ML21140A390
| ML21140A390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/06/2021 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Beall R | |
| References | |
| NRC-1487, NRC-2019-0062, RIN 3150-AK31 | |
| Download: ML21140A390 (189) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Part 53 Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors Rulemaking B Subparts A and F Rule Docket Number:
N/A Location:
Video Teleconference Date:
May 6, 2021 Work Order No.:
NRC-1487 Pages 1-188 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 PART 53 RISK-INFORMED, TECHNOLOGY-INCLUSIVE 4
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR ADVANCED REACTORS 5
RULEMAKING - SUBPARTS A AND F RULE 6
LANGUAGE 7
+ + + + +
8
- THURSDAY, 9
MAY 6, 2021 10
+ + + + +
11 VIDEO TELECONFERENCE 12
+ + + + +
13 The meeting was convened via Video 14 Teleconference, at 10:00 a.m. EDT, Bob Beall, 15 Facilitator, presiding.
16 17 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
18 BOB BEALL, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and 19 Safeguards - Rulemaking Senior Project Manager 20
& Meeting Facilitator 21 JOHN SEGALA, Chief, Advanced Reactor Policy 22 Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 23 (NRR) 24 25
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 JORDAN HOELLMAN, Project Manager, Part 53 1
Working Group Member, NRR 2
BILL RECKLEY, Senior Project Manager, Technical 3
NANETTE VALLIERE, Senior Project Manager, 5
MOHAMMED SHAMS, Director, Division of Advanced 7
Reactors and Non-Power Production and 8
Utilization Facilities (DANU), NRR 9
AMY CUBBAGE, Senior Project Manager, NRR 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 CONTENTS 1
Welcome/Introductions/Logistics/Goals..............4 2
Subpart A - General Provisions....................14 3
Subpart F - Section 53.700, Operational Objectives and 4
Controls on Equipment.............................73 5
Subpart F - Section 53.800, Programs.............108 6
Discussion on Previously Released Subparts and 7
Integration of Subparts..........................165 8
Additional public comments, questions............185 9
Closing remarks..................................185 10 Adjourn..........................................188 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
(10:01 a.m.)
2 MR. BEALL: Good morning. I want to 3
welcome everyone, and thank you for participating in 4
today's public meeting to discuss the risk informed 5
technology inclusive regulatory framework for advanced 6
reactors, or the Part 53 rulemaking.
7 My name is Bob Beall, and I'm from the 8
NRC's Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and 9
Safeguards. I'm the project manager for the Part 53 10 rulemaking and will be serving as the facilitator for 11 today's meeting.
12 My role is to help ensure today's meeting 13 is informative and productive. This is a comment-14 gathering public meeting to encourage active 15 participation and information exchange with the public 16 to help facilitate the development of the Part 53 17 rulemaking.
18 The feedback that the NRC receives today 19 is not considered a formal public comment, so there 20 will be no formal response to any of today's 21 discussions.
22 Once again, we are using Microsoft Teams 23 to support this public meeting on the Part 53 24 rulemaking. We hope the use of Microsoft Teams will 25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 allow stakeholders to participate more freely during 1
this meeting. Slide 2, please.
2 The agenda for today includes NRC staff 3
discussions on four topics related to Part 53 4
rulemaking. Topic 1 will be the discussion of the 5
preliminary proposed rule language for Subpart A, 6
General Provisions.
7 Topic 2 and 3 will be the discussion of 8
preliminary proposed rule language for Subpart F, 9
Requirements for Operations.
10 One part of Subpart F will be Section 11 53.700, Operational Objectives and Controls on 12 Equipment. And the other part will be Section 53.800, 13 Programs.
14 The last topic will be an open discussion 15 about the previously released Part 53 subparts. We 16 will also have a 45-minute lunch break around 12:30 17 p.m. today and have at least one 15-minute break this 18 afternoon.
19 Please note that, due to the number of 20 topics and the expected discussion of each topic, the 21 start time for Topics 2, 3 and 4 may need to be 22 adjusted during the meeting. Slide 3, please.
23 I now would like to introduce John Segala.
24 John is the branch chief of the Advanced Reactor 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Policy Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor 1
Regulation.
2 John will give the opening remarks for 3
today's meeting. John?
4 MR. SEGALA: Thank you, Bob. Good 5
afternoon. Consistent with Nuclear Energy Innovation 6
and Modernization Act, we're committed to developing a 7
technology-inclusive, risk-informed and performance-8 based regulatory framework for a wide range of 9
advanced reactor designs and publish the final Part 53 10 Rule by October of 2024 in accordance with the 11 Commission's directive schedule.
12 We are committed to a regulatory framework 13 for advanced reactors that achieves the goals of the 14 Commission's advanced reactor policy statement and 15 NRC's principles of good regulation.
16 We are having extensive stakeholder 17 engagement where we release preliminary rule language 18 to solicit feedback to better inform the staff's 19 proposals and to ensure a shared understanding of what 20 will be included in the final rule.
21 As we are considering changes to the 22 previously released preliminary rule language, we want 23 to ensure that we are considering the feedback we have 24 received from all stakeholders including the public, 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 industry, standard development organizations, trade 1
groups, non-governmental organization and the ACRS.
2 Since we are at the early stages of the 3
rulemaking process, the draft preliminary rule 4
language will remain open for discussions as the staff 5
works towards providing the Commission a proposed 6
rule.
7 Today's meeting is the fifth of many 8
webinars the NRC will be having to provide an 9
opportunity for external stakeholders to provide 10 feedback on NRC's development of the Part 53 11 preliminary proposed rule language for advanced 12 reactors.
13 As Bob Beall mentioned, we will be 14 discussing and seeking input on the Part 53 15 preliminary proposed rule language for the newly 16 released Subpart A, General Provisions, which included 17 definitions, and Subpart F,
Requirements for 18 Operations.
19 There will also be an opportunity to 20 discuss previously released subparts. We are looking 21 forward to having discussions today and hearing 22 feedback with you. Thank you.
23 Bob, I'll turn it back over to you.
24 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thank you, John. I 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 would now like to introduce the NRC staff who will be 1
leading the discussions of today's topics: myself, as 2
the rulemaking project manager and the meeting 3
facilitator and Jordan Hoellman, Bill Reckley and Nan 4
Valliere from NRR.
5 If you are not using Microsoft Teams to 6
attend the meeting and you would like to view the 7
presentation slides, they are located in the ADAMS --
8 excuse me, NRC ADAMS document database, also on 9
regulations.gov.
10 And I have placed a link to the slides in 11 the Teams chat window for today's meeting. The ADAMS 12 accession number for today's presentation is 13 ML21125A161. Next slide, please.
14 The purpose of today's meeting is to 15 exchange information, answer questions and discuss the 16 Part 53 rulemaking. This is the fifth of a series of 17 public meetings with the NRC staff to discuss various 18 topics related to the Part 53 rulemaking.
19 Today's meeting will focus on the 20 preliminary proposed rule language for Subpart A, 21 General Provisions and two sections of Subpart F, 22 Operational Objectives and Programs.
23 In addition, we'll be discussing the 24 previously released Part 53 preliminary proposed rule 25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 language. I've also placed a link in the Teams chat 1
window for this meeting to these subparts.
2 This is a
comment-gathering public 3
meeting, which means that the public participation is 4
actively sought as we discuss the regulatory issues.
5 Because of the number of attendees, we may 6
need to limit the time for an individual question or 7
discussion on a topic to make sure everyone has a 8
chance to participate. After everyone has a chance to 9
ask questions, we will circle back and allow people to 10 ask additional questions, if we have time.
11 As I mentioned before, we're using 12 Microsoft Teams for this public meeting. Today's 13 meeting is using a workshop format, so the number of 14 formal presentations and the corresponding number of 15 slides have been reduced to allot more time for open 16 discussion on the various topics.
17 We will also require -- this will also 18 require all of us to continuously ensure that we have 19 our phones on mute and were are not speaking over each 20 other.
21 To help facilitate the discussion during 22 the meeting, we request that you utilize the raised 23 hand feature in Teams so we can identify who would 24 like to speak next.
25
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The staff will then call on the individual 1
to ask the question. The Raised Hand button, which is 2
shaped like a small hand, is along the top row of the 3
Teams display area.
4 You can also use the chat window to alert 5
us that you have a question. Please do not use the 6
chat window to ask or address any technical issues 7
about the Part 53 Rule.
8 The chat window is not part of the 9
official meeting record and it is reserved to identify 10 when someone has a question or for handling any 11 meeting logistical issues.
12 To minimize the interruptions, the staff 13 will call on participants who have used the raised 14 hand feature or chat window to identify when they have 15 a question or comment.
16 If you joined the meeting using the 17 Microsoft Teams bridge line, you may not have access 18 to all these features. If you would like to ask a 19 question or provide a comment, you would need to press 20 the Star 6 to unmute your phone.
21 The staff will pause at the end of each 22 topic to ensure all participants have an opportunity 23 to ask a question before moving on to the next topic.
24 After your comment has been discussed, 25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 your phone line will be muted again. If you would 1
like to ask additional questions on a future topic, 2
you have to press Star 6 to unmute your phone.
3 If there is a particular topic you would 4
like to discuss, please send me an email after the 5
meeting and we'll try to include it in a future public 6
meeting.
7 This meeting is being transcribed so in 8
order to get a clean transcription and to minimize 9
distractions during the meeting, we ask everyone to 10 please mute their phones when they're not speaking and 11 to identify themselves and the company or group you 12 may be affiliated with.
13 A summary and the transcript of today's 14 meeting will be publicly available on or before June 15 5th, 2021.
16 Finally, this meeting is not designed nor 17 intended to solicit or receive comments on topics 18 other than this rulemaking activity. Also, no 19 regulatory decisions will be made at today's meeting.
20 Please note that towards the end of the 21 presentation there are two slides containing acronyms 22 and abbreviations that may be used during this meeting 23 and a set of backup slides that contain additional 24 information about the Part 53 rulemaking.
25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 With that, I'll turn the meeting over to 1
Nan Valliere who will start the discussion of the Part 2
53 rulemaking today. Nan?
3 MS. VALLIERE: Thank you, Bob. Can we 4
move to Slide 5, please?
5 Good morning, everyone. On Slide 5, we 6
have a slide that we've used in most of our past 7
public meetings on Part 53 and will continue to use in 8
the future.
9 This slide lays out the plan to build an 10 entire regulatory framework in Part 53 from design to 11 construction and operation and eventually to 12 decommissioning.
13 And as both Bob and John have noted today, 14 we will be discussing at this meeting the preliminary 15 rule text for Subpart A on general provisions, 16 focusing on the definitions section.
17 And we will also continue our discussions 18 on Subpart F on operations, focusing today on sections 19 related to controls on equipment and operational 20 programs. Next slide, please.
21 Slide 6 is another of our common slides 22 which is a graphical representation of the NRC staff's 23 plans to work through stakeholder interaction on the 24 subparts of Part 53 to support submittal of the 25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 proposed rule package on the milestone schedule that 1
the staff has provided to the Commission.
2 As the note on this slide indicates, this 3
is a living picture of where we are today. And we 4
will continue to make adjustments as the development 5
of Part 53 progresses.
6 The note also highlights the fact that the 7
continuing introductions of concepts and discussions 8
of preliminary rule language will include a variety of 9
topics that have historically involved specific 10 technical and programmatic specialties.
11 One example of this was the discussion we 12 had last month on the staff's white paper on risk-13 informed and performance-based human system operation 14 considerations for advanced reactors which will inform 15 our future discussions on staffing levels and operator 16 licensing in Subpart F.
17 We encourage stakeholders to ensure that 18 appropriate subject matter experts are involved in 19 future discussions of rule language for these 20 technical areas to improve our chances of having 21 efficient and effective meetings.
22 And to that end, it is worth noting that 23 we are currently planning to focus the June public 24 meeting on security-related topics.
25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Now such topics may include physical 1
security, cyber-security, access authorization, and 2
fitness for duty. So you may want to consider who 3
else, amongst your colleagues, should attend that 4
specific meeting.
5 And with that, I'd like to pause here to 6
see if there are any early comments or questions 7
before we move on to the discussion of Subpart A and 8
some of the key definitions we are considering for 9
inclusion in Part 53.
10 Okay, seeing no hands raised or other 11 comments, I will turn the meeting over to Jordan, 12 Jordan Hoellman, who will lead our discussion of 13 Subpart A. Jordan?
14 MR. HOELLMAN: Okay, thanks, Nan. Thanks, 15 Bob. Good morning. My name is Jordan Hoellman. I'm 16 a project manager in the Advanced Reactor Policy 17 branch in NRR.
18 I'm pleased to be here today to discuss 19 our first iteration of the preliminary proposed rule 20 language for Subpart A, General Provisions. You can 21 move on to the next slide, please and to the next one, 22 if that's okay.
23 So Subpart A
included the
- scope, 24 definitions, written communications, employee 25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 protections, completeness and accuracy of information, 1
exemptions, combining licenses, jurisdictional limits, 2
attacks and destructive
- acts, and information 3
collection requirements.
4 We are intending to develop Part 53 with 5
largely no cross-references to Part 50 or 52. In some 6
cases, this will require copying and pasting the Part 7
50 or 52 language, where appropriate, into Part 53 8
instead of using cross-references.
9 And then this approach will apply 10 throughout Part 53. So in developing Subpart A, we've 11 understood that there are pros and cons to this 12 approach. And, but our current thinking is that if 13 Part 53 is self-contained, there would be less 14 confusion about the applicability of requirements in 15 Parts 50 or 52.
16 And from a usability standpoint, our 17 approach would mean Part 53 applicants and licensees 18 would not need to flip between the different parts to 19 see the applicable requirements. And this would mean 20 that Part 53 would be a one-stop shop, the optional 21 licensing framework for advanced reactors.
22 So we are interested in our stakeholders' 23 feedback on this approach, but I please ask, as I go 24 through the presentation, you can please note your 25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 questions or concerns but we'll wait until we get to 1
the discussion portion of the meeting to open it up.
2 So as you may have noted, from looking at 3
Subpart A, this iteration reproduces Part 50 in a lot 4
of places and currently includes bracketed reference 5
to existing requirements in either Part 50 or 52.
6 These brackets will be replaced with the 7
applicable Part 53 requirements once those portions of 8
Part 53 are developed.
9 And for future iterations of Subpart A, we 10 will likely develop a discussion table and move some 11 of the bracketed references to that side of the table 12 as we've done for other subparts we've released.
13 In some places, rather than indicate 14 references, the brackets are intended to capture 15 things that would have been included in a discussion 16 table like you've likely seen in the other subparts.
17 And that's intended -- those brackets that 18 you see are intended to provide an explanation or 19 indicate concepts that are still under development and 20 may be further revised or removed in future iterations 21 as we work towards providing the proposed rule to the 22 Commission.
23 Subpart A was compared to the rule 24 language proposed by NEI in its February comment 25
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 letter and addresses largely the same requirements in 1
NEI's proposal which, as I previously mentioned, is 2
largely based on Part 50 requirements.
3 Subpart A will include many pointers to 4
other sections of Part 53. And I've already mentioned 5
this, but some specific examples include the emergency 6
plan and related submissions and the security plan and 7
related submission's requirements.
8 Today, we will focus on the definitions 9
portion of Subpart A, specifically focusing on terms 10 that have been discussed in previous meetings related 11 to event categories and structure systems and 12 component classifications.
13 Some of the definitions will need to be 14 updated as key terms needing defined are identified or 15 revised as the staff works to produce the preliminary 16 proposed rule language and subsequent iterations.
17 You may have noticed that the terms 18 related to fusion are in gray. As you may know, and 19 as discussed in the staff's response to the SRM on the 20 rulemaking plan for Part 53, the staff is working to 21 develop options for the regulation of fusion energy 22 systems.
23 The staff assessments of the potential 24 risks posed by various fusion technologies and 25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 possible regulatory approaches for fusion facilities 1
is being done in parallel with developing the draft 2
proposed rulemaking package for Part 53.
3 And this work is supporting an options 4
paper that will be provided to the Commission. The 5
draft proposed Part 53 Rule will be developed with the 6
aim of accommodating fusion technologies as much as 7
possible to maintain the flexibility for future 8
Commission direction on the appropriate approach for 9
licensing and regulating fusion energy systems.
10 So I just wanted to make that clear before 11 we move into the specific definitions. So we can move 12 on to Slide 10, please.
13 So on this slide, there's two things I 14 specifically wanted to note. The first is that an 15 advanced nuclear plant or facility, as defined here on 16 the slide, includes one or more reactors and the 17 collection of sites, buildings, radionuclide sources 18 and structure systems and components for which a 19 license is being sought.
20 And the second is that we are currently 21 using the NEIMA legislation definition of advanced 22 nuclear reactor. Other subparts of the rule are being 23 written to refer to the plant and not the reactor.
24 The NEIMA definition does exclude future 25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 large light water reactors so long as they have 1
significant improvements compared to reactors under 2
construction when NEIMA was enacted, which was January 3
14th of 2019.
4 The significant improvements specifically 5
mentioned in NEIMA include additional inherent safety 6
features, significantly lower levels of cost of 7
electricity, lower waste
- yields, greater fuel 8
utilization, enhanced reliability, increased 9
proliferation resistance, increased thermal efficiency 10 or the ability to integrate into electric and non-11 electric applications.
12 We, as the staff, are considering how to 13 deal with this part of the NEIMA definition to provide 14 the appropriate specificity needed for the rule, this 15 is an area where we are interested in stakeholder 16 feedback, specifically the definition of advanced 17 nuclear plant.
18 And we're interested in hearing 19 stakeholders' views on the thoughts of the inclusion 20 of large light water reactors in the NEIMA definition 21 and the scope of Part 53.
22 So I know we've heard some comments from 23 stakeholders in the past that the rule should be 24 technology-inclusive and broad enough to capture any 25
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 sort of future plant.
1 And we've also heard comments that Part 53 2
Rule should be for passively fail safe designs. So 3
those two views are a little conflicting to some 4
extent. And so, like I mentioned, this is an area 5
where we're still considering how to handle as we move 6
forward with the Part 53 rulemaking.
7 So we can move on to Slide 11, please.
8 Okay, so Slide 11, this is our current definition of 9
consensus code and standards. It was adapted from 10 ASME and consistent with the National Technology and 11 Advancement Act and is intended to provide 12 flexibility.
13 The generally accepted modifier used in 14 the rule language is intended to be captured by this 15 definition. The rule language encourages the use of 16 consensus codes and standards as required by the 17 National Technology and Advancement Act.
18 And so we recognize that there's a variety 19 of technologies and designs as well as stated desire 20 of some stakeholders to adopt standards outside the 21 typical standards development organization.
22 And so we've talked about this in the past 23 and this includes the international standards 24 organizations and ISO standards and such. So the 25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 intent of this definition is to provide that 1
flexibility.
2 And so the staff is actively reviewing 3
some advanced reactor codes and standards for 4
endorsement. These are intended to be endorsed with 5
any conditions or clarifications in regulatory guides.
6 And this endorsement via the regulatory 7
guide approach is the plan to be continued for future 8
guidance supporting Part 53.
9 And just some examples include ASME 10 Section 3, Division 5 for high-temperature reactor 11 materials; ASME Section 11, Division 2 for the 12 reliability and integrity management programs, and the 13 ASME ANS probabilistic risk assessment standard for 14 advanced non-light water reactors.
15 So we think capture of the acceptable 16 standards and guidance provides the flexibility and 17 increases efficiency by avoiding routine rulemakings 18 related to adopting the revisions of incorporated 19 standards in the regulations.
20 But endorsement of standards in guidance 21 does not provide the same degree of regulatory 22 stability as provided by rulemaking. So we can move 23 on to Slide 12, please.
24 So we included both end state and event 25
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 sequence on this slide since these terms are related 1
and reference each other in the definitions. I should 2
note that these definitions are generally adapted from 3
NEI 18-04 or the licensing modernization project.
