However, the ISG does not clarify the NRC expectation for future non-NuScale construction permit applications regarding scope or format. A document developed for a different, more in-depth, regulatory process (Part 52 COL) should not be comparable in a blanket manner for Part 50 construction permit applications.
Please be clearer regarding the intent of mentioning the NuScale design-specific review standard guidance in the construction permit ISG.