4 End state is the set of conditions at the 5
end of an event sequence. This definition is intended 6
to include the safe stable language to make it clear 7
that there would be no further event progression 8
beyond the identified end state.
9 And sort of a question or feedback we are 10 interested in hearing is would adding that language, 11 that safe stable language, to that, to the definition 12 of end state be helpful here.
13 Even sequence mirrors the definition in 14 the non-light water reactor probabilistic risk 15 assessment standard. This definition is intended to 16 capture a typical PRA even sequence and provides a 17 lead-in to the next slides that cover the various 18 event sequences defined. So we can move on to Slide 19
- 13.
20 And so Slide 13 and 14 cover the event 21 sequences that we've defined for Part 53. Normal 22 plant operation covers events that are expected to 23 occur during planned operation or shutdown.
24 Licensing basis events are the collection 25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 of event sequences considered in the design and 1
licensing of a plant. Licensing basis events are 2
unplanned events and include anticipated operational 3
occurrences, design basis accidents, unlikely event 4
sequences and very unlikely event sequences.
5 Design basis accidents are used to set the 6
functional design criteria and performance objectives 7
for the design of safety-related structure systems and 8
components.
9 Design basis accidents are based on the 10 capabilities and reliability of safety-related 11 structure systems and components needed to mitigate 12 and prevent event sequences.
13 Within the licensing modernization 14 project, design basis accidents are derived from 15 design basis events but assume only safety-related 16 SSCs are available to respond to an event.
17 So in Part 53, the equivalent concept 18 would mean that design basis accidents are derived 19 from unlikely event sequences but assume only the 20 safety-related SSCs are functioning.
21 The anticipated operational occurrences, 22 or AOOs, are expected to occur one or more times 23 during the life of a nuclear power plant. An AOO is 24 defined as event sequences which are unplanned with a 25
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 mean frequency of 1 times 10 to the minus 2nd per 1
plant year and greater.
2 AOOs take into account the expected 3
responses of all SSCs within the plant regardless of 4
safety classification. So we can move on to Slide 14, 5
which is for the discussion of unlikely event 6
sequences and very unlikely event sequences.
7 So unlikely event sequences have 8
frequencies below the frequency of an anticipated 9
operational occurrence. Like an AOO, the unlikely and 10 very unlikely event sequences take into account the 11 expected responses of all SSCs within the plant 12 regardless of safety classification.
13 Within the licensing modernization 14 project, unlikely event sequences would equate to 15 design basis events. Both the design basis events and 16 the licensing modernization project and unlikely event 17 sequences in Part 53 have a frequency range between 1 18 times 10 to the minus 2nd and 5 times 10 to the minus 19 4th per plant year with an accounting for 20 uncertainties.
21 Very unlikely event sequences have 22 estimated frequencies well below the frequency of 23 events expected to occur in the life of an advanced 24 nuclear plant. Within the LMP, this would equate to 25
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 beyond design basis events.
1 Both the beyond design basis events in the 2
LMP and very unlikely event sequences in Part 53 have 3
a frequency range between 1 times 10 to the minus 4th 4
and 5 times 10 to the minus 7 per plant year, 5
accounting for uncertainties.
6 So we can move on to Slide 15, please, 7
where we are discussing the SSC classifications.
8 So, we should note that these terms are under 9
development and may be revised in future preliminary 10 proposed rule iterations.
11 But, we wanted to provide an initial 12 definition, which will hopefully help clarify the way 13 these terms have been discussed throughout the 14 discussions on Subparts B and C.
15 So safety related are SSCs and human 16 actions that warrant special treatment and are relied 17 upon to demonstrate compliance with the safety 18 criteria in 53.210(b), is the first tier of safety 19 criteria for unplanned events. And so, the safety-20 related SSCs are needed to mitigate and prevent design 21 basis accidents.
22 Non-safety related, but safety significant 23 are those SSCs and human actions that are not safety 24 related, but warrant special treatment and are relied 25
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 on to achieve defense in depth or perform risk 1
significant functions.
2 So non-safety related but safety 3
significant SSCs contribute to mitigation and 4
prevention of anticipated operational occurrences, 5
unlikely event sequences, and very unlikely event 6
sequences.
7 Non-safety related, non-safety significant 8
are those SSCs which are not safety related, do not 9
warrant special treatment, and are not relied on to 10 achieve adequate defense in depth or to perform risk 11 significant functions. So, these functions, these 12 SSCs performed functions during normal operations.
13 So, we move on to Slide 16. And so, we 14 just talked, we just used the term special treatment.
15 So the idea and the order of these slides was sort of 16 to group things together as we go through them because 17 the terms are related.
18 So, special treatment are those 19 requirements such as measures taken to satisfy 20 functional design criteria, quality assurance and pro-21 programmatic controls that provide assurance that 22 certain SSCs will provide defense in depth or perform 23 risk significant functions.
24 For safety related equipment, where we 25
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 are, these would be things like your technical 1
specifications, or Appendix B, R50 QA requirements, 2
those types of things for non-safety related, but 3
safety significant equipment.
4 These are things like appropriate 5
surveillances and reliability assurance programs that 6
would have more flexibility and have a more of a 7
licensee control.
8 For defense in depth, this is the 9
inclusion of multiple independent and redundant layers 10 of defense in the design of a facility and its 11 operating procedures to compensate for potential human 12 and mechanical failures, so that, no single layer of 13 defense no matter how robust is exclusively relied 14 upon.
15 So we know that the defense in depth 16 section of Part 53, that's Section 53.250, provides a 17 detailed description of defense in depth. So 18 something we're interested in stakeholder feedback on 19 is if this definition is needed in subpart A and the 20 definitions, or if it's helpful, or needed and what 21 sort of, what, you know, that sort of flavor there.
22 So on Slide 17, we'll discuss design 23 features. So design features are essentially all 24 SSCs. So what design features a structure or system 25
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 are provided to fulfill the safety functions.
1 So the active and passive SSCs and 2
inherent characteristics of those SSCs that contribute 3
to eliminating the total effective dose equivalent, to 4
individual members of the public during normal 5
operations and prevent or mitigate the consequences of 6
unplanned events.
7 So we chose to define inherent 8
characteristic as an attribute of a design feature 9
that has such a high degree of certainty in its 10 performance that uncertainties need not be quantified.
11 The reason we wanted to define inherent 12 characteristic in the first iteration of the 13 definitions is because in the second iteration of 14 subpart B we revised the language in the Defense In-15 Depth Section, that's 53.250.
16 To say no single engineer design feature, 17 human action, or programmatic control no matter how 18 robust should be exclusively relied upon to meet the 19 first tier criteria for unplanned events or the safety 20 functions.
21 The addition of the phrase engineer design 22 feature in the description of these terms for which 23 defense in depth is required reflects the possible 24 crediting of inherent characteristics within the 25
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 design and analysis for advanced reactors and the 1
reduced uncertainties associated with such 2
characteristics.
3 So this is another place where we're 4
interested in hearing stakeholders' thoughts on.
5 Specifically, do you think that an inherent 6
characteristic has to be associated with a structure 7
system or component?
The current definition 8
identifies that it does, but we'd like to hear your 9
thoughts as we work towards future iterations of the 10 language.
11 And then, another question where we're 12 sort of, since we've used the words no single 13 engineered design feature in 53.250, should we also be 14 defining what an engineer design features is in 15 subpart A?
16 So we can move on to -- oh, wait no, not 17 moving on yet. Go back. Functional design criteria 18 is that the bottom of this slide. These are the 19 requirements for the performance of SSCs. So what 20 design criteria a leak rate, a cooling capacity, are 21 needed for each design feature?
22 For safety related SSCs, these criteria 23 define requirements necessary to demonstrate 24 compliance with first tier safety criteria in 25
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 53.210(b). That's the first tier safety criteria for 1
unplanned events.
2 And here we're talking about an immediate 3
threat to public health and safety, such as the two 4
hour dose below 25 grams at the exclusionary boundary 5
or the duration dose below 25 REM at the low 6
population zone boundary.
7 For non-safety
- related, but safety 8
significant SSCs, these criteria define requirements 9
necessary to meet the second tier safety criteria in 10 53.20(b). That's the second tier safety criteria for 11 unplanned events.
12 And so, this would be appropriate to 13 address potential risks to public health and safety.
14 This is where we bring in the metric of the QHOs 15 supported by systematic analyses, which enables the 16 risk management approach to operations.
17 So we can move on to Slide 18. So, this, 18 so I'll just briefly touch on the other portions of 19 subpart A, just sort of summarize what I discussed at 20 the beginning of the presentation.
21 So this iteration, like I mentioned, 22 reproduces Part 50 in a lot of places and currently 23 includes bracketed references. Those brackets will be 24 replaced with the applicable Part 53 requirements once 25
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 developed.
1 We're intending to develop Part 53 with 2
largely no cross references to Parts 50 and 52, which 3
will require copying and pasting. And this approach 4
applies throughout Part 53 so that Part 53 is self-5 contained to limit any confusion about the 6
applicability requirements in Parts 50 or 52.
7 And that subpart A will include many 8
pointers to other sections of Part 53 that will be 9
updating in future iterations. Including, definitions 10 as they're identified, and the other subparts are 11 developed.
12 And future iterations of the rule text may 13 change the terms we use for some things and may 14 require redefining stuff. But there's, so there's 15 been a lot of discussion, I think, throughout our 16 meetings on subparts, B, and C.
17 I think we've heard the stakeholder 18 feedback that it's important to get the definitions 19 developed. So this is our first iteration. As we've 20 been mentioning throughout our public meetings this is 21 an iterative process.
22 And we continue to seek stakeholder 23 feedback on what we're, what we've put together so 24 far. We appreciate the feedback we've been receiving 25
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 and continue to consider it as we move forward in 1
developing the remaining subparts for Part 53.
2 So with that, I think that's the end of 3
the presentation here. I think we can open it up to 4
any discussions. If you need me to go back through 5
and sort of pull out the specific questions I asked 6
during the presentation, I'm happy to do that. But I 7
know, I see some hands up. So let's, let's turn it 8
over to Bob and see who's asking questions.
9 MR BEALL: Okay. Thank you, Jordan. I 10 think, Cyril from USNIC, you wanted to make some 11 comments?
12 MR. DRAFFIN. Okay, sure. Can you hear 13 me?
14 MR. BEALL: Yes, we can Cyril. Go ahead.
15 MR. DRAFFIN: Okay. A number of comments.
16 And what I'll do is I'll make a few. And then, let 17 some of the other people who have raised their hands 18 comment. And then, we might iterate.
19 I'll start with codes and standards. We 20 do support the use of consensus codes and standards, 21 and including in the guidance you've described. Some 22 of the standards are explicitly for nuclear power 23 plants.
24 Well, I see the definition includes that 25
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 they must be for nuclear power plants, does this 1
include, in the consensus standards, will you include 2
standards which are not explicitly done from nuclear 3
but are, you know, IEEE standards or ISO standards 4
that could be used for other components?
5 So I just question the use of, under 6
Section 3 on consensus code, whether it has to be 7
explicitly referencing nuclear power plants, or, or 8
not? So that would be a question for you. The --
9 On construction, on what you're going to 10 make a distinction, this is not something you made in 11 the presentation, but some facilities will have 12 separate steam generation facilities that will not be 13 part of the nuclear system.
14 And so a definition of how you're going to 15 define construction of those nuclear and non-nuclear 16 facilities may need more attention than you have in 17 your current language. And so, why don't I stopped 18 there and let something other people make comments and 19 I'll have some more comments afterwards.
20 MR. BEALL: Okay, thanks, Cyril. Jeff 21 Merrifield?
22 MR. MERRIFIELD: Yes, Jeff Merrifield, 23 here. I want to go back to the comments that were 24 made on Slide 10. You were talking about trying to 25
34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 come up with a definition of an advanced reactor, 1
advanced nuclear reactor.
2 And you quoted the language in there, in 3
the highlighted paragraph about some of the attributes 4
that might be included in the definition. I would 5
note, from a statutory construction standpoint, it's 6
quite important that the use of the word "or" was 7
included in that variety of characteristics.
8 That is intentional decision in statutory 9
construction to mean it could be any of the elements.
10 It does not require all of the elements to be 11 included. If that were the case, they would have used 12 the word "and".
13 What that leads one to believe, is the 14 intention, and I think this is consistent with the 15 legislative history on this. The Congress intended it 16 to be an expansive definition and to be forward 17 reaching and wide-ranging.
18 So as the staff is evaluating how we'll 19 implement this, I think it needs to keep that concept 20 in mind and not be too limiting on the ability of 21 different technologies to be characterized in those 22 advanced reactor technologies, if they meet one of one 23 or more of the criteria that are included in the 24 definition.
25
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So I just, you know, I know you all are, 1
it sounds like you're struggling with this a little 2
bit. I don't think you need to as much. Congress 3
clearly, through passing the amendment was intending 4
to be promotional of advanced reactor technologies.
5 And I think the Agency needs to be mindful of that in 6
enabling these technologies to move forward. Thank 7
you.
8 MR. BEALL: All right, thanks, Jeff.
9 MS. VALLIERE: Bob, if I could just 10 respond. Yes, Jeff, thank you. I would say that, 11 yes, we are. You know, we have paid very close 12 attention to the words in the NEIMA definition.
13 And are really trying to determine, now, 14 what's the best way to take that definition and form 15 some implementable regulatory language that will be 16 cleared to all the parties involved. So I think that, 17 you know, we are having those discussions, right now, 18 directly along the lines you just laid out.
19 And, you know, one of the reasons why we 20 wanted to make sure we presented this definition 21 today, to specifically, you know, solicit stakeholder 22 feedback on how others might think we could define a 23 regulatory definition that would fit along the lines 24 of the NEIMA language.
25
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. BEALL: Okay, thanks, Nan. Steve 1
Kraft? You had your hand up.
2 MR. KRAFT: I did, Bob, thanks. Can you 3
hear me?
4 MR. BEALL: Yes, sir.
5 MR. KRAFT: Thank you. Sorry everyone 6
keeps doing that cell phone commercial.
7 (Laughter.)
8 MR. KRAFT: So the draft has the 9
definition of end state, which is fine. But doesn't 10 the draft rule language include the link phrase, safe, 11 stable end state?
12 MS. VALLIERE: It does.
13 MR. KRAFT: Thank you, Nan. So what is 14 the -- I think this got asked in the last public 15 meeting by Marc, what is the definition? But before 16 I, you know, my view -- but ACRS Subcommittee asked 17 that question.
18 And the question they asked -- well, I 19 think it was Joy Rempe, said, asked, doesn't mean shut 20 down in the traditional way we understand shut down in 21 large LWRs. So I'm just curious as to whether you're 22 thinking about how to further define that or whether -
23 24 The thought I had, which is my personal 25
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 opinion, is you could look at reactor systems of any 1
type and show an analysis that says this is a safe, 2
stable, end state. Now, it could be argued it's a 3
meta state, but I just raise the point.
4 That I'm curious to know what you're 5
actually meaning and whether you will add the phrase 6
safe, stable in your definitions. Thank you.
7 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, thanks, Steve. This 8
is Jordan Hoellman, again. That was one of the 9
questions I tried to ask during the presentation. I 10 think the definition was intended to include that safe 11 stable language.
12 To make it clear that it would, that there 13 would be no further event progression beyond the 14 identified end state. And so, I think your question 15 and comment there sort of provides some of the 16 feedback we were looking for on, on if that language 17 should be included, specifically in the definition.
18 So thank you, again.
19 MR. KRAFT: So just to follow up on that, 20 Jordan. Does have to mean shut down in the 21 traditional sense? It could just be, here's a stable 22 end state and we can show at the end of the sequence 23 out of the -- someone has their phone.
24 Out of the PRA it gets to a spot where, in 25
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 this particular sequence, there are no further offsite 1
releases, consequences, whatever. But the facility 2
can still be in operation. Is that a correct 3
interpretation?
4 MR. HOELLMAN: I don't know if I -- Nan, 5
do you know?
6 MS. VALLIERE: So I guess I would say that 7
one of the reasons for highlighting this issue, this 8
definition today is specifically to get feedback on 9
this issue. And Steve, as you noted, it has been 10 raised at ACRS.
11 And as you noted, we have added the safe 12 stable words to the rule text. So we are really 13 looking for input on how stakeholders believe, you 14 know, these terms should be, fields should be defined.
15 MR. KRAFT: Okay, thanks, Nan, for that 16 clarification. If I can hold the floor for just a 17 minute, going back to what Jeff Merrifield just said, 18 definition of advanced reactor. Not questioning 19 Jeff's ability to interpret statutory language. I'm 20 certainly not a lawyer.
21 But again, back to the ACRS, and again, 22 Joy Rempe, she asked Bill Reckley during the meetings 23 about the gatekeeper. What, what's the gatekeeper on 24 an applicant saying we fall under this definition?
25
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And of course, Jordan, you raised that 1
wanting feedback as to whether LWRs meet that. But 2
then she linked that with a point that to her, and I'm 3
quoting her, I'm not saying it's my opinion.
4 To her, the rule seems to presuppose that 5
reactors falling under this definition are safer than 6
previous designs. And she said, well, who knows? We 7
don't know. Maybe, maybe not, it hasn't been proven.
8 I mean, there's all kinds of sub-text to 9
that question. So I'm just curious as to, since it 10 links so closely to the definition, what the, if you 11 have any thoughts? I grant you, the ACRS meeting 12 right now is talking about the letter.
13 So I don't know what they came out. I'm 14 just curious to know, what your thoughts are next. I 15 think it'll help applicants understand what they have 16 to say, in your application.
17 MS.
VALLIERE:
That's, it was an 18 interesting conversation and continues to be. I 19 think, you know, that there are sort of dual issues in 20 this question. One is, the one issue is the basic 21 issue of, you know, who can apply under Part 53 for a 22 license?
23 But, but the real question is, once you 24 apply, you know, a simple application doesn't mean 25
40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 your design is accepted. Once you apply, you have to 1
present your safety case, in a convincing manner that 2
you meet the safety criteria.
3 And that, you know, you have provided the 4
defense in depth required by the rule, that you have 5
identified the safety functions. And what your safety 6
case presents will determine, you know, whether you 7
get some of the operational flexibilities that might 8
be offered in the operation subpart, for example.
9 MR. KRAFT: And --
10 (Simultaneous speaking.)
11 MS. VALLIERE: So --
12 MR. KRAFT: Sorry, go ahead, or sorry.
13 MS. VALLIERE: Yes. So I'm not really 14 sure. I guess, I'm not sure I saw the full value of 15 the gatekeeper question. With the understanding that, 16 you know, anyone that brings forth an application is 17 going to have to present their safety case.
18 And if they want to use some of the 19 operational flexibilities that will be offered, they 20 have to, you know, make that case --
21 MR. KRAFT: Yes. I was --
22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
23 MS. VALLIERE: -- in a specific manner.
24 MR. KRAFT: Nan, I think your question, 25
41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 your answer was excellent, what you just answered to 1
me just now. I would simply suggest that you make it 2
to use Joy's term backwards. Make it as non-fuzzy as 3
possible so there's no question as to what you're 4
getting at, what's showing.
5 And maybe that's in the Statement of 6
Considerations. I really don't know. But clearly 7
traditional process, you go through your docketing 8
analysis. That you could say, hey, you're just out of 9
bounds, we're not even going to look at this one for 10 the following reasons.
11 And then, go on from there. I mean, 12 that's perfectly acceptable. Hey, thank you. I 13 appreciate everyone indulging me on my time. Thanks 14 very much.
15 MR. BEALL: Thank you, Steve. Jeff 16 Merrifield, you have your hand up?
17 MR. MERRIFIELD: Yes. I don't mean to 18 keep revisiting this issue, but I just want to, I just 19 want to go back to this. Congress had the expectation 20 that a variety of attributes would allow these 21 reactors to qualify for being called advanced reactors 22 and thus be able to, thus be in a position to use the 23 rule.
24 Now, the staff, and we've had discussions 25
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 back and forth on what should those safety standards 1
be. And those are as of yet unsettled. But there's 2
nothing in NEIMA that requires a higher safety 3
standard for advanced reactors.
4 Congress had an expectation that that may, 5
that may be the case, and they did include those as 6
one of the factors. But there's no requirement in 7
NEIMA that they be safer. And I just want to make that 8
clear.
9 I think there's been a lot of clarity. I 10 think, you know, obviously, those of us in the 11 advanced nuclear reactor community believe that they 12 are safer.
13 And there are attributes that the 14 individual applicants will use to state that case.
15 But nothing in NEIMA requires that. And I think that, 16 I think there's some confusion on that, perhaps even 17 with ACRS.
18 MS. VALLIERE: Yes. That's a good point.
19 But, and I'll go further to say is, not only does 20 NEIMA say that, but the Commission has told the staff 21 and stated in a number of places that their 22 expectation is that advanced reactors will be at least 23 as safe as existing reactors.
24 And that any additional margins to safety 25
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 should be allowed to provide operational flexibilities 1
for those advanced reactors. So that is what the 2
staff is using as its guidepost in developing Part 53.
3 MR. BEALL: Okay, thank you, Nan. Mark 4
Nichols from NEI, I thought I saw your hand up. Would 5
you like to say something?
6 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. It is, it is up. Yes, 7
thank you, appreciate that. First, appreciate the 8
staff's presentation, very, very, very helpful. I 9
want to start, I want to preface my comments by giving 10 you an understanding into the thought process of NEI, 11 and our members, the industry.
12 So as we're looking at it Part 53, we're 13 recognizing Part 50, 52 achieved safety, it's usable, 14 it can be used for advanced reactors. Then Part 53, 15 what do we need to achieve with it?
16 Well, we need to achieve the same level of 17 safety or better. That, that would be okay. But we, 18 in order for it to be useful or desired to use, it 19 actually has to be an improvement in efficiency.
20 So it needs to either increase 21 flexibility, or it needs to decrease regulatory burden 22 in achieving that same level of safety. And so, 23 that's sort of the framework we're looking at it.
24 But we're also focused on not just the, 25
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I'll say intellectual discussion of the requirements 1
themselves, but really where the rubber meets the 2
road. What, how are they going to be implemented?
3 What's the practical application and how 4
does that translate into benefits? I wanted to get 5
that across because it's that practical application 6
that we're always focused on. How are they going to 7
be applied?
8 How are they going to be interpreted in 9
the future, both by the NRC staff and by the industry?
10 Because that's really where we're going to realize 11 any of those potential benefits. So sorry for that 12 long winded introduction.
13 I want to go to slide, or first say, you 14 asked a question, this one step 53 not referencing 15 Part 50, 52. You asked a question about that. We 16 agree with that approach. We support you in that 17 endeavor and like what you're doing there.
18 I'm going to go through a series of slides 19 and some specific comments. I'll start with Page 10, 20 Slide 10 on the definition of advanced plant. And I'm 21 not going to repeat what Jeff and Steve have said. I 22 agree with them. But I will, maybe, touch on them to 23 put together the full picture.
24 I really think there's three points that 25
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 need to be looked at here. First is what is the 1
intention of Congress and you also mentioned the 2
Commission.
3 And within that, we really need to know, 4
did Congress intend the definition in NEIMA to be the 5
most restrictive envelope? And so, you have to 6
clearly meet those requirements in order to be able to 7
qualify.
8 I tend to think that's not what they 9
intended. If we don't know, we should ask them. We 10 should get their clarity. Because I believe what they 11 intended is what Jeff said is, well, these are some 12 examples.
13 But in a technology inclusive rule, which 14 is what they specified, specifying these entry 15 requirements to get into the rule is, by its nature, 16 exclusive. And I don't think that's what they meant.
17 Nan, I think you put it very well. Is 18 that, the bar to meet are the requirements themselves, 19 the performance, safety performance requirements.
20 That's what you have to meet. Whether you have an 21 additional inherent safety feature or not, shouldn't 22 be of consideration. Whether you meet any of those, 23 those definitions there.
24 And one specifically that was brought up 25
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 in the ACRS meeting is AP 1000. They don't qualify 1
because they're under construction. Well, what does 2
it take for them to qualify?
3 Do they just have to add one more inherent 4
safety feature and then they could license under this?
5 I mean, does -- you know, it then gets to a question, 6
the second point, which is what does the NRC itself 7
thinks is appropriate for a requirement in being in 8
here.
9 And being in here. Do you think that you 10 need to have some definitions to restrict or be 11 exclusive of what new plants should be able to get in?
12 How does that actually fit within the 13 philosophy of Part 53 that you're trying to put 14 together? I tend to think that we don't need to be 15 exclusive in a definition of advanced nuclear plant.
16 And then, the third point is how is it 17 going to be used, implemented, and practiced and that 18 gets to the gatekeeper question.
19 So, as NRC is looking at this application 20 and says well, yes, you have one additional inherent 21 safety feature that the AP1000 didn't have.
22 But we were looking for ten or six or five 23 or, it's pretty subjective because it's not written 24 down. So, that's where you get into, you know, how is 25
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 it going to be implemented and gets into a lot of 1
confusion.
2 My recommendation, just get rid of the 3
requirements of, you know, those, the A through G and 4
just say, any new plant could be licensed under Part 5
53 provided you meet the requirements that are in 6
here.
7 And that the requirements themselves, 8
those safety performance requirements, should be the 9
gatekeepers themselves. I think we'd be much better 10 off that way.
11 I also wanted to point out something on 12 this slide that nobody has yet and you defined it only 13 as a utilization facility and do not include a 14 production facility.
15 I'm wondering if you did that 16 intentionally, there may be advanced reactors that 17 meet the production facility definition and would like 18 to use Part 50.
19 Is there, let me ask a specific question, 20 I have more if you want to move on, that's fine but 21 was that a conscious decision or just unintentional?
22 MR. HOELLMAN: Mark, I think it was 23 because NEIMA requires us to create a rule for 24 commercial advanced nuclear reactors but I think we 25
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 can take your comment back and think about a little 1
more.
2 I'm not sure that we have to be that 3
restrictive but, Nan, if you want to chime in, you 4
can.
5 MS. VALLIERE: Yes, I was going to say 6
something similar to what you said, Jordan, that I 7
believe we thought we were staying consistent with 8
9 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I guess I'd point 10 out, Jordan and Nan, thank you. Jordan, I'd be 11 encouraged if you did take that back and think about 12 it.
13 In terms of my first three points on even 14 needing those NEIMA requirements to exclude certain 15 designs from Part 53, supposedly technology inclusive 16 rule.
17 And the reason is, production facility may 18 actually be used so, I, you know, what about a molten 19 salt facility that might do inline separation of the 20 fuel?
21 What about a fast reactor that might have 22 a recycling system at that facility to be able to 23 produce their own fuel and that those processes might 24 cause them to meet a production facility and exclude 25
49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 them from Part 50?
1 So, so I would. I just tend to think 2
philosophically here, the less we try to be exclusive 3
and restrictive the easier this rule is going to be.
4 So, sorry I'll get off my soapbox on that. We can 5
move on to Slide 14.
6 MS. VALLIERE: Hey, Mark, maybe just one -
7 MR. NICHOLS: Yes?
8 MS. VALLIERE: -- one thought before we 9
move on. So, I'll just ask that as you go forward 10 and, everyone, as you go forward and continue to think 11 about this particular definition and term, you know, 12 one of the questions we had was, in addition to 13 advanced nuclear plant should we include a definition 14 of advanced nuclear reactor.
15 And if so, how, again, how does that 16 relate to the NEIMA definition and trying to put that 17 into regulatory language. So, if you have specific, 18 you know, proposals, we'd be interested to hear them.
19 MR. NICHOLS: Okay, thank you. I thank 20 you for pointing that out. I think in our discussion 21 draft from February, we focused on advanced nuclear 22 facility. I see you have it there, plant facility.
23 They essentially mean the same thing.
24 Rather than focus on the reactor. Recognizing the 25
50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 reactor tends to mean the core and the vessel and 1
there are things outside the core and the vessel that 2
are important to the safety and function of that 3
reactor.
4 So, we thought well, just include facility 5
and then as you go through the definitions of what 6
types of SSCs are part of that facility that's 7
regulated by the NRC.
8 There may be SSCs that do not need to be 9
regulated by the NRC. That those would be defined.
10 But we'll continue to think about it.
11 MS. VALLIERE: Thank you.
12 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. Slide 14, please. So, 13 this one and I'm going to go back to the slide, so 14 this was about the, yes, and the one before it, so 15 Slide 13 and 14 together.
16 So, first I want to say as we get into the 17 definitions, we didn't find anything within the 18 definitions themselves that either increased or 19 decreased burden or flexibility.
20 What we note that it's the application of 21 those definitions where it really matters. So one, 22 recognizing there are a lot of new definitions, some 23 changed definitions.
24 We all need to be very mindful of how 25
51 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 they're utilized in the requirement. Because that's 1
really where they become meaningful.
2 So with this one, and I don't have any 3
specific disagreement with the definitions but I think 4
as I look through, well how are they applied and how 5
are they used in the rest of the rule.
6 They get to be a little bit confusing so, 7
we've got Licensing Basis Events, which include very 8
unlikely, unlikely, and DBAs and then AOOs.
9 But really focusing on Design Basis 10 Accidents unlikely and very unlikely and how are they 11 actually applied. If you go back and look through the 12 rest of the requirements, they're mentioned in a few 13 places.
14 But specifically where I think it's most 15 important is in 53.210 and 220, I believe, the safety 16 criteria. And they're not actually used.
17 So, it's not very clear well, to meet the 18 25 REM, is that an unlikely event sequence, is that a 19 very unlikely event sequence, is that a DBA? It's 20 just not -- and then similarly for the others.
21 So, to be able to link these back 22 specifically to where they need to be applied is going 23 to be very, very important.
24 And then, also just a question about a 25
52 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 DBA. Is a DBA both unlikely and very unlikely event 1
sequences? Is it only unlikely event sequences?
2 That really matters because that really 3
plays into the scope of SSCs and how they're treated 4
under the requirements. I'll pause there just in case 5
you might have information that could clarify those 6
questions.
7 MS. VALLIERE: Well, I guess, so I'm going 8
to answer your question with a question just to make 9
sure I understand one of your points.
10 So, I think the first point you made was 11 that the safety criteria themselves don't use the LB 12 terminology.
13 MR. NICHOLS: Correct.
14 MS. VALLIERE: So, you're looking for that 15 link but I believe when you get into Subpart C that 16 talks about the design and analysis, they do point 17 back to the safety criteria. So, what you're looking 18 for is the, sort of the pointer in the other 19 direction?
20 MR. NICHOLS: That's correct. Yes.
21 MS. VALLIERE: Okay, got it.
22 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, maybe it's more just 23 consistency throughout in terminology. And it could 24 have been an oversight. I mean, those things happen 25
53 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 at early stages in rule language so, you know, I'm not 1
trying to criticize that.
2 MS. VALLIERE: Yes, understand. And I'll 3
just maybe say something at the very high level with 4
regard to the rest of the categories. So, the 5
categories are largely consistent with how they are 6
described in the licensing modernization project where 7
DBAs are derived from the set of DBs and then, you 8
know, only safety related equipment is credited in 9
those DBAs.
10 MR. NICHOLS: I suppose -- sorry to 11 interrupt. I suppose what could happen or what could 12 help is if you somehow link the terms very unlikely 13 and unlikely back to the DBEs, so --
14 MS. VALLIERE: Yes, I apologize and you 15 caught me there slipping back into LMP terminology.
16 So, unlikely events are in LMP terminology, is the 17 design basis.
18 MR. NICHOLS: Mm-hmm, right.
19 MS. VALLIERE: And very unlikely is beyond 20 design basis event. So, I see what you're saying. So 21 that the unlikely event sequence is --
22 MR. SEGALA: Yes, I think that's a good 23 comment, Mark, this is John Segala. And, you know, I 24 think when you look at it you take the unlikely 25
54 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 events, which credit both safety and non-safety 1
related SSCs and then you only credit safety related 2
3 But when you actually look at that, those 4
event sequences, when you fail the non-safety systems, 5
there's a reliability associated with them and so, 6
when you fail them you're actually, the DBAs are 7
actually a much lower frequency than what would fall 8
into the unlikely event sequence category.
9 So, it gets kind of confusing, you know, I 10 think tying these, tying them back to, you know, a DBA 11 and somehow tying it to unlikely and very unlikely but 12 we can take a look at that.
13 I see where you're coming from in terms of 14 the different definitions and it not being necessarily 15 clear on how they all line up.
16 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. Yes and I try to --
17 thank you, I appreciate the understanding of my 18 comment. I try to think of them visually, you know, 19 if there's a hierarchy, how are they hierarchically 20 fitting in?
21 Or if there's, you know, Venn diagram, how 22 are they overlapping and distinct and different? So, 23 my only point is, from the definitions in the current 24 language it's not clear how they all fit together.
25
55 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So, that's the only point is to help work 1
on that. We can move on to Slide 15 and I apologize, 2
I'm taking up a lot of time but I figured I'll just 3
get through all my comments and then you can move on 4
to other people.
5 So, these definitions are super important 6
and, you know, we can discuss whether you should have 7
restrictive categorization or not but let's just work 8
with the definitions we have here.
9 There is in my mind
- anyway, some 10 confusion, specifically between safety related and 11 non-safety related but safety significant.
12 Because as you read the two definitions 13 they both are SSCs human actions, they both need 14 special treatment.
15 The difference is one is meeting 53.210(b) 16 and I believe the other is, well, this says defense in 17 depth or performed risk significant function so, I'm 18 guessing that is 53.220(b).
19 But it really gets into, well special 20 treatment and as I looked through the rest of the 21 regulations and how these two categories are treated 22 and the special treatment along those.
23 I actually don't see any distinction 24 between the requirements that are applied to safety 25
56 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 related and the requirements that are applied to non-1 safety related but safety significant.
2 So, one question is, you know, what is the 3
actual difference in what a licensee is going to have 4
to do with safety related versus non-safety related 5
but safety significant?
6 The regulations themselves at least, make 7
it appear that a licensee has to treat them very 8
differently, they just are in two different categories 9
with two different names. I don't believe that's the 10 intent but that is how the regulations appear to treat 11 them.
12 MS. VALLIERE: Yes. So, Mark, I think 13 you're getting directly into the discussions we'll be 14 having on Subpart F.
15 So, you know, rather than go through that 16 presentation now I wonder if you'd be willing to wait 17 until we --
18 MR. NICHOLS: Absolutely.
19 MS. VALLIERE: -- talk about Subpart F.
20 MR. NICHOLS: Absolutely. Yes, if you 21 could just keep that in the back of your mind. If you 22 could explain it as you go through the rest, you know, 23 and just point out specifically how those two are 24 treated differently.
25
57 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The other confusion I have is between that 1
non-safety related but safety significant and non-2 safety significant in terms of, again, how the 3
regulations include them into the rule.
4 Or include them in what the licensee has 5
to put into their application and provide to the NRC I 6
should say. Level of detail.
7 So, when I look at the non-safety related 8
but safety significant definition, to me, if I just 9
try to equate my understanding of Part 50.
10 It brings in risk significant things and 11 then it also brings in some stuff that might have been 12 important to safety, this non-safety related stuff 13 that might impact the ability of a safety related 14 component to perform its function. That sort of 15 thing.
16 And so, it sort of catches all that and 17 then, if that's true then the non-safety significant 18 really is this stuff that, in my mind, I wonder why 19 the NRC even needs to review it.
20 If I look at some designs that advanced 21 reactors that are being developed. They're trying to 22 develop a balance of plant system that has no 23 possibility of having any impact on safety related or 24 non-safety related but safety significant components.
25
58 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So that they can completely exclude their 1
balance of plant from the application to the NRC.
2 That's sort of the stuff I see falling into non-safety 3
significant.
4 And so, by defining it this way and the 5
way the requirements are crafted in terms of what 6
needs to be done and provided to the NRC, it seems 7
that Part 53 is bringing in a lot of scope and level 8
of detail of the design description into the 9
application that Part 50 and 52 might not require.
10 And so, I
don't know if I'm 11 misunderstanding it or if there's something else to 12 non-safety significant or the distinction between that 13 and Part 50. But that's sort of, you know, one of the 14 confusions that I have.
15 MR. SEGALA: Yes, thanks. This is John 16 Segala again, thanks for that comment. You know, I 17 think, as you've been asking, kind of the application 18 and the implementation is kind of where the rubber 19 meets the road.
20 And I think this is an area that we're 21 trying to address as we work with industry on the 22 TICAP and ARCAP project. The idea TICAP and ARCAP is 23 that you would have more information in the 24 application on the safety related SSCs.
25
59 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And then you would have, you know, maybe a 1
little bit less information on the non-safety with, 2
that are safety significant or ones with special 3
treatment.
4 And then much less information than what's 5
needed, you know, what would be needed in the 6
application for truly SSCs that are non-safety 7
significant.
8 So, I think as, you know, we'll look at 9
your comment, you know, I think it's a good comment.
10 But I think also this is something that as we look at 11 TICAP and ARCAP that should be becoming more evident 12 as we work through that project.
13 MR. NICHOLS: Okay, thank you. I 14 appreciate that. Yes, and I recognize that some of my 15 points can't be answered in the call but, you know, 16 just being able for you all to understand them and 17 take them back would be helpful.
18 And as you look at that last specific 19 comment, maybe pay special attention to how it would 20 be applied in 53.410 and 420.
21 Because what those require, the functional 22 design criteria would be required, not just of safety 23 related, you know, the first two categories there, 24 which absolutely are necessary.
25
60 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 But it would be required for non-safety 1
significant, which if I look at Part 50 and 52, that 2
type of information is not required for non-safety 3
significant.
4 So, just the nature of how the definitions 5
are applied and flowed through the requirements may 6
require information in Part 53 that's not required in 7
50 and 52.
8 And so, what you're doing with ARCAP may 9
be undermined by requirements that don't allow that 10 flexibility that you're building. So, I'd just point 11 those out specifically.
12 And the cause may actually just be because 13 normal operations and ALARA are in Tier 1 and Tier 2 14 and just don't belong there. That might be part of it 15 but, you know. But moving on --
16 MR. SEGALA: This is John, I just wanted 17 to add, you know, when you go back to Part 50 one 18 thing that we didn't carry forward into Part 53 is the 19 whole concept of important to safety and what does 20 that mean and how that evolved over the years.
21 So, I think it does get a little bit 22 confusing trying to compare this, you know, across 23 Part 50 to Part 53. But I think I understand what 24 your comment is, I'm just adding that as additional 25
61 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 information.
1 MS. CUBBAGE: I'd like to also interject, 2
this is Amy Cubbage, that under Part 52, I'll just say 3
explicitly, the requirements are that the full scope 4
design needs to be described in the application.
5 Including non-safety systems. So, just 6
wanted to correct that we're not imposing additional 7
requirements here.
8 You know, Part 52, for example, in 52.47 9
in contents of applications, does say that systems are 10 discussed in so far as they are pertinent.
11 So, you know, there could be an argument 12 that certain things wouldn't need to be described if 13 they could be demonstrated to not be pertinent to the 14 safety of the design.
15 And that's where, you know, in the 16 guidance space, we're looking at how much description 17 is needed for non-safety systems.
18 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, and that's why I said 19 look back at 53.410 and 20, 420. Because it's 20 prescribing that the functional design criteria or in 21 Part 50 terms would be the performance requirements, 22 are included.
23 Now 50 and 52, I agree. They would 24 require that the non-safety significant systems be 25
62 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 included and described but it doesn't specify the, all 1
of the attributes of those non-safety significant SSCs 2
that need to be described.
3 So, in Part 50, 52, you might be able to 4
just list the system and that might be fine or you 5
might go into a discussion of the function of the 6
system and describe how it's not, you know, not that 7
important to the safety.
8 Well, Part 53, the 410 and 420 don't allow 9
you that flexibility. You've got to go all the way 10 down to specifying the performance requirements.
11 And so, you don't have that flexibility to 12 say this is not safety significant, it's not that 13 important. I can just list it or I can just describe 14 it at a high level. It doesn't, Part 53 wouldn't 15 allow you to do that.
16 MS. VALLIERE: Yes, Mark, I understand 17 your comment when you specifically mentioned normal 18 operations, now I understand where you're coming from.
19 So, we'll take a look at those specific 20 sections you mentioned to make sure we don't have 21 some, you know, unintended requirements. But I think 22 I understand your comment.
23 MR. NICHOLS: Okay, great. Thank you.
24 Thank you, everyone. Page, Slide 16. I've got Slide 25
63 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 16, Slide 17, again, apologize for taking a long time.
1 So, I think I wanted to focus here on 2
defense in depth. You asked whether it's needed, you 3
know, honestly, if you're going to have a requirement 4
on defense in depth, I don't think it hurts to have a 5
definition around it.
6 I would point out that the definition and 7
the requirement don't look the same and it's 8
specifically the requirement has the one sentence 9
about no single engineered feature blah, blah, blah.
10 That reads a little bit different than 11 this, this one reads more as, in terms of you need to 12 have one, more than one barrier or redundant layer and 13 that's, you know, much more understandable.
14 The way the requirement reads, it reads 15 much more like a single failure criteria and 16 requirement. And so, one, you may want to modify the 17 requirement to match better with this definition.
18 Because I think this definition is more 19 aligned with Part 50. So, that's just my comment 20 there and we can go on to 17 if you didn't have a 21 response.
22 MS. VALLIERE: No, understand. Thank you 23 for the comment, Mark.
24 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. So, this is the last 25
64 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 one. So, I was just interested in 53, you used the 1
term functional design criteria and you basically say 2
it means performance requirements.
3 And performance requirements is the term 4
used in Part 50 and 52. Is there a reason you didn't 5
use the term performance requirement in Part 53 or 6
even just modify it? Performance criteria?
7 I'm just wanting to know why you changed 8
the term. I'm not opposed to it. I'm just wondering 9
why you did it.
10 MS. VALLIERE: Yes, honestly I don't think 11 I can answer why we did not use the term you mentioned 12 and chose functional design criteria. Other than, you 13 know, it's something that we were, I would say, used 14 to using from other arenas. So, let us take your 15 comment back and discuss it.
16 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. With that, that's 17 everything I had. I apologize for taking so much 18 time.
19 MR. BEALL: Thanks, Mark. That was good 20 feedback to give us, we appreciate that. Dennis 21 Henneke, you have your hand up.
22 MR. HENNEKE: Yes, great. Dennis Henneke 23 with GE Hitachi, also on the JCNRM, which handles the 24 PRA standards that have been mentioned.
25
65 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Couple of comments on your safe and stable 1
question on Slide 12, you know, you pulled out some 2
definitions that interface with the definitions of the 3
non-light water reactor standard.
4 And just to clarify a little bit, in the 5
actual requirements of the standard and event sequence 6
definition, safe and stable is used throughout to say 7
that when a defining success states includes safe and 8
stable to prevent radioactive release.
9 That standard, safe and stable, may not 10 be, as was described earlier, that the plant operating 11 perfectly. It may be in fact that fuel damage may 12 have occurred but containment worked so that you have 13 successfully mitigated release to within the criteria 14 that you're wanting.
15 So safe and stable includes that barrier 16 in it, which of course then means that the barriers 17 are part of your consideration for safety related.
18 But the point being, you know, safe and 19 stable really needs to be a part of that. It is 20 buried in the standard in the requirements.
21 But if you're not going to pull all that 22 out then you need to tie in the success states on end 23 state into some sort of discussion on safe and stable.
24 I did have a question on Slide 14. You 25
66 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 list unlikely sequences between 10-2 and 5-4.
1 Shouldn't that be 1-4?
2 MR. HOELLMAN: Yes, Dennis, I think we got 3
a typo there. We noticed that too as we were going 4
through the presentation, so thanks.
5 MR. HENNEKE: Okay.
6 MR. HOELLMAN: And I appreciate your other 7
comment on the safe and stable too. That was another 8
sort of thing we noticed as we were, you know, getting 9
close to releasing the definition and just knew we 10 needed stakeholder feedback on it. So, appreciate it.
11 MR. HENNEKE: On the range on very 12 unlikely sequences, under LMP the range for the enzyme 13 basis is, you know, 10-4 to 10-6 and considered 14 uncertainty and so then we moved that down to 5-7.
15 So, the 5-7 already accounts for 16 uncertainty in the then sequence frequency. So, I 17 would recommend either moving, changing 5-7 to 1-6 18 considering uncertainty or just say 5-7 and remove the 19 requirement to consider uncertainty.
20 If you want to be consistent with the LMP.
21 Just a comment. And then on Slide 15, I think it's 22 just a minor point here, non-safety you mentioned or 23 not relied on to achieve adequate defense in depth for 24 first safety significant.
25
67 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 You mentioned achieving defense in depth 1
but you don't use the word adequate and it's either 2
relied on for defense in depth or it's relied on to 3
achieve adequate defense in depth. I think maybe make 4
a slight pre-comment definition.
5 MS. VALLIERE: And so, was that, that was 6
the non-safety related but safety significant 7
definition?
8 MR. HENNEKE: Yes. It should --
9 MS. VALLIERE: Okay.
10 MR. HENNEKE: -- achieve adequate defense 11 of depth.
12 MS. VALLIERE: Yes, I see that that's what 13 we used in the non-safety significant definition.
14 MR. HENNEKE: All right. That's all I 15 had. Thanks.
16 MR. HOELLMAN: Thanks, Dennis, appreciate 17 the feedback.
18 MR. BEALL: Yes, thank you, Dennis. Okay, 19 Kadambi, you have your hand up.
20 MR. KADAMBI: Yeah, this Prasad Kadambi.
21 I have a relatively simple question, I think. I've 22 heard the term safety case used in many different 23 ways, and I'm wondering is Part 53 going to clarify 24 what is meant by a safety case?
25
68 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. VALLIERE: Prasad, I probably used 1
that term offhand as a shortcut but to my knowledge we 2
do not intend to use that in Part 53. But I probably 3
used it earlier as a shorthand.
4 MR. KADAMBI: Yes, and others do also. I 5
think the implication is that when an application 6
comes forward there is going to be some kind of a 7
something that will enable a person outside to be able 8
to say, so the safety case includes x, y, z, you know.
9 I'm just wondering in your mind, Nan, 10 where would you go if you wanted to know what a safety 11 case should contain? Is it the whole application?
12 MS. VALLIERE: That's a good question.
13 Clearly from the NRC's standpoint, the application has 14 to contain enough of the safety case for the agency to 15 be able to make its findings with regard to licensing.
16 So you know, from our perspective, you know, I -- go 17 ahead, John.
18 MR. SEGALA: Nan, I'll just add that 19 that's something that we're working with industry on 20 in terms of the TICAP and ARCAP project trying to make 21 sure that the safety cases is well defined in the 22 application and that there's adequate guidance for how 23 you describe that.
24 MR. KADAMBI: Thank you. That's it.
25
69 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thank you very much for 1
those comments. Is there anybody else on the bridge 2
line that would like to make a comment? You can use 3
Star 6 to unmute yourself. Okay. Ah, Cyril, you have 4
your hand up.
5 MR. DRAFFIN: Yes. I'll cover a few items 6
that weren't covered before. On defense-in-depth on 7
Slide 16 and 17, as Jordan raised the point on 8
inherent characteristics, you know, thinking that 9
through in terms of the definition between inherent 10 characteristics and defense-in-depth is something you 11 might want to clarify a little bit more based on the 12 discussions of how that in tune with ACRS yesterday.
13 I agree with the comments that Marc made 14 on requirements for a safety and non-safety related.
15 I think that's helpful clarification. On Slide 14, 16 under unlikely sequences, you found the typo there 17 between the overlap, but we did have kind of not some 18 observations that the examples and the definitions for 19 unlikely and very unlikely events add a little bit of 20 confusion of how the rules can be implemented because 21 the definitions do not provide that clarify, detail 22 needed to be applied for classifying postulated 23 ignition rating-initiated events.
24 So it may not be a definition, but it may 25
70 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 be kind of an implementation question. And then for 1
the definitions of unlikely events and very unlikely 2
event sequences, to more understand the range of 3
frequencies that constitute the design basis events 4
that was a little bit referred to earlier. But 5
clarification on those frequencies and they they're 6
there is probably important.
7 And then a couple, maybe four or five 8
other topics, we had some concern, at least some 9
people did, on the language and the application of 10 design control could be interpreted that the QA 11 requirements might extend to a full range of a 12 licensing basis events versus just the language of 13 postulated accidents.
14 And another point, 53.110 does not include 15 holders' and applicants' language used in 53.060 and 16 53.070 but provides coverage to either an applicant or 17 a licensee, and that reduces the scope from 53.010 18 from standard design approval and design 19 certifications because they are not licensees.
20 Another point, the activities under the 21 manufacturing license are used to define manufacturing 22 and then this construct the manufacturing occur under 23 a manufacturing license may be a little too limiting 24 as a general definition. And the definition of site 25
71 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 characterization seems to expand the definition of the 1
site characteristics, 52.010, and moves it into a 2
category of leakage of radionuclide materials.
3 So those are kind of specific things just 4
to consider as you do some modifications. That's it 5
for now.
6 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thanks, Cyril. Nan, 7
you have something?
8 MS. VALLIERE: I was just going to thank 9
Cyril and say that I'm happy that we have a court 10 reporter because I could not type that fast. So we do 11 have all your comments on record and appreciate that 12 feedback.
13 MR. BEALL: Yes, thanks, Nan. Okay. I 14 don't notice anymore hands up. So I'd like to thank 15 everybody for their comments and discussion on the 16 Subpart A. So with that --
17 MR. KRAFT: Bob? Bob? Bob, excuse me.
18 MR. BEALL: Oh.
19 MR. KRAFT: I had my hand up. Sorry.
20 MR. BEALL: Okay. Go ahead, Steve.
21 MR. KRAFT: Yes, sure. I'll make this 22 quick. I think something that NRC needs to think 23 about, in the definition of advanced reactor, I went 24 back and looked at the statute itself just to confirm 25
72 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that the way you repeated it if it was accurate, and 1
of course it is.
2 I just point out that going beyond what 3
Jeff said earlier, it is a very open-ended definition 4
in one respect because of the phrase, such as. And I 5
don't know how that gets interpreted legally, but it 6
seems to me -- but then again, one of the difficulties 7
is, as I'm sure Jeff will agree, is that when Congress 8
enumerates a list in a law, people tend to focus on 9
that list only even though it's meant to be not 10 exclusive, and I've seen court decisions in the areas 11 I've worked on where they've done that. But more 12 importantly is the phrase above the list, says 13 significant improvement. I am not going to step into 14 that quagmire as to what that might mean, but that's a 15 judgment, and somewhere along the line someone's going 16 to submit something and you're going to have to face 17 up to what that means. And I think that's -- I just 18 point that out.
19 I'm not going to offer a comment as to 20 what I think it might mean, but I think that's 21 something that they need to be thinking about in 22 advance because, you know, recognizing what everyone 23 has been saying is that I think people who will submit 24 under this part will want a broad interpretation, 25
73 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 whether that's accurate for them or I don't know, of -
1
- I'm just saying what I just noticed reading this.
2 Thanks. It was just, it was a comment. I 3
don't think anyone needs to reply to that if they 4
don't feel they need to. Thanks.
5 MS. VALLIERE: Thank you, Steve. I think 6
you -- that just helps to articulate well why we 7
think, you know, some early discussion of these terms 8
is going to be very helpful in reaching to our 9
proposed rule for Part 53 that everybody understands.
10 Thank you.
11 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thanks, Steve. Okay.
12 Can we go to Slide 20? So we're going to start the 13 second part here. This is Topic 2 with the Subpart F, 14 and Nan Valliere is going to lead this off. So this 15 is a discussion of Subpart F, section 73.700, 16 Operational Objectives. Nan?
17 MS. VALLIERE: Thank you, Bob. Next 18 slide, please. So today we are going to continue our 19 discussion on the operational requirements in Subpart 20 F. Next slide, please. Subpart F defines the 21 requirements during the operation phase of an advanced 22 nuclear plant to ensure that the safety criteria in 23 Subpart B and other requirements such as design 24 analysis requirements in Subpart C continue to be 25
74 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 satisfied throughout the plant's lifetime.
1 Section 53.700 provides the overall 2
objectives and general organization of Subpart F, 3
which is to define requirements on plant structures, 4
systems, and components to maintain their capabilities 5
and reliabilities, plant personnel to ensure they have 6
adequate knowledge and skills to perform their 7
assigned duties to support safety functions, and plant 8
programs to ensure they support the performance of the 9
identified safety functions.
10 These requirements are needed to ensure 11 that the advanced nuclear plant is maintained and 12 operated such that the first and second tier safety 13 criteria are met. Next slide, please.
14 Section 53.710 requires preparation of a 15 transition plan from construction to operations. So, 16 the transition plan would demonstrate that SSCs are 17 appropriately constructed and capable of performing 18 their intended functions, that plant personnel 19 appropriately license and train to perform safety 20 functions, and that programs, procedures, and controls 21 are implemented to support the safety functions.
22 The discussion table notes, that was the 23 discussion table that was released along with the 24 Subpart F section, it notes that this paragraph may be 25
75 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 revised once the remainder of Part 53 is complete, 1
specifically to account for ITAAC related issues that, 2
you know, we'll be looking at more closely and 3
preparing Subparts H and I.
4 And another possible discussion topic is 5
whether these requirements would be more logically 6
addressed as a startup testing program in a programs-7 related section of Subpart F, rather than address 8
separately as illustrated in our preliminary proposal 9
language in this section. Next slide, please.
10 Section 53.720 provides the requirements 11 for maintaining the capability, availability, and 12 reliability of SSCs to support meeting the first and 13 second tier safety criteria for unplanned events that 14 are described in Subpart B.
15 At a basic level, this section outlines 16 that controls for safety related SSCs are to be 17 provided by technical specifications in paragraph A, 18 and controls for non-safety related but safety 19 significant SSCs are to be addressed through special 20 treatments controlled within licensee programs and 21 procedures. Next slide, please.
22 Paragraph A of section 53.720 defines the 23 required limits to be included in technical 24 specifications to define conditions and limitations on 25
76 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 SSCs to fulfill safety functions and first tier safety 1
criteria. The general content in control of technical 2
specifications under Part 53 will be similar to the 3
requirements in Part 50 and 52.
4 The requirements for technical 5
specifications include limits on the inventories of 6
radioactive materials, plant operating limits, and 7
specific requirement for each safety related structure 8
system or component including limiting conditions for 9
operation and required surveillances.
10 The proposed requirements for technical 11 specification also include sections on important 12 design attributes, administrative controls, and 13 decommissioning when applicable. I'll note that the 14 design attribute section would be similar to the 15 design features required in the current section 50.36.
16 However, a different term may be needed if design 17 features become a defined term within Part 53 to mean 18 something different than it means in Part 50.
19 This first iteration of preliminary 20 language for this section does not include the concept 21 of safety limits or associated limiting system safety 22 settings from 10 CFR 50.36. As discussed in the 23 Commission paper on the functional containment 24
- concept, which was SECY-18-0096, systematic 25
77 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 assessments and more mechanistic approaches to 1
evaluating source terms support an alternative 2
approach to establishing area-based safety limits.
3 This first iteration of preliminary 4
language for this section on technical specifications 5
also does not include the criteria for identifying 6
limiting conditions for operation or LCOs from 10 CFR 7
50.36. Instead, the staff proposes to maintain the 8
concepts from Subparts B and C to define LCOs as 9
providing limits on safety related SSCs, which are 10 those associated with protecting against an immediate 11 threat to public health and safety and the first-tier 12 safety criteria.
13 Currently, 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) provides 14 the criteria for limiting conditions for operation and 15 includes criterion (d), which is a structure, system, 16 or component which operating experience or 17 probabilistic risk assessment has shown to be 18 significant to public health and safety.
19 In this preliminary construct for Part 53, 20 risk significant SSCs are addressed through a 21 combination of technical specifications for the safety 22 related SSCs and the introduction of paragraph B of 23 this section for non-safety related but safety 24 significant SSCs, which I'll address on the next 25
78 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 slide.
1 First, however, I'd like to comment that 2
some stake holders have expressed a desire to allow a 3
deterministic approach or approaches for performing 4
the design and analysis described in Subpart C, which 5
would necessitate a more traditional approach to tech 6
specs as well. And such approaches may be better 7
addressed within a revised Part 50. Next slide, 8
please.
9 Paragraph B of Section 53.020 -- 53. 720 10 defines the required controls to be developed and 11 implemented for non-safety related but safety 12 significant SSCs. Configuration management and other 13 special treatments provide reasonable confidence that 14 the capabilities and reliabilities of SSCs are 15 maintained consistent with the underlying risk 16 assessments.
17 These controls are needed to implement a 18 performance-based approach and to gain operational 19 flexibilities in areas such as supporting staffing and 20 programmatic topics such as emergency preparedness 21 that will be addressed in Subpart F.
22 As previously mentioned, changes would be 23 needed to address deterministic approaches with 24 different supporting analyses, safety classification 25
79 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 schemes, and design approaches. This consideration 1
also carries through to other configuration control 2
and program requirements that differentiate between 3
safety related and non-safety related but safety 4
significant SSCs based on risk informed performance-5 based concepts. Next slide, please.
6 So Bob, we were intended to have our lunch 7
break at this point. I also believe Mr. Reckley has 8
rejoined us. So we could take the lunch break, or if 9
-- now, or if Bill prefers to move on, we can move on.
10 MR. BEALL: Well, yes, we can take the 11 lunch break now if you want or we can go for another 12 ten minutes and finish and break at noon. Bill, if 13 you want to go for a few minutes, or you want to go 14 ahead and just break?
15 MR. RECKLEY: Given I just joined, I would 16 say why don't we just break.
17 MR. BEALL: Take a break now? Okay.
18 That's fine. So we'll take a 45-minute break and so 19 we'll reconvene again at 12:35 east coast time.
20 That'll be at 12:35 east coast time, okay? Thank you 21 all very much for your patience this morning. And now 22 we'll break for lunch.
23 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 24 off the record at 11:52 a.m. and resumed at 12:35 25
80 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 p.m.)
1 MR. BEALL: Good afternoon everyone. So 2
we will now restart our Part 53 public meeting. Bill 3
Reckley from NRR will be taking over for Nan and he'll 4
continue with our discussion of Subpart F, section 5
53.700. Bill, you can go ahead and start now.
6 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Thanks, Bob. So just 7
a short recap since we broke kind of in the middle of 8
this series of sections. This part of Subpart F was -
9
- is intended to address the equipment, and Nan, right 10 before lunch went over 73 -- 53.720, which goes to 11 maintaining the configuration of equipment through 12 tech specs for safety related equipment and through 13 reliability assurance type programs for the non-safety 14 related by safety significant equipment.
15 And so the next section in terms of the 16 requirements to ensure that the equipment is going to 17 perform as it was assumed in the various analysis is 18 the 70 -- 53.730 that Slide 28 addressing. And that 19 goes to maintenance, repair, and inspection.
20 And this requirement is largely taken from 21 the Part 50 maintenance rule. The scope is defined as 22 being associated with safety related and safety 23 significant SSCs. So if you're familiar with the Part 24 50 maintenance rule when that was undertaken, a scope 25
81 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 had to be defined for that.
1 One of the advantages that we're trying to 2
maintain here in Part 53 is a consistency across the 3
board and avoiding, if possible, the need to go into 4
specific regulations and defining specific scopes for 5
those requirements.
6 And so an advantage of having a clear set 7
of equipment that is addressed within Part 53, the 8
safety related and non-safety related but safety 9
significant SSCs, is that we can be consistent in 10 terms of the program. So maintenance rule would be 11 an example of that.
12 So otherwise, it -- the requirement 13 basically says to take appropriate corrective action 14 if it's found that an SSC doesn't meet its special 15 treatment requirements or the performance goals 16 established for that, and the performance goals, for 17 example, for the non-safety related SSCs would be 18 those that tie back to the reliability and 19 availability assumptions in the PRA and what was 20 needed to meet the higher level safety criteria as 21 they're defined in Subpart B.
22 The requirement to do an assessment of the 23 maintenance program every two years and similar to the 24 maintenance rule for existing operating plants that 25
82 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 require them to conduct a risk assessment associated 1
with maintenance activities as things are taken out of 2
service for preventative or corrective maintenance.
3 So that's really 53.730. Again, largely you would 4
find it very similar to the maintenance rule as it was 5
established in Part 50. So we can go on to Slide 29.
6 The next area within Subpart F is 7
associated with design control and the need to 8
maintain -- if the earlier requirements were to 9
maintain configurations in accordance with the design 10 that's established, then this one, 740, is intended to 11 address what needs to be done when a design change is 12 implemented during the operating phase. So it just 13 basically lays out the need to coordinate those design 14 changes with other programs to maintain and ensure 15 that you meet the -- continue to meet the higher level 16 safety criteria as you do those changes.
17 So again, I don' think that one has too 18 much in it. One of the things we'll assess later on 19 is when we see all of these things together is whether 20 this type of a requirement is really repetitive to the 21 overall quality assurance requirements and the other 22 interface requirements. So but in terms of the actual 23 technical requirement, I don't think it should be too 24 surprising. We'll get to the language and how best to 25
83 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 address these kind of requirements as we can see the 1
consolidated package.
2 So I think with that, we can go into a 3
discussion of this first part of Subpart F that those 4
sections that are related to maintaining the hardware.
5 So Bob, sorry I missed this morning, so I don't know 6
exactly how you're doing this, but --
7 MR. BEALL: That's okay, Bill. I know you 8
were busy. Marc Nichols, do you have anything from 9
NEI?
10 MR. NICHOLS: I do, yes. Let me get the 11 camera and microphone on.
12 MR. BEALL: Okay.
13 MR. NICHOLS: Nan, Bill, thanks for 14 providing that presentation. So I think conceptually 15 there's a lot of, you know, alignment on what needs to 16 be done. What I'm going to focus on is more in how 17 the rules are written and how requirements are 18 established and how they interact with each other.
19 And given, and I'll repeat this, Bill, 20 because I
don't think you heard my opening 21 introduction. We're looking at Part 53 in is it going 22 to maintain equivalent safety as Part 50? Is it going 23 to be better in terms of more efficient? Does it give 24 more flexibility, reduce burden?
25
84 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 As we look at it, we're not just focused 1
on the academic discussion of the requirement itself.
2 We're looking specifically at how is it going to be 3
implemented, what are the practical implications of 4
it, and do those actually realize the benefit?
5 So with that, let me go through some of my 6
thinking on this. And I want to start with, you know, 7
and it's a general observation and I'll make a couple 8
of examples here. Where the NRC is proposing 9
requirements that are either duplicative of other 10 requirements or have a great overlap with other 11 requirements.
12 And while, okay, you're still requiring 13 the same thing from an applicant and a licensee, but 14 when you go to look at the application of multiple 15 requirements requiring the same thing or very similar 16 things, one, there's potential for confusion if 17 they're worded differently, two, there are two 18 requirements you have to meet both of them and 19 sometimes it's not clear that doing one thing meets 20 both of them so you might have a duplicate effort.
21 And then specifically for the one I'm 22 going to focus on first, it's 53.700, which is --
23 sorry, it's on Slide 22 if you want to go back to it.
24 Which in my mind, what I think the NRC is trying to do 25
85 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 is really use this 53.700 to establish the purpose of 1
this subpart.
2 And you know, perfectly fine to use a 3
requirement to establish the purpose of the subpart, 4
I've seen it done before, but how it's written is 5
really important because here what this requirement 6
does when you look at it, it establishes very specific 7
things that have to be done by the applicant, the 8
licensee. Many of those things are repeated in other 9
requirements.
10 And the way they're phrased is there are 11 things that you, the applicant can be held accountable 12 for strict compliance to the regulations, and where 13 that becomes a concern is as applicants come into the 14 NRC and may apply and a reviewer's looking at it and 15 they say, well, I've come up with this new 16 understanding or perspective or expectation. It's not 17 written down anywhere and as they go through the 18 process of trying to ask the applicant to provide more 19 information and even to change their design, they 20 always have to say which requirement their new 21 expectation and request for design change or 22 information ties back to.
23 Well, a requirement like 53.700, and you 24 have a couple others that are written this way, you 25
86 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 know, one of the ones in Subpart B and your second 1
iteration you actually fix by saying, this requirement 2
I met by meeting these other requirements. So it sort 3
of prevents that type of outcome. But this one I 4
don't think is written that way.
5 So it's very easy for the NRC to come back 6
and say, well, I want this, and the applicant says, 7
well, why should I have to do that? Well, 53.700, 8
it's this nice catchall, it requires a lot of things 9
and I can fit whatever expectation I want in there.
10 And therefore, it leads to a lot -- a lack of 11 predictability, a lot of uncertainty that we could get 12 these future gotchas and new expectations.
13 So I would just say this is more of a 14 formatting comment. It's not that I'm opposed to a 15 purpose objective, it's just that I think they should 16 be written very much as a purpose objective. So the 17 purpose of this subpart is to do blah, blah, blah, 18 these requirements fulfill this requirement, you know, 19 the objective of this subpart so that it does -- it 20 prevents that type of future uncertainty.
21 I'll pause there just to see if there's 22 response or question before I go on to my next --
23 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 24 off the record at 12:45 p.m. and resumed at 12:47 25
87 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 p.m.)
1 MR. RECKLEY: No, that's a good comment 2
and you're right. That's what we had intended is to 3
lay this out as a purpose.
4 MR. NICHOLS: Yes.
5 MR. RECKLEY: So we'll consider your 6
suggestion to make sure it's written that way.
7 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Thanks. Yes. And 8
you fixed a similar one in Subpart B 53.200, when you 9
add a -- added a sentence meeting these other 10 requirements to fill this. So that's one way to do 11 it, not the only way, but certainly wanted to point 12 that out.
13 The next question -- comment is on page 23 14 in 53.710, and as we're looking at this question about 15 whether 50 -- Part 53 is going to be more efficient 16 than Part 50, 52, this is one that caught our 17 attention. There's no specific requirement, or 18 standalone requirement in Part 50 and 52 for a 19 transition program, or plan, I should say, we do find 20 it in the application content that it needs to -- the 21 transition from construction to operations needs to be 22 described.
23 The thing that this one does, because it's 24 much more specific on everything that has to be in the 25
88 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 transition plan, it is going to be an increase in 1
burden on the industry. And so I just wanted to point 2
that out that the creation of it, it's not changing 3
whether a transition plan is developed. It's not 4
changing whether that -- how the transition is going 5
to be done, is communicated to the NRC.
6 But establishing it as a standalone 7
requirement is going to increase some burden. So I 8
just wanted to make sure that the NRC was aware of 9
that.
10 We can go onto slide 26 then, and back to 11 my theme of duplication. So first one, we do 12 recognize that the risk informed approach on this 13 previous slide, the risk informed approach to tech 14 specs for safety related, is an improvement and we 15 appreciate that.
16 When we look at the control of non-safety 17 related safety significant SSC's, this is another area 18 where we need to really read through the other 19 requirements to see, is there overlap. Is there 20 duplication here, and I think this is one where there 21 is duplication. So it might be that we don't even 22 need this requirement. This 720(b) to begin with.
23 And where it duplicates, it duplicates 24 with 53.470, 53.740, those are both design control 25
89 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 related requirements. It duplicates with quality 1
assurance itself, which is design and configuration 2
control over the plant.
3 And so I really would encourage the NRC to 4
take a look at that and ask, well, could you do this 5
more efficiently. Do you need four different 6
requirements to try to achieve design and 7
configuration control, or can you just rely on QA, 8
which I think is what we can do. We can just rely on 9
QA to control the design and configuration control, 10 and not have to have many of these other requirements.
11 I'll just go back to, you know, these are 12 areas, they're actually all worded differently, maybe 13 you can explain, there may be some greater vision of 14 how they all work together, but they appear to be 15 somewhat duplicative, overlapping for sure, and 16 they're all worded differently.
17 So there is a log of confusion on, well, 18 how do I meet all of those requirements with, you 19 know, very efficiently. So let me pause there and 20 just see if you have a response on those, those 21 overlapping requirements.
22 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, only in so far as the 23 nature of laying out the organization by lifecycle 24 stages kind of naturally results in some overlap, 25
90 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 where you have requirements in each lifecycle stage 1
associated with something. So I know it can come off 2
as being repetitive, and to some degree it is.
3 But we were trying to include within 4
Subpart F, which is the requirements during the 5
operating phase, what the requirements are during the 6
operating phase. So this is how you maintain those 7
reliabilities and availabilities. You establish them 8
in Subpart C, as you mentioned, you ensure they're 9
provided in Subpart E during construction, and you 10 maintain them through operations, through the 11 requirements in Subpart F.
12 So I think it's just one of those things 13 we'll continue to discuss, a natural outgrowth of 14 laying out this structure that way is that things get 15 addressed. The same things are addressed in each 16 subpart, but the intention is that they're being 17 addressed in relation to that operating phase. That 18 stage of the lifecycle.
19 So anyway, I understand what you're 20 saying, Mark. We'll continue to look at that and at 21 some point, we might have to, you know, have the 22 discussion on if there's a better way to organize 23 things when they're often -- when they're repeated.
24 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Yes, thank you, thank 25
91 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 you for the explanation. Yes, I would encourage that 1
exercise to go through it, a comparison of the 2
options, you know, to repeat requirement, I'll just 3
call them cross-cutting requirements. Cross-cutting 4
mean they apply to different phases of the lifecycle.
5 To apply them in each phase of the 6
lifecycle in very nuanced ways that apply to that 7
phase of the lifecycle, or just put it together in one 8
place that would apply across the range of Part 53.
9 QA is one of those. In fact, I think 10 configuration control should just be left to QA. I 11 don't think we need another configuration control 12 requirement, but you know, we proposed in our February 13 version that QA just be treated in one place, and not 14 have to repeat it over and over again. So yes, would 15 encourage you to look at the pros and cons between 16 that.
17 The last comment is on operations 18 requirements related to the white paper you had put 19 out, and I know we're still reviewing that and you had 20 talked about it at a previous meeting. But it really 21 gets into things like staffing and that sort of stuff, 22 and we didn't see -- or I didn't see any requirements 23 related to that. I don't know if you were expecting 24 them to be somewhere else, what you were thinking 25
92 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 about that.
1 I know in the NEI version, we actually, 2
you know, and we proposed different ways, so what I'm 3
about to say isn't a suggestion you included because 4
ours was built on a different concept here. But we 5
actually had a requirement to describe the conduct of 6
operations. So that would have caught that type of 7
consideration. But I didn't see it in your version.
8 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, really, the way Subpart 9
F is -- we expect to lay it out was, and it might have 10 been too subtle in 700, it basically lays it out into 11 three segments, equipment, personnel, programs.
12 And so we drafted language for equipment 13 and programs, and we have yet to write anything on 14 personnel, thinking that with the release of the white 15 paper, we would discuss that, those sections of 16 Subpart F in a future meeting, once people had had an 17 opportunity to look at the white paper and give some 18 thought on actually addressing the issues.
19 That white paper talked about some 20 possible directions we might go, but largely was 21 written as a problem statement, and so we hadn't 22 really developed specific proposals yet, how to 23 reflect this structure, when it comes to personnel.
24 So that, yes, the short answer is yes. We 25
93 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 intentionally left that blank, and we're going to 1
address that in a future meeting, and we'll address 2
the overall topics in that white paper, and also some 3
preliminary language that we'll develop over the next 4
month or so.
5 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. Those were all 6
my comments. Thank you.
7 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thank you, Mark. Does 8
anybody else have any comments or questions about this 9
section of Subpart F?
10 MR. PAESE: Yes, this is Rick Pease from 11 Westinghouse. I had a comment/question on Slide 25.
12 MR. BEALL: Okay. Go ahead, Rick.
13 MR. PAESE: Yeah, so slide 25 talks about 14 the tech specs and some of the requirements 15 surrounding the tech specs. My question was on the 16 surveillance requirements wording in Paragraph 17 720(a)(3) where requires the use of surveillance 18 requirements.
19 And I know that there's some precedent on 20 not having any surveillance requirements for a given 21 LCO in areas like digital I&C that have built in 22 automatic test features that can take the place of 23 manual surveillance requirements.
24 And the way the rule is written currently, 25
94 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 it seems to require surveillances. I was just curious 1
if the staff had considered the historical precedent 2
of, in some cases, an LCO may not require a 3
surveillance requirement and if that's, that's a 4
vision to be continued to be allowed here under the 5
Part 53 wording. Thank you.
6 MR. BEALL: Bill, are you on mute?
7 MR. RECKLEY: Thanks Bob. Yes, we'll look 8
at that. It was, just basically, we used what we were 9
copying this from when we went back to 50.36 as the 10 starting point. I didn't update it to reflect any of 11 the more recent changes that might have been 12 occurring.
13 And so we'll take a look at that. I'll 14 make a note and see whether we can change that 15 language, or maybe reflect -- keep the surveillance 16 requirement, but reflect that there might be ways 17 where that's done automatically, or whatever.
18 But we'll talk, maybe, to the -- if you 19 have any suggestions, please send them to us. But 20 otherwise, maybe we'll talk or look over the digital 21 I&C side to see how that might have been addressed.
22 So thank you.
23 MR. PAESE: Okay. Thank you.
24 MR. BEALL: Okay. Cyril, you have your 25
95 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 hand up.
1 MR. DRAFFIN: Yes, I do. This is Cyril 2
Draffin, U.S. Nuclear Industry Council. I agree with 3
what Mark said regarding having clarity and not 4
duplication regarding requirements that appear in 5
different parts of the Part 53, to avoid unnecessary 6
work for applicants.
7 As far as the discussion on operations and 8
people, we provided comments at the previous meeting 9
on -- and the approach had been taken, and I did note 10 that NRC had approved the, one of the things we 11 recommended, is not requiring STA's, and I think that 12 the NuScale, recently, the NRC approved the -- not 13 having STA's, so I think that's helpful, a helpful 14 step.
15 I did want to raise a much broader 16 question that Nan had brought up in Slide 25 and 26.
17 When she referenced Part 50, and the deterministic 18 approach. Is there plans, the industry has 19 recommended that, you know, Part 53 be inclusive but 20 is there also a plan for updating Part 50 to make that 21 to reflect non-large liquid reactors to allow -- to 22 deterministic approaches, so that could be an 23 alternative to Part 53.
24 So maybe a little bit detail on what your 25
96 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 current thinking is on how you might update Part 50.
1 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, and what we're 2
requesting from stakeholders is a little more specific 3
observations or plans in terms of the technologies and 4
possible deterministic approaches, so that we can make 5
a decision of whether it's more practical to address 6
it within Part 53, and try to adjust our initial plans 7
for Part 53, which as we laid out in the rulemaking 8
plan and before that in SECY-19-0117, on the licensing 9
modernization, that that was really the avenue that we 10 were setting.
11 The course we were setting was to take 12 that risk informed approach and carry it through to 13 Part 53. And so some of the comments we're getting 14 about people wanting to take a more deterministic, or 15 traditional approach, the decision we're trying to 16 reach is where is the most practical way to do that.
17 If you going to follow things like assume 18 a single failure, assume safety related equipment for 19 AOO's and DBA's, and use that to establish specific 20 requirements on SSC's and assume, or apply the single 21 failure criterion as it was applied in Part 50.
22 If that is the general approach that 23 somebody wants to take, and I understand it. I'm not 24 saying there's anything wrong with it. But Part 50 is 25
97 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 built that way. And so it may be more practical to 1
create a new alternative section in Part 50 that 2
basically would say, I'm just making this up on the 3
spot here, in lieu of 50.46, that defines a specific 4
requirement for a large break LOCA, an applicant 5
define a design basis accident using the following 6
guidance. And there's standards and a history of how 7
that might be done in a deterministic way.
8 And then everything else in Part 50 would 9
apply. You would just replace the DBA from a large 10 break loss of coolant accident to a new DBA that's 11 defined for a specific design.
12 So if that's what people want to do, we 13 want -- we would appreciate knowing that so we can 14 decide. Then as part of this rulemaking, or if it's 15 possible, or a future rulemaking, we can go into Part 16 50 and we can make those adjustments.
17 But the difficulty we're having of trying 18 to address that within Part 53 is just the examples 19 that were given here. The reason we're setting out a 20 reliability assurance program, that admittedly is 21 probably goes -- it does go beyond what was done in 22 Part 50 or 52, is because the reliability assurance 23 program maintains the validity of the licensing basis 24 events as they, as we laid them out earlier.
25
98 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And part of that is to justify not having 1
to do the single failure criterion for safety related 2
equipment used in the DBA, and AOO's. So again, what 3
we're really looking for in order to support that 4
decision is a little more input from stakeholders 5
about what approaches they want to take.
6 We've heard people say they're reluctant 7
and they want more flexibility in not using LMP, we 8
understand that. But we need to know what those 9
alternatives are so that we can write the language and 10 make decisions.
11 So that's what we mean about maybe going 12 into Part 50. It might be the easier way if people 13 are wanting to use a Part 50 type approach. The 14 traditional structure list or barrier based approach.
15 So what we're looking for from 16 stakeholders is some additional specifics on what are 17 they, what are they planning to do that they fear that 18 Part 53, as it's currently constructed, isn't 19 supporting. And then we can make a decision as to 20 whether to adjust Part 53, or to go in Part 50 and 21 make a change.
22 You're muted, Cyril.
23 MR. DRAFFIN: Thank you. Would you 24 consider both? In other words, if you think that 25
99 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 there's some benefits for having the modifications to 1
Part 50, and other people see benefits of having all 2
together in Part 53, you try to accomplish both using 3
perhaps some of the same language, and have that as a 4
dual path that would be available to applicants.
5 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, I mean, we'll consider 6
anything. It just becomes more difficult. Like in 7
Part 53, if we have to start making decision boxes and 8
carrying it throughout the whole part of whether or 9
not you're using a single failure criterion, whether 10 or not you're analyzing beyond design basis events, it 11 becomes difficult.
12 And so it -- but that's the reason we're 13 asking for specifics in terms of what people are 14 thinking how them might approach this. If there's a 15 reference to you know, rev 1 of IAEA specific safety 16 requirements 2/1, I can go look at that and I can 17 figure out how to either apply it within Part 53, or 18 make adjustments to Part 53, or that's a case where 19 that's written a very traditional light water reactor 20 centric approach, it might be easier just to make sure 21 that that approach can be accommodated but it would be 22 accommodated within Part 50.
23 So again, as soon as people can be a 24 little more specific about what they're envisioning, 25
100 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 then we can make the decisions about whether to try to 1
do it in Part 50 and Part 53, or as you suggested, 2
Part 50 and Part 53.
3 MR. DRAFFIN: Okay. So far, the US NIC's 4
theme is that 53 should be comprehensive, technology 5
inclusive, and would include both the PRA LMP type 6
approach, as well as deterministic. But we certainly 7
will, that's an ongoing dialog that we're all having, 8
so we'll be attentive to that.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Right. And I think, yes, I 10 mean, our intention is always to make it technology 11 inclusive, what we're getting down to is whether it's 12 methodology inclusive. And it can include all 13 possible methodologies.
14 And again, that's where we come down to 15 Part 50 is based on one traditional methodology, and 16 Part 53, as we originally envisioned it, was based on 17 the LMP type methodology. And both of them have their 18 strengths and their weaknesses.
19 But trying to address both of those which 20 are coming out a problem from different directions 21 within one rule, is a challenge. So --
22 MR. DRAFFIN: Okay. I have another 23 comment, but I suspect that Mark might have a comment 24 on this one. So I'll pause here and give Mark a 25
101 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 chance, and then I'll come back.
1 MR. BEALL: Okay, Cyril. All right, Mark 2
Nichols?
3 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. Thanks. I did want to 4
weigh in on this discussion about risk informed 5
methods versus deterministic methods, and Part 53, for 6
one, and 50 and 52 is the only way for the other. And 7
should we expand this rulemaking to include a 8
rulemaking for 50 and 52.
9 So first, I want to say entertaining that 10 notion at all is ridiculous and a non-starter. I do 11 not believe it was Congress' intention to direct the 12 NRC to create a technology inclusive rule, and then 13 for the NRC to go create an exclusive rule, such that 14 they're now going to have to go back and revised Part 15 50 and 52, in order to be able to license advanced 16 reactors.
17 So I think we need to stop discussing the 18 potential for revising Part 50 and 52, which is not 19 possible on the -- to add to the current scope of the 20 Part 53 rulemaking and get it all done in time.
21 So where I think we need to be going is 22 looking at making Part 53 inclusive, and Bill, you 23 said it very well. It's inclusive from a technology 24 perspective. What we're debating is whether it's 25
102 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 inclusive from a methodology standpoint.
1 This gets to the next point, which is what 2
we're talking about are risk-informed opportunities, 3
or I should say alternatives, in Part 53. We're not 4
asking for any deterministic, strictly deterministic 5
methods. We're asking for alternative risk-informed 6
methods.
7 So we have LMP and TICAP, and we know that 8
those are going to work under Part 53 because Part 53 9
is being structured around them. That's great. We 10 want that. And we have, and industry is developing 11 more details on other approaches that might be used.
12 But you have two examples that you are 13 very familiar with that are risk-informed, that should 14 be allowable under Part 53, NuScale used a more 15 traditional, and Oklo used more of a master calendar.
16 Both used probabilistic risk assessments. Both 17 considered risk. And so both are risk-informed.
18 Are there degrees to which a PRA was used, 19 some more than others? Yes. Are there some people 20 that want to be able to use a non-quantitative risk 21 evaluation method? Yes. And we should discuss 22 whether those do fit or not in here.
23 Now so what we're talking about, we're 24 talking about all of these methods we want are risk-25
103 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 informed. So I want to make sure we're all clear and 1
agree on that.
2 The next point is that the NRC is working 3
on a graded approach to risk-informed, or a graded 4
approach to risk for Part 50, 53. You're working on a 5
paper, you've told us, we're very excited you're doing 6
that. We think that this is the right approach to go.
7 It'll answer all these questions, flush them out.
8 So I think the focus should be on that 9
effort to define this graded approach to risk. Now, 10 industry has pointed out that there are two 11 requirements the NRC still has that would be barriers 12 to a graded approach to risk-informed.
13 One is in the specific uses of PRA to 14 select LBE's, that sort of thing. And the other is 15 that the QA chose. What the NRC has told us is well, 16 those are required because if we don't have those, 17 we're not able to reduce burden in the operations 18 side. Wait until you see those requirements. We'll 19 show you the reduced burden, and we'll show you how 20 those depend on those requirements.
21 And so that's what we're waiting for. I 22 think that's the next discussion. So I won't make any 23 comments in that area. But I do think two very 24 important points. We should not be entertaining 25
104 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 having to revise Part 50 and 52 to be able to license 1
advanced reactors.
2 That is Part 53's responsibility and we 3
should not be calling these alternatives that we're 4
seeking deterministic. They are risk informed 5
alternatives that we're seeking. Thank you. And I 6
apologize for my passion.
7 MR. RECKLEY: No, thank you. We were --
8 we'll await the descriptions that you're mentioning of 9
these other approaches. So we'll wait and see. The -
10
- I do think in terms of some of the benefits, you 11 really have to go through. Some of them are subtle, 12 and you have to compare them of what you would get 13 using the risk-informed modernization project type 14 approach, versus a more traditional approach.
15 So we just went through some of the 16 configuration control things and the reduced number 17 expected to be, in terms of the safety related 18 equipment, and therefore, the reduced number of tech 19 specs.
20 But that's a subtle thing. You don't 21 necessarily see that in the requirements. You only --
22 that's an outgrowth of using the whole risk-informed 23 methodology that you're able, at the end of the day, 24 to have a reduced number of safety related equipment, 25
105 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 and therefore, the controls.
1 So I would just caution, as you look, you 2
got to understand what you're looking for and 3
understand how the methodologies drive it, not just 4
the rule techs. Yes, there's still a requirement for 5
tech specs. So if you look at it and say you got no 6
relief, that's a premature jump.
7 You have to say what did the whole risk-8 informed methodology give me, and that, yes, I still 9
have tech specs, but there's fewer SSC's that are 10 controlled by tech specs. Therefore, I have more 11 operational flexibility because a larger fraction of 12 the plant is now being done under licensee programs 13 versus strict tech spec controls.
14 So again, I'll just ask you to look at it 15 in those contexts of if you're just looking at what 16 rules don't show up, you won't necessarily see the 17 relief. You have to carry through the whole 18 methodology and see how it would get reflected. But 19 I'll leave it there, and we can go back to additional 20 questions, or comments, or suggestions.
21 MR. BEALL: I think, Cyril, you had a, you 22 had some follow-on comments you'd like to make after 23 Mark was done?
24 MR. DRAFFIN: Yes. So I -- we concur with 25
106 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the desire and expectations that Part 53 will be 1
comprehensive for advanced reactors. And that 2
allowing these alternative approaches, which we've 3
mentioned in previous meetings, and which Mark 4
reiterated today in terms of what Oklo and NuScale, 5
and other risk-informed approaches are appropriate.
6 And locking into PRA language, and QHO 7
language, or -- may have to be changed, or should be 8
changed. There were discussions at the ACRS meeting 9
that they also support a graded approach for PRA, as 10 we do. And I think the NRC does. And that's -- that 11 could be helpful.
12 And there's also the questions that were 13 raised about QHO's and whether that was a strong of 14 case, was justified as some of the people -- staff had 15 mentioned yesterday.
16 So I do think that expanded thought on 17 PRA's, and not having that as a direct requirement may 18 be helpful, but it's -- we are still expecting the 19 Part 53 to be comprehensive, and I was asking whether, 20 in addition to that, you would consider modifying Part 21
- 50.
22 Might, a little, elaborate on tech specs 23 for us. You just mention that there would be less 24 equipment covered there. Can you quantify that in 25
107 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 terms of you said that the tech specs would be similar 1
to previous parts. Do you have a sense of how long 2
they would be in terms of what the applicants require, 3
a quantitative assessment of the number of pieces of 4
equipment that would be required under tech specs, 5
under the approach that you're taking versus what's 6
been in the past?
7 It's kind of fuzzy in terms of these, the 8
relief you've referred to that keeps being, being 9
elusive. And so if the tech specs are one of the 10 aspects, could you elaborate in detail on that, and 11 what would be reduced from what the current load is?
12 MR. RECKLEY: Well, that -- it's going to 13 be design specific. I think there's plenty of history 14 if you want to look at either the tabletops that were 15 done for LMP, for example, or going back further than 16 that, if you want to look at the MHTGR submittals that 17 use similar risk-informed approaches and went through 18 the exercise, much as it is laid out here, of 19 identifying required safety functions.
20 And then smartly assessing what would be 21 the safety related function, safety related design 22 features to meet those functions. I think that 23 history exists in large part through that particular 24 history of MHTGR through NGNP, up through the tabletop 25
108 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 exercises for LMP.
1 But it would differ by, it would differ by 2
design. And the nice thing about it is a number of 3
different technologies went through that exercise. So 4
I'll just refer you to those references and the 5
reports on those tabletops for some of the initial 6
thinking on the number of safety related equipment.
7 And then a designer would just have to 8
look at, if you did it a different way, what would be 9
the associated number of safety related equipment, and 10 under this provision then, what would be the scope of 11 the tech specs.
12 MR. DRAFFIN: A little unclear still.
13 Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. BEALL: Okay, Steve Kraft, you have 15 your hand up. Steve? Hey, Bill, can you hear me?
16 MR. RECKLEY: I can hear you, Bob.
17 MR. BEALL: Okay. Steve's unmuted. Okay.
18 We'll wait for Steve to come on. Does anybody else 19 have any other questions or comments?
20 Okay, so we -- I guess we can come back to 21 Steve a little bit later on. So, Bill, I think we'll 22 go ahead and start on the next section of Subpart F.
23 MR. RECKLEY: Sure.
24 MR. BEALL: Which is Section 53.800, 25
109 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 programs. So go ahead, Bill.
1 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. If we can go then --
2 so this is, again, we broke Subpart F into three 3
segments. Hardware, people, and programs. The next 4
series of slides and sections go to the programs part.
5 So go on to 33.
6 So the first one is, again, just an 7
overall assessment, overall requirement for each 8
licensee to do an assessment and determine what 9
programs are necessary when looking at design features 10 and human actions. What programs are needed to 11 support the safety criteria in 53.210 and 220?
12 Then going on to 34, we go into a 13 specific, start a specific list of programs. We're 14 still working with the subject matter experts within 15 the staff to kind of refine what these are. But we 16 wanted to capture what we think the programs would 17 need, which of those programs we understand well 18 enough now, that are going to be in here, and they're 19 fairly traditional.
20 I don't think there should be too much 21 surprise so a licensee under an operating license or a 22 COL, once they enter the operating phase, would be 23 expected to have a radiation protection program. That 24 is limiting the occupational exposures, in accordance 25
110 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 with Part 20.
1 And it's also setting up the program to 2
control and monitor effluents and that brings in what 3
has traditionally been under 50.36(a), and the 4
environmental tech specs, and we kept for now, just 5
because it's a familiar term, whether we continue to 6
use it, we can engage in these discussions. But the 7
role of the Offsite Dose Calculations Manual.
8 And this would also point back to what we 9
will later include in the reporting requirements in 10 terms of submittal of annual reports on effluent 11 releases.
12 So again, this is basically comparable to 13 existing requirements, bringing in a couple different 14 rules.
15 So with that, we can go on to 35. 35 is 16 the emergency preparedness
- program, emergency 17 planning. So this we understand, we didn't put much 18 text in here. There's a rulemaking in progress for 19 the emergency preparedness for small modular reactors 20 and other new technologies.
21 So the relationship of this program to 22 that rulemaking, and then it would tie into the 23 analysis section where the consequence assessments 24 from the unlikely and highly unlikely events would 25
111 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 support the definition of the emergency planning zone, 1
for example.
2 Going on to 36. This is related to 3
security. So security programs would have to be 4
defined for protection of information, physical 5
security programs, cybersecurity programs, an access 6
authorization program, and material control and 7
accounting.
8 In addition, sometimes included within 9
this set, because of how our organization is set up, 10 is fitness for duty. We kind of have fitness for duty 11 under the middle segment associated with personnel, 12 but as we go forward, we're developing language for 13 these various sections now. Changes to fill out this 14 section within Part 53, and then related changes to 15 Part 73 for security, and Part 26 for fitness for 16 duty.
17 And our plans are to issue that 18 preliminary language and talk about that during the 19 next public meeting, or two, as people are able to 20 look at and digest that preliminary language.
21 So not in this version, not much text 22 there, just a placeholder, and that language will be 23 coming shortly.
24 So then moving on to Slide 37. This goes 25
112 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 somewhat to Mark's point. QA does show up in each 1
section, each subpart, because quality assurance is 2
important during all phases of operations, design, 3
construction, and operations.
4 So we can look once we see the 5
consolidated package put together whether it makes 6
sense to have it repeated, or as is being suggested, 7
maybe go to a cross-cutting format where some of this 8
would be put as an example into the -- something that 9
looks more like Appendix B, for Part 50.
10 But what we did was just look at the QA 11 program that would be supporting operations, and go 12 down through the various criterion to see which ones 13 of those apply, and included them in the list.
14 So going on to next slide. Again, Bob, 15 did you just want to continue through these and then 16 maybe take a break? And then open it up for 17 discussion?
18 MR. BEALL: Yes. Let's go ahead and 19 continue on. Okay?
20 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So the next one, next 21 program that we put into Subpart F is something that, 22 at least for now, we named integrity assessment 23 program. And this is a program to make sure that 24 licensees during operation are looking for degradation 25
113 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 of equipment, and so a couple typical examples of that 1
are aging management.
2 The next
- bullet, it goes to the 3
traditional tech speck requirement to look for cyclic 4
or transient loads. Make sure you don't have fatigue 5
oriented failures.
6 And then the last bullet is to make sure 7
licensees are looking for and assessing degradation 8
related to chemical interactions, operating 9
temperatures, irradiation, or other factors. So this 10 would, for light water reactors, look somewhat like 11 the material control programs that were put in place, 12 for example, after the discovery of intergranular 13 stress corrosion cracking.
14 So basically, just a recognition that 15 programs need to be in place to look for that. That 16 might be an area that is especially important for 17 designs with less operating experience. And this 18 comes, again, down to one of these subtle areas that 19 you have to think through.
20 If we have a program in place where a 21 licensee during operation is needing to look for 22 degradation, and needing to take actions if it's 23 discovered, that may show up to you as a new 24 requirement. And it may be a new requirement.
25
114 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 But what it can enable is during a 1
licensing review, to basically say we don't have 40 2
years of operating experience to tell you how 3
materials are going to degrade under these 4
environments, with these materials, with these 5
coolants, with this pipe. And that's okay because 6
53.850 will include a requirement to do inspections 7
and look for degradation, and it will be fixed if it's 8
found.
9 In the absence of this kind of program, a 10 designer might very well have to show that they've 11 done the testing, they've done the -- all of that is 12 needed to be done to predict 40 years of operation 13 under those environments. So again, I just, you 14 know, as you look at how we've tried to put this 15 together, don't look and say there's no equivalent 16 requirement in Part 50. Look and say here's a program 17 that's going to carry into operations in a performance 18 based approach.
19 And the alternative to this might be that 20 the designer or the applicant, in the very beginning, 21 needs to show that there's no degradation mechanism 22 that's going to occur over the 40 year of the plant, 23 which is a difficult task, given the operating 24 experience for some of these designs, some of these 25
115 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 materials.
1 So let's go on to Slide 40. So fire 2
protection. This is an area that we just copied over 3
largely. We're currently engaged with our fire 4
protection folks to look not only at the program 5
during operations, but also the fact that in Subpart 6
C, we have some placeholders for fire protection, but 7
we didn't address fire protection probably enough in 8
Subpart C on design and analysis.
9 So when we come forth with some language 10 related to fire protection, it might affect both 11 Subparts C and F, given the input we're seeking from 12 our own experts. But for now, this looks much like 13 the requirements for fire protection programs for 14 existing plants.
15 Again, when you look at the scope, it's an 16 area where fire protection is able to take advantage 17 of the previous classifications of equipment and look, 18 and be -- we don't have to define a scope, we just are 19 going to use the safety related, and non-safety 20 related, but safety significant categories to apply to 21 the fire protection program.
22 So going on to
- 41.
In service 23 inspections, in service testing requirements. These 24 are an area that is often taken care of through ASME 25
116 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Section 11 type programs. But we would expect that 1
true reference to a consensus code or standard, or 2
otherwise that there's going to be programs to govern 3
in service inspection, in service testing for the 4
equipment.
5 So again, these were largely carried 6
through. We can look and see how some of these 7
programs and in particular, ISI and IST, might 8
interplay with some of the earlier parts of Subpart F 9
in terms of the need to do surveillances, and so 10 forth.
11 So there's a potential there may be some 12 overlap there. But for now, we just, we're trying to 13 have at least a placeholder here to make sure people 14 didn't forget that these type of inspections would 15 need to be done.
16 So if we go on then to 42. Criticality 17 Safety Program. This largely just points to the 18 requirements in Section 70.24, the special nuclear 19 materials regulations. We did put in the comment 20 table, or the -- that the existing requirement in 21 50.68 somewhat -- well, largely developed, for light 22 water reactors, gives some relief from 70.24, or 23 alternatives to 70.24, and was ask for people to look 24 at those two requirements.
25
117 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 We currently, in this write up, just 1
reflect 70.24. It's the broader of the two. But if 2
you want us to look at 50.68, we could look to see if 3
that would be something that people wanted to -- for 4
us to incorporate. Kind of a built in acceptance of 5
an alternative for criticality safety.
6 Okay, going on to Slide 43. This is, we 7
had released the preliminary language for a facility 8
safety program back a few months ago. This is just 9
moving it into the program section. So renumbering 10 and moving it.
11 Some editorial changes to reflect some of 12 the other like numbering changes we did in Subpart B.
13 But otherwise, we didn't go very far in coming up with 14 a second iteration on the facility safety program. We 15 point out in the discussion table that some of the, 16 some of the impressions, I think, on the facility 17 safety program were based in, at least in part, on its 18 length and the level of detail we went into, and some 19 of the administrative parts of that program.
20 That's game for possibly looking at and 21 seeing if some of that administrative detail could be 22 taken out. Maybe addressed in guidance, documents, or 23 somewhere else.
24 We can continue to kind of the 25
118 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 philosophical discussion associated with having a 1
requirement for a facility safety program and how that 2
interfaces with other aspects of a more global 3
regulatory vision.
4 In my mind, this is one of those cases 5
where kind of philosophically, the industry's going to 6
have to kind of make some decisions on a overall 7
regulatory program that's based on compliance, where a 8
licensee says I'm safe because I comply, versus a more 9
performance based approach that includes things like 10 facility safety programs.
11 Where licensees are looking themselves and 12 deciding on whether improvements are warranted. Yes, 13 it's a new requirement. But it again, kind of goes to 14 the philosophy of if the NRC is making all the safety 15 decisions, then you have to accommodate NRC through 16 inspections and reporting requirements.
17 And everything that is needed for the NRC 18 to be the primary decision maker on what safety 19 improvements are needed. So again, kind of a 20 philosophical challenge.
21 If we go to 44. This just, yes, continues 22 the discussion on the performance criteria. This --
23 there was an attempt when we did the first iteration, 24 I think these criteria would have to be enhanced, but 25
119 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 look at them. They were trying to strike the balance 1
between making sure issues were assessed, and then a 2
higher threshold for when an action might actually be 3
taken.
4 So you need to have your inspection 5
threshold lower than your implementation threshold.
6 And so we were just trying to lay that out and using 7
something like five person-rem as a kind of starting 8
point, in that a problem would have to have offsite 9
consequences before any improvement measure would 10 actually be needed.
11 So if we go on then to slide 45. This is 12 just the, again, this is one of those areas where a 13 lot of administrative detail on how this was laid out.
14 That was because we basically modeled it after another 15 agency's requirements in the transportation sector.
16 But this might be an area where we can 17 take out detail from the rule, and then guidance 18 document, or even a template for a program might be 19 developed. We could talk about that in a future 20 discussion.
21 So going on to 46. This was just laid out 22 under that section that the FS -- the Facility Safety 23 Program would be part of an application, would be 24 approved by the NRC. And that's also an interesting 25
120 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 area for discussion because it goes to historically, 1
most of the programs that were listed in the previous 2
slides fall into that same category, as being part of 3
applications and part of NRC approvals.
4 So that's kind of where we were starting 5
from. But it -- especially as we go forward and start 6
talking about Subpart H on the licensing, it might be 7
an area that we can elaborate on and discuss the 8
existence of the programs, and whether there might, in 9
those areas, also be maybe a performance based 10 approach where the level of review of those programs 11 at the application stage can be discussed.
12 Again, we're just starting to write 13 Subpart H, but that will be part of the discussion as 14 we go forward.
15 So then going on to slide 47, the last of 16 the programs, is procedures and guidelines and this is 17 intended to capture what's often put in the 18 administrative section of tech specs, or yes, section 19 of -- Section 5 of tech specs, Chapter 5. That there 20 needs to be a program for procedures and one of the 21 things we can discuss is the inclusion of guidelines.
22 Especially after Fukushima, it came under, 23 you know, a lot of review and discussions. For 24
- example, how to do spare accident management 25
121 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 guidelines, extreme damage mitigation guidelines. And 1
so I included them in this section, that they needed 2
to exist, but we would have to work out through 3
guidance and discussions the treatment of various 4
procedures and guidelines.
5 So I really hadn't intended to change the 6
structure through this program requirement, only that 7
this was a place to capture -- one of the Fukushima 8
insights was that, you know, you should have an 9
integrated set and there should be logical connections 10 from plant operations and obviously, maintenance that 11 we already talked about.
12 But then from plant operations down to 13 emergency operating procedures, and if necessary, 14 accident management guidelines. So that was the 15 purpose of include procedures and guidance in Subpart 16 F. Again, largely this might, if you were looking for 17 the equivalent to this, they would be largely in tech 18 specs currently.
19 So with that, I think that goes through 20 that part of Subpart F, the programs part. So 48 is a 21 discussion slide. Bob, if you want to --
22 MR. BEALL: Yes, okay. So we've gone 23 through the two sections now in Subpart F. So does 24 anybody have any questions or comments about the one 25
122 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 we just went over, the 53.800 programs? Hey, Mark, 1
you can go ahead.
2 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. I was actually going 3
to suggest, because Steve Kraft wanted to talk about 4
his comment on 700. Did you want to go back to him 5
before we get into 800?
6 MR. KRAFT: I assume I'm on.
7 MR. BEALL: Yes, you're on, Steve.
8 MR. KRAFT: I guess I am if you're 9
laughing, Bob. Thanks.
10 MR. NICHOLS: Hey, Mark.
11 MR. KRAFT: Hey.
12 MR. BEALL: Go ahead.
13 (Simultaneous speaking.)
14 MR. KRAFT: I'm sorry, but I had a bit of 15 a headset issue here and there are too many switches 16 you have to throw. Going back to -- sorry for the 17 prompt.
18 So one point Mark made, that I want to 19 just sort of elaborate on, a little bit of history, is 20 when you write a paragraph, I don't care if it's for a 21 regulation, or a business letter, or something else, 22 and then you want to say, well, I want to use that 23 paragraph from this other document.
24 How many times have you done that? And 25
123 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 you translate it over, and you look at it and say, 1
well, not I got to modify it because the text is, the 2
context is wrong, the language is wrong, the --
3 sometimes they got to alter grammar. And that's often 4
just the artifact of the English language.
5 The problem is when you do it in a 6
regulation, where every single word, every comma, I 7
mean we've argued over punctuation in regulations and 8
guidelines. Because they had -- all these things mean 9
something. Then inevitably, there are going to be 10 changes that then serve to confuse. Even when not 11 intended to.
12 And then, of course, we've all had 13 experiences where, well, there was an order, and now 14 that order, you want to make it part of a rule, but to 15 make the order part of the rule, you got to really 16 change it and then, of course, things have moved on, 17 people think a little differently.
18 So you get concerned that, well, wait a 19 minute, which really applies. And I think Mark's got 20 it right that 53 needs to be inclusive, and if there 21 are enough applicants, Bill, that want to go back to 22 the original, you know, deterministic methodology, 23 then, well, then you're going to have to see if you 24 can't accommodate that in 53, and not attempt to just 25
124 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 do something that's more confusing.
1 Okay, going to the other point, Mark 2
raised an issue about increased burden in the 3
operating requirements. And Bill's answer, and Bill, 4
I don't mean to personalize it but just referring to 5
what you said, that, well, wait, you can't make that 6
judgment now about increased burden, because you have 7
to see this other section. It was about tech specs, 8
but generally speaking.
9 Asking the industry to bet on to come 10 there's going to be something else that when added all 11 up, it's going to say, hey, it's all good. I think 12 that's really asking too much and I'll tell you why.
13 What will happen if the section Mark was questioning 14 remains exactly the way it is now.
15 And then when this next stuff comes out, 16 it's -- together it doesn't do what was expected.
17 Then what happens. Then, well, wait a minute. Why 18 did it get written, why does the second part get 19 written that way? Well, because you said what you 20 said in the first part. So then the question is, is 21 the industry going to have to then argue, hold the 22 phone, let's go back to the original part and then 23 work on rewriting that part.
24 And then you get -- everyone chases their 25
125 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 tail, and there's no maliciousness involved in any of 1
this. It's just a matter of how these processes work.
2 So I just kind of make the point that I think that, 3
you know, Bill, my experience with you has always been 4
one that you're gracious and open for comment, and 5
it's an observation that ACRS made yesterday, I'm sure 6
you heard it.
7 And I think that that's what you're trying 8
to do here. And I think that -- you'll agree, honest 9
people can agree to disagree, and I think that you 10 need to be sensitive to the fact that it's going to --
11 people are trying to, I don't want to say guess, but 12 as you know, the industry hangs on every single word 13 the NRC staff says.
14 Translates it, interprets it, they even 15 litigate it at times. And so why get into that mess 16 now. So I just, I think that Mark's got a good point.
17 So even if you came up with some draft ideas as to 18 what you're going to do, it might -- I don't know how 19 to solve the problem. Mark, I'll leave it to you to 20 try to work out with Bill how that problem gets 21 solved.
22 I've seen it, Bill, you and I go back so 23 many decades in this business. We've seen it happen 24 before and so why not plan for it now. Bob, thank 25
126 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 you, I appreciate your forbearance.
1 MR. BEALL: No problem, Steve. Thank you.
2 MR. RECKLEY: Thanks Steve. One of the, 3
just a quick reply if I can, that, you know, what 4
we're trying to do here, the novel approach, and this, 5
you know, this was reflected in SRM for this 6
rulemaking plan, and what we've been trying to do is 7
to put out the preliminary language and then work on 8
iterations.
9 And so you know, this is a novel approach 10 where you guys are
- seeing, you being every 11 stakeholder, ACRS and everybody, are basically seeing 12 our first drafts. Okay? And so as we're looking at 13 this as an 80/20 kind of thing, yes, we're generally 14 okay with this concept, or this concept is far enough 15 to run up the flagpole and see what the reaction is.
16 That's the mode we're in. So hopefully 17 you don't see us digging in our heels too much. We 18 are putting out by and large, first draft stuff, to 19 see what feedback we get from stakeholders and to some 20 degree, you're seeing it at the same time as some of 21 the internal stakeholders, like I mentioned, some of 22 the subject matter experts are still engaged in 23 providing us with input on some of these programs.
24 So that, you know, just leave it at that.
25
127 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So take it back, Mark.
1 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, appreciate that, 2
Steve and Bill. I'll probably touch a little bit on 3
that in my comments. First, I just want to start with 4
some simple ones. First, 53.800 and 810, I just 5
wanted to point to those.
6 I
made a
previous comment about 7
duplicating requirements, the purpose requirement, 8
that sort of thing. So just wanted to make sure to 9
point out that those fall within that previous 10 comment. I don't know want to belabor it anymore, so 11 I won't go into more detail than that.
12 I wanted to touch on a question you had, 13 Bill, related to 53.880, criticality safety program.
14 And you have a reference to 70.24. So I have some 15 experience in criticality calculations and meeting 16 those requirements. My recollection of the history is 17 70.24 was prescriptive, difficult to meet, that's why 18 people started to go to -- they actually took 19 exemptions from that and did establish their own 20 performance criteria of a specific k-effective value 21 and that eventually made it into 50.68.
22 So that's experience where, yes, 70.24 23 didn't really work very well. 50.68 really was 24 performance based and worked better. Now, we may need 25
128 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 a more technology inclusive version of 50.68, but I 1
think we should start out thinking about what that is, 2
rather than asking our self, you know, trying to get 3
stuck with 70.24 and evaluating whether that's good 4
enough.
5 I think industry experience has been that 6
that requirement itself was really difficult to meet.
7 With that, now I want to go into -- this will be a 8
long, probably a longer discussion. It will probably 9
hit on what Steve, you, and Bill had talked about.
10 And I'll start first with the Facility Safety Program 11 and just actually respond to your question, Bill, or 12 your challenge.
13 And the way I think you had phrased it is 14 industry needs to decide if we want to have more 15 ownership and control, and a performance based meeting 16 of the requirements rather than a compliance mindset.
17 The answer is absolutely. We want performance base, 18 we want more control, we would like to get rid of this 19 strict compliance.
20 You know, the whole LMP and TICAP, 21 affirmative safety case, and everything we're doing 22 about the issue of applicability of non-LWR 23 requirements. We absolutely want to get to that.
24 So if the Facility Safety Program is sort 25
129 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 of the way to do that, we're open to entertaining it.
1 Now, we will say that, you know, we're not ready to 2
endorse it. We're not ready to reject it. We're just 3
interested in having the conversation.
4 But I think, and this starts to hit on 5
what Steve had said, is our decision on whether we 6
like this program is not based on whether we want to 7
be more performance based, and have more ownership and 8
control. It's whether the NRC would actually agree 9
and move in that direction themselves.
10 And that's where we're skeptical of 11 whether the NRC actually would do that or not. So the 12 Facility Safety Program, and the concept of, okay, we 13 have more control, the NRC has, you know, more 14 assurance in our control. There's less oversight and 15 inspection. There's less sort of in the design and 16 review.
17 It all depends on the NRC and 18 specifically, the staff that are involved in those 19 activities, relinquishing some of their control to 20 industry, and all of our history has suggested that 21 the NRC does not want to do that. In fact, they want 22 to go the other way. Whether it's in reviews, and the 23 NRC has no expectations, wants more information in the 24 application, wants to review more of the calcs than 25
130 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 they ever have.
1 You know, these recent applications are 2
the biggest applications the -- that we've ever had on 3
designs that are much simpler and safer. So the NRC's 4
tendency is to be more intrusive in industry, not less 5
intrusive, even as we're moving into greater margins 6
of safety.
7 So that's where our skepticism comes from.
8 Will the NRC ever actually implement these, and it 9
gets to, you know, you're sort of promising us this.
10 We need to see it in the requirements, that says this 11 is under the control of industry. This is where the 12 NRC's jurisdiction stops. And it needs to be there.
13 We can't, as Steve pointed out, we can't 14 just sort of take a hope and a prayer that you're 15 going to do, you're going to implement this in 16 individual reviews and oversights. We know how that 17 movie goes, and it doesn't go well for us.
18 So that's sort of the predicated -- I 19 would ask that you not try and put the decision on 20 whether this different philosophical approach is what 21 industry wants or not. I would ask that you ask 22 whether it's what the agency could move to or not. I 23 think that's really the central question to the issue.
24 I do now want to turn toward the 25
131 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 conversation, and I'm just going to go back. So we're 1
looking at this rule as whether there are benefits and 2
efficiency. Is it more flexible? Does it have 3
reduced regulatory burden? So the conversations we 4
had around Subpart B and C, industry had pointed out 5
here's more burden, here's more burden, here's more 6
burden. Whether it's, you know, complicated two-tier 7
structure, which adds its own burden, whether it's 8
more prescription and detail, which adds its own 9
burden, whether it's new requirements to design 10 according to ALARA, which adds its own burden.
11 There's burden everywhere and the NRC's 12 message to us was well, wait a second, don't make 13 judgments yet. Wait to see what's to come because 14 operations is going to be less burden, and in order to 15 get that less burden, those operational requirements, 16 you need to have these more burdensome requirements in 17 Subpart B and C.
18 So we said okay, we'll wait and see. This 19 was the meeting to see if the Facility Safety Program 20 is a huge increase in burden. Now, it's a starting 21 point. We could modify it. We could get it to a 22 point to where it's a net decrease in burden, but 23 right now, it's a huge increase in burden.
24 Now, the other thing is for that Facility 25
132 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Safety Program, we had asked the NRC, presented a long 1
time ago, I forget if it was January. And we had 2
asked, well, we're not making a judgment yet. Some 3
people in the meeting did. They were outright against 4
it. We didn't make any decision on it. But we asked.
5 Could you please show us where industry's burden is 6
being reduced, because we don't see it, or we can't 7
understand where it might be?
8 And could you go through a couple of 9
examples of past issues and how they ran through the 10 Part 50 process, and how they would run through this 11 facility safety program, Part 53 process, to show how 12 this Facility Safety Program is much more efficient 13 than the way we do it under Part 50.
14 I will admit, I'm very disappointed that 15 the NRC did not present that because it's left us with 16 the only information we have, which is this is a much 17 more burdensome program.
18 You then combine it with a lot of the 19 other operational programs, and I debate whether I 20 should go through each one of these individually or 21 not. But what we're left with is Subparts B and C, 22 increase burden. Subparts F, increase burden.
23 And so from an industry perspective, we 24 have to ask ourselves, the NRC, and even in this 25
133 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 meeting, has said well, don't focus on these new 1
requirements that add burden. Don't focus on all this 2
additional burden we're putting on you in Part 53, 3
look very closely because there's nuances in there 4
that's going to reduce the burden.
5 And we're looking, we're looking pretty 6
hard. And we found some reduction in burden.
7 Absolutely. Now, number one, there's a reduction in 8
burden because it's technology inclusive. You've 9
taken out all of the light water reactor specific 10 requirements. We don't have to worry about them.
11 You put in technology inclusive 12 equivalents. That's how we assure the safety. We 13 supported those. But the only difference in burden, 14 keep in mind, it's not that you're not meeting the 15 function of those requirements, we just don't have to 16 seek exemptions. So that's the burden.
17 That's much less decrease in burden than 18 actually not having to meet the requirements. So 19 there is a burden reduction, but just a little, in not 20 having to seek exemptions.
21 There is also burden reduction 22 specifically in what you propose for tech specs and 23 in-service inspections. So that's a great benefit.
24 We appreciate those. They're far outweighed by the 25
134 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 increased burden that the NRC is proposing.
1 Actually, I will go back to one of those 2
and that's the Integrity Assessment Program, which is 3
new. It's essentially an agent management program 4
that Part 50 and 52 would not have from day one. They 5
would have it during license renewal.
6 I know you mentioned that, hey, it's 7
actually replacing these other things. But if you go 8
look at, I think it's 53.440, there's a requirement 9
there that, no, you actually have to design these for 10 the lifetime of the plant and the service conditions.
11 You're not actually getting rid of that.
12 We already have duplicate requirements, or 13 you know, requirements that you're referencing getting 14 rid of, in service inspection, and maintenance, and 15 all that. So we really don't see the reductions that 16 you're claiming there. I would just point that out.
17 So when I look at that, and I understand 18 when you're talking about well, the reduced burden in 19 Part 53, a lot of it is attributable to how you might 20 use the PRA. And I think most people would agree that 21 you use a PRA, you know, you don't need a PRA to be 22 safe. You can be safe without a PRA.
23 But what you can do with a PRA is you can 24 reduce the sort of burden that you have in 25
135 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 demonstrating your safety case. And certainly that's 1
what LMP and TICAP can do, is you use PRA in a very, 2
very modern way. And by doing that, you can eliminate 3
a lot of burden because you're taking a lot of 4
components, SSC's out of safety related, moving them 5
into this risk category and the treatment of that is a 6
little bit less burdensome.
7 So what I would say is a lot of the burden 8
reduction that we're seeing is more attributable to 9
the methodology used, LMP versus a traditional NuScale 10 approach, or something else, which gets us to the 11
- question, well, do you actually need those 12 requirements in Subpart B and C, and everywhere else 13 to be able to achieve that reduction that you're 14 getting with LMP.
15 And my assessment would be no. Most of 16 that burden reduction that comes with LMP, I can 17 achieve under 50 and 52, just as well as I can achieve 18 it under Part 53. The NRC's really not done anything 19 different in Part 53, or has not done anything in Part 20 53 that could not be done under Part 52.
21 There is the not needing to take 22 exemptions, to many requirements. That's one.
23 There's the Facility Safety Program, which as I said, 24 today is an increase in burden. Not a decrease, 25
136 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 although that could change.
1 And then there are some things going on 2
with manufacturing license that's going to be 3
different. Other than that, I can do everything under 4
50 and 52, is what's being developed under Part 53, 5
and so we really need to ask ourselves the question, 6
and I'll just sort of summarize where I think we are 7
with the Part 53 proposal that the NRC has come out 8
with, is a rule that is less flexible, more 9
burdensome, and does not have any enhancements to 10 safety as compared to 50 and 52.
11 And is that really where we want to be? I 12 don't think the answer is yes. And industry has, 13 along the way, tried to tell you where we think you 14 can make improvements. We've been -- we are very 15 consistent with you at high level concepts, in terms 16 of what this rule is trying to do.
17 We have a lot of concepts at the high 18 level in common. It's where you get to the details, 19 where our vision would lead to less burden, and what 20 we're seeing from the NRC is leading to more burden.
21 And that's where the real challenge for us is coming 22 from.
23 And so you know, I really don't know what 24 the next step is from here. We've proposed in the 25
137 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 past modifications to Subpart B and C. I do really 1
appreciate that the NRC is looking at this graded 2
approach to risk-informed. I think that's going to be 3
very, very fruitful.
4 But a lot of our other comments were not 5
accepted, and a lot of our comments related to burden 6
that are applicable, whether you use an LMP approach, 7
or use another approach. I mean it's burden to 8
everybody.
9 And so I am still very concerned that this 10 rule is really not headed in the right direction. We 11 did wait and see, to see what you would deliver on 12 programs, to see if there was a reduction of burden.
13 And unfortunately, you didn't deliver what you've been 14 promising.
15 So anyway, I appreciate your listening to 16 our comments.
17 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thanks, Mark. Does 18 anybody else have any more comments on the -- this 19 part of Subpart F, or even the other part? Cyril, go 20 ahead please.
21 MR. DRAFFIN: Yes, this is Cyril Draffin 22 of the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council. And I'd like to 23 reiterate what was just raised by Mark. We also have 24 the same concerns over the language. We agree at the 25
138 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 high-level concepts. I think what the NRC has 1
presented in their slides and their discussions, and 2
what we've heard from the Commissioners is all 3
positive.
4 And there's coherence there and agreement.
5 But when it gets down to language, there's a reference 6
to seeing the first draft. Well, now it's the second 7
draft. We've seen the second draft of B and C. We've 8
seen the second draft of Facility Safety Program, and 9
there's basically no change.
10 And so we're left with the same reaction, 11 at least the developers that I've talked to, that this 12 is very disappointing. This is not transformational.
13 This is just kind of repackaging previous 14 requirements, and adding burden.
15 And so as Mark articulated in Subpart B, 16 we've seen defense of depth, we've seen ALARA, we've 17 seen two-tier, which was not supported by ACRS either, 18 added. And therefore, that's a concern.
19 Same thing with the Facility Safety 20 Program, and the Integrated Integrity Program. It's 21 just additional things to do, and there hasn't -- and 22 the question of where's the benefit and will NRC staff 23 accept that in the reviews later, is unclear.
24 And the comment that was made, look at the 25
139 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 tabletop, there's some improvement there, but as Mark 1
articulated that unless it's -- the regulations are 2
saying because, if you do these things, then you don't 3
have to do this. This won't be required in the 4
review, unless that's in the regulations. There's 5
really lack of clarity of what the benefits are.
6 So I think we share that from the industry 7
side as being concerned on whether this part, Part 53, 8
will actually be useful and used based on the current 9
status and the kind of accretion of requirements, and 10 not the clarity of where the advantage is going to be.
11 So I'll pause there and you know, see if 12 there's any particular reactions that the staff has.
13 MR. RECKLEY: Well, my only, I guess 14 comment to both observations is from our perspective, 15 it would be more useful for you to come back and say 16 why a requirement is not needed for safety than it is 17 to say it's less efficient or, hopefully, those would 18 come together at some point as to what is needed for 19 safety.
20 So to look at a degradation, the Integrity 21 Assessment Program, and say it's a new requirement, I 22 admit it, it's a new -- there's aspects of it that's a 23 new requirement. But why is looking for degradation 24 not needed to support safety decisions and safe 25
140 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 operation.
1 And so it's not the objective, totally, 2
but we're trying to reach this compromise. We would 3
like this to be more efficient. But in the end, it 4
also has to ensure safety throughout the whole 5
lifecycle of the facility.
6 The advanced reactor policy statement 7
foresaw that improvements in the design would support 8
operational flexibilities, and some of those we've 9
talked about in the past. Some, we'll talk about as 10 we get into staffing. I think that might be an area 11 where it shows up as well.
12 But think about what that says. That does 13 increase the burden on the design side. The thought 14 was that design improvements would support less 15 reliance on human actions. It would require less 16 activities to correct design deficiencies in the 17 operating space, and in the design space.
18 So as you're looking at it, again, I would 19 just encourage you not only to say this is a new 20 requirement, or it's the same requirement, the reason 21 there's so many same requirements is Part 50 evolved 22 over decades to address design and operational issues 23 that were needed to be addressed to ensure public 24 health and safety.
25
141 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So that's the bottom line. That's the 1
bottom line for us. So just keep that in mind as 2
you're making comments.
3 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thanks, Bill. Jeff 4
Merrifield, you have your hand up?
5 MR. MERRIFIELD: Yes. Thank you very 6
much. I don't want to plow the ground that was so 7
well plowed by Mark and Cyril, I would say a couple of 8
additional -- I'd reinforce one thing, and I'd say 9
something additionally.
10 The additional thing is I hear what you 11 said, Bill. There are -- you're philosophy isn't to 12 instill (audio interference). When it sort of raises 13 the bar on the advanced reactor developer, but the 14 benefit is going (audio interference) down the line 15 during operations.
16 The purpose, as I see at NEIMA, in a 17 Congress, and all the money that has been thrown at 18 the NRC to repair its advanced reactor applications 19 was to accelerate consistent with providing public 20 health and safety, the deployment of these advanced 21 reactor technologies.
22 Part 53, as envisioned by the staff, fails 23 to do that. As the -- the way you're going, the 24 recommendations I would certainly make to my clients, 25
142 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 is let's stick with Part 50 and 52. And as a result, 1
if we keep going down this road and the way it's 2
going, this rule will not be used, nor will it be 3
useful.
4 And nor will it meet the intent of what 5
Congress, and I believe the commission bought into, in 6
trying to move this forward. So I understand the 7
philosophy behind it. But it's not going to achieve 8
the goal which would be to enable the deployment of 9
these designs, without all of those bells and whistles 10 that are currently included in Parts 50 and 52, that 11 aren't applicable to advanced reactors.
12 So you know, at this point, we may be pens 13 down, and our view may be that it's just not worth our 14 putting continued resources, as an industry, which are 15 limited, into an effort that right now, absent change, 16 is likely to fail.
17 And I say that with a heavy heart because 18 having worked at the NRC for almost nine years, and 19 knowing the people involved, I know all of you who are 20 working on this at NRC, are doing so in an earnest, 21 thoughtful, and certainly feel you're doing the right 22 thing.
23 But there is a fundamental, in my view, 24 there's a fundamental misalignment, and we are not 25
143 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 going to get to an end goal, and I don't think 1
Congress is going to get its wishes fulfilled. Thank 2
you.
3 MR. BEALL: Okay, thank you, Jeff. Steve 4
Kraft, you have your hand up?
5 MR. KRAFT: I did. Thanks, Bob. I have a 6
specific question. It's about security, 53.830. The 7
discussion table describes, of course, the language is 8
a work in progress, but apparently all the language is 9
a work in progress here.
10 The explanation says, and I'm reading it, 11 the proposal for Part 53 will build on the consequence 12 based approach developed for the limited scope 13 rulemaking over, you know, security space.
14 Okay. Why did it have to build on it?
15 Isn't that rulemaking self-contained? I mean, it is 16 what it is. Why doesn't the rule just point and say, 17 over there. And if over there doesn't cover all the 18 things you have to cover, then you can write language.
19 But reading this list, MC&A, access 20 authorization, physical security, it's all covered 21 someplace else. And I think it was towards the end of 22 last year, in one of these meetings, I just asked how 23 would Part 53 cover security, and the answer was 24 holistically.
25
144 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I didn't know quite what that meant at the 1
time. And this is confusing me even more. So I'm 2
just wondering, again, taking into -- Bill, forgive me 3
for not jumping on you, I think everyone is -- you got 4
the point.
5 And the views are felt very, very 6
sincerely. But this is a specific example that I 7
think you need to rethink this, whether or not you 8
actually have to say anything, other than look over 9
there.
10 I understand your point. Jordan made a 11 point at the very top of the meeting about how where's 12 there's a Part 50 thing, rather than say, okay, we're 13 going to -- we're just going to say go over and look 14 at Part 50, but we don't want -- I got that. Because 15 Part 50 is a wholly different animal, as you 16 described.
17 But that new section of 73 is specifically 18 for these plants. So why wouldn't you just say, over 19 there? That's my point. I think you'd avoid a lot of 20 trouble. Thanks.
21 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, the only thinking is 22 that the limited scope rulemaking is exactly what the 23 title implies, limited scope.
24 It addressed, or is addressing only a 25
145 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 couple of items, like the number of armed responders, 1
whereas the thought was this was an opportunity to 2
look broader than that, and maybe clarify some of the 3
language in Part 73.
4 So again, it's kind of hard to explain.
5 It will be, hopefully, more plain when you see the 6
language that comes out in a few weeks.
7 MR. KRAFT: Well, sure but you said 8
something that made me think. That the rule, the 9
limited scope rulemaking doesn't just say you can have 10 fewer armed responders, and just that's it. It says 11 you can have fewer armed responders, because you've 12 done this other stuff in plant design.
13 So to me, the answer is that other 14 sections of 53 will have requirements for plant design 15 that go into 73, if you did those, that you can -- it 16 isn't just a give-me. It isn't just a giveaway on the 17 number of armed responders. There's reasons for it.
18 And that so -- and then but you just said 19 that would clarify. Really? I'm sorry, Bill. It 20 sounds like 53.830 will be guidance on how you meet 21 that part of 73. That doesn't -- it's going to have 22 its own guidance.
23 In fact, NEI and NRC are going back and 24 forth on that guidance now. I just -- the whole thing 25
146 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 is just, seems to me is going to lead to a heck of a 1
lot of confusions.
2 MR. RECKLEY: Go ahead, Nan.
3 MS VALLIERE: Yes, Steve, this is Nan 4
Valliere. I'm also on the working group for the 5
physical security limited scope rulemaking. So I just 6
wanted to say, you're right, it does address more than 7
just the number of armed responders, but there is a 8
limited list of the specific physical security 9
requirements that are being -- that alternatives are 10 being developed for under the limited scope rule.
11 Recall that when the commission approved 12 that rule, the staff offered the commission several 13 options. One of which was a full scope redo of 14 security for advanced reactors, and one of which was 15 the limited scope version. The commission approved 16 that the limited scope version, and there are some, 17 you know, limitations within that approval, that the 18 staff is working within in the limited scope rule.
19 So it can go, it can go further. The 20 alternatives could go further, and in Part 53, I think 21 you will see next month that the security requirements 22 that are going to be presented, build off of what's 23 being done in the limited scope rule, but provide 24 more.
25
147 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And it, in large part, requirements will 1
stay in 73, and will be pointed to, but there will be 2
some additions proposed for Part 73.
3 MR. KRAFT: Okay. Thanks, Nan.
4 MR. BEALL: Okay. Ed Lyman, you have your 5
hand up from USC -- UCS.
6 MR. LYMAN: Hello, yes. Can you hear me?
7 MR. BEALL: Yes, I can hear you, Ed. Go 8
ahead.
9 MR. LYMAN: So you know, I've been 10 listening to this dialog, you know, I think nothing 11 really surprises me anymore, but the tone of the 12 industry participants, I feel, is extremely offensive.
13 And maybe they need a reminder that they don't own the 14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
15 In fact, they're only one stakeholder in 16 this process. The NRC's obligation is adequate 17 protection of public health and safety. And there's 18 no obligation to reduce regulatory burden at all.
19 But in that context, and heaven knows that 20 I am often at odds with the NRC staff, I think they've 21 done an incredible job trying to negotiate this mine 22 field here, and maintain an intellectually consistent 23 process that maintains the current level of safety, 24 which is their obligation.
25
148 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And it's really disheartening to see this 1
kind of dialog going on. And frankly, I'm not sure if 2
there's any point to have these meetings anymore. I 3
don't see why these staff should not simply revert to 4
the normal process of notice and comment rulemaking, 5
develop your proposed rule, put it out for public 6
comment, go through one round, you know, industry will 7
comment, we'll comment, other stakeholders will 8
respond to those comments.
9 Finalize the draft, send it to the 10 commission. You don't need to endure this because I 11 don't think the industry is participating in good 12 faith. They're engaged in a nihilistic effort to tear 13 everything down, and build a structure on a house of 14 cards, based on a false notion that somehow the NRC 15 should just lie down and accept the fact that anything 16 that the industry claims is an advanced reactor, 17 doesn't need the same level of review as any other 18 reactor.
19 And there's a less, a weaker burden of 20 proof to show the outrageous claims that are being 21 made for some of these designs. And frankly, I mean 22 there has to be greater, if you're not meeting 23 deterministic requirements, you -- there is a greater 24 burden to show, you know, this is in performance based 25
149 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 space, you have a greater burden to demonstrate.
1 So fine. If you don't want Part 53 risk-2 informed, use Part 52, but I mean, I don't see why the 3
staff should continue to take this abuse anymore. I 4
don't think it's fair, and it's a waste of a lot of 5
people's time. Thank you.
6 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thank you, Ed.
7 MR. SHAMS: Thank you, Ed. Bob, can I 8
speak for a minute, if that's okay with you?
9 MR. BEALL: Sure.
10 MR. SHAMS: That's Mo Shams.
11 MR. BEALL: Yes.
12 MR. SHAMS: NRC.
13 MR. BEALL: Go ahead, Mo.
14 MR. SHAMS: Thanks, Bob. Thanks for the 15 opportunity. And Ed, thank you. We appreciate your 16 kind words for the staff. And I also appreciate, 17 actually, the industry's words and the dialog, and the 18 questions, and the comments, you know, however stern 19 they were to us.
20 But at this point, we're working extremely 21 hard, and the staff is, and I'm proud of what the 22 staff is doing to try to build a rule that balances 23 all the needs and the designers, and ultimately 24 deliver a safe framework for these advanced reactors.
25
150 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And I think we will continue to hold these 1
meetings, and we will continue to seek your feedback, 2
but the process that we've collectively invented here 3
is one of, as you indicate here, providing feedback, 4
addressing some of it, not addressing other parts, 5
because there are reasons for that. Improving, not 6
having the entire picture all at one time, therefore 7
you feel, you know, that you're missing parts of the 8
picture.
9 So I want to continue to indicate that we 10 value your feedback. We value your input. But you 11 know, to Ed's point, there are diverse views. There 12 are several stakeholders, and at the end of the day, 13 we're an independent agency that's going to have to 14 put out a set of rules that are delivering safety to 15 the American public.
16 So we appreciate your input. We're going 17 to continue to seek it. We're going to continue to 18 seek your views and build on them. And we ultimately 19 hope to get to the place where everyone sees that 20 their views were valued and reflected in what we're 21 offering. Thanks Bob.
22 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thank you very much, 23 Mo. Is there any other people that can make a 24 comment, please? Please raise your hand.
25
151 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. NICHOLS: Bob, this is Mark Nichols, 1
but I see Tammy had her hand up before me.
2 MR. BEALL: Okay. Okay, Tammy, go ahead.
3 MS. MORIN: Thank you, Mark. And thank 4
you for letting me have the time to just say something 5
pretty quickly. It just seems from the reading of the 6
rule language right now, is that we're trying to 7
encompass all of the aspects from -- that's evolved 8
over the last six decades of working with large light 9
water reactors. And I think Bill kind of touched on 10 that a little bit.
11 But what's not coming out is that, in the 12 rule, is that there isn't a way to alleviate any of 13 these programs, and other aspects, based on the safety 14 of the plant. And maybe that's going to come later, 15 but right now, it's not showing up as being apparent.
16 There's no way to say, you know, Congress 17 says we need to be at least as safe as the large light 18 water reactors. These plants are a lot safer, just 19 generally, by their inherent safety, and yet, but 20 there doesn't seem to be a way to say if you meet X, 21 Y, and Z, then you won't have to do this program.
22 But maybe that will come somewhere else in 23 the contents. That's where I feel like we're missing 24 something. It's just not apparent how you're going to 25
152 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 demonstrate that you're, that -- maybe I'm not really 1
sure how to articulate it. But how you can 2
demonstrate that these programs are not necessary for 3
you because of X, Y, and Z.
4 It's just like it's going to be a program, 5
and you have to have it, and part of, you know, these 6
smaller plants, you know, small light water reactors, 7
the micros, the -- and things like that, is that we're 8
trying to alleviate burden because of staffing and 9
items like that.
10 These programs take up lots of people's 11 time too. So we're trying to figure out if this makes 12 sense for us because it does seem to be increasing 13 burden on plants that are inherently more safe. So 14 thank you for letting me have my comment.
15 MR. BEALL: Okay, thank you, Tammy. Go 16 ahead Mark.
17 MR. NICHOLS: Oh, thanks. I see Mike 18 Mayfield had his hand up, but it kept getting lowered 19 down. I wonder if Mike wanted to go before me.
20 MR. MAYFIELD: Thank you, Mark. What I 21 have is actually a fairly, I hope, simple question.
22 And Mark noted that in 53.440, you require qualifying 23 materials for their service conditions over their 24 life. 53.850 requires the Integrity Assessment 25
153 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Program, 53.870 requires an ISI, IST program, and then 1
53.890 requires this Facility Safety Program.
2 What's not clear to me is how these will 3
fit together, and why they don't become duplicative 4
requirements. It's just not clear how you guys see 5
that all going together, and I was hoping, Bill, you 6
could provide a little more insight. Thank you.
7 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Thanks, Mike. I 8
mean, part of it again, as we had talked about 9
earlier, is just the way we structured this, and so 10 the selection of materials at the design stage that's 11 addressed in Subpart C, the designer needs to consider 12 the environments, and all of that. And I think 13 everybody would acknowledge that.
14 Then going forward, under operations, it 15 is not -- history has not shown that you can just 16 close your eyes to assume the designer got it right.
17 Often they will. Sometimes they don't. There are 18 unforeseen, there's lessons learned.
19 And so under operations, you have to take 20 measure in case the efforts of the designer, at the 21 design stage, to pick the right materials, for the 22 environments, there was an unknown. There was an 23 uncertainty that didn't manifest itself until 24 operations.
25
154 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And so I don't think that's a new concept.
1 I mean, you know, under ASME, you design it under 2
Section 3. You always had to inspect it under Section 3
11 to make sure that it performed as it was thought to 4
be.
5 So I'll acknowledge under ISI and IST, and 6
integrity management, there's some overlap, you know.
7 Just come back to us and say there's some overlap.
8 You're trying to do the same thing in a couple 9
different places. We can certainly admit that and 10 consolidate it.
11 But the notion that a requirement for the 12 designer to consider things obviates the need for an 13 operator to continue to inspect it and actually ensure 14 that it's performing as expected. I don't think we'll 15 get there.
16 MR. MAYFIELD: Bill, this is Mayfield. I 17 wasn't suggesting that you ever should get there.
18 What I was -- I thought I heard you say that you 19 thought that perhaps the Integrity Assessment Program 20 could relieve or relax some requirements for material 21 qualification.
22 MR. RECKLEY: Oh.
23 MR. MAYFIELD: And that led me to exactly 24 the kind of concerns you were raising.
25
155 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. RECKLEY: No, no. Sorry. What I 1
meant by the observation was to put yourself in the 2
place of an NRC reviewer. And we've tried to address 3
this in some guidance documents on -- and it's being 4
discussed a lot under the TICAP, ARCAP activities of 5
how can we, during the licensing review, take more 6
advantage of a performance based approach.
7 And an element of performance based 8
approaches is you have to have faith in the monitoring 9
programs that are key to the performance based 10 approach. And so all I was trying to say before was, 11 as we go forward under the developing of the licensing 12 documents, that it might be possible to say, as part 13 of an application, we've done all of this to try to 14 make sure the materials will perform as -- in the 15 right way for the environments they're exposed to.
16 But there are uncertainties associated 17 with that. We acknowledge. That's addressed in the 18 operating phase by the requirements to have an 19 Integrity Management Program. So I don't think that's 20 a new concept.
21 But we are looking for opportunities to 22 actually be more conscious in the review of 23 applications on how we might fit together what has 24 often been separate reviews of design and operations.
25
156 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 We're trying to do it in an integrated way.
1 So I hope that helps, Mike.
2 MR.
MAYFIELD:
I appreciate the 3
clarification. I would just urge you, as you present 4
this in the future, to be careful about creating some 5
false expectations for folks.
6 MR. RECKLEY: And again, I'll fully 7
acknowledge that you know, if the request is to 8
guarantee how the NRC is going to behave 20 years from 9
now, that's probably something we're not going to be 10 able to do.
11 I think I explained in some of this stuff 12 early on that, you know, these -- some of the concepts 13 we're putting in her could support changes and broader 14 regulatory program, but to say the staff in this 15 rulemaking can guarantee the behavior of an agency 20 16 years from now, I'm not sure we'll be able to get 17 there. So anyway.
18 Bob, take it back before I start to 19 ramble.
20 MR. BEALL: Okay. No problem, Bill.
21 Cyril, do you want to go before Mark comes back? Or 22 do you want to let him go?
23 MR. DRAFFIN: That's Mark's choice.
24 MR. BEALL: Okay.
25
157 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. NICHOLS: I can go. It won't take 1
long.
2 MR. BEALL: Okay. Go ahead, Mark.
3 MR. NICHOLS: I wanted to come back to a 4
point that Bill had said, and he had said where 5
industry is, is asking or proposing to eliminate a 6
requirement, we need to be able to justify why 7
eliminating that requirement would still result in a 8
rule that would -- or create a rule that would result 9
in safety.
10 I agree with that, by the way. If we're 11 proposing to reduce or eliminate a requirement, we 12 have to justify how not having that requirement still 13 results in safety, and we've done that. There's only, 14 to my recollection without going back to my notes, I 15 think there's only one requirement from Part 50, 52, 16 that we've recommended not be in Part 53, and that's 17 the inclusion of ALARA in the Radiation Protection 18 Program, and we proposed that that could be a policy 19 statement, and by doing that, you can achieve the same 20 level of safety.
21 So we've tried to argue that. You know, 22 the NRC has not really been receptive to that, but we 23 have been doing specifically what the NRC had asked.
24 But I do believe that the same is true in the inverse, 25
158 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 where the NRC is proposing new requirements in Part 1
53, that are not in Part 50 and 52.
2 The NRC has to explain why those are 3
required in order to achieve safety. There are many 4
of them. Not to belabor what they are. And the NRC 5
hasn't done that. The NRC hasn't said that we're 6
adding this new requirement and without adding this 7
new requirement in Part 53, Part 53 absolutely is not 8
safe.
9 And when we look at it, our, you know, the 10 burden of defense shouldn't be on our part. We look 11 at it and say it wasn't in part 50, 52. Looking at it 12 in Part 53, no, we don't see why it's necessary. So 13 it should be our burden of proof to justify why adding 14 requirements that weren't necessary for 50, 52, are 15 necessary in Part 53.
16 So I do think that that is an activity the 17 NRC should pursue. I also want to take -- make a 18 point about the distinction between regulatory burden 19 and assuring safety. And they're not the same thing.
20 It's -- or I should say, it's not a one to one 21 correlation such that burden equals safety.
22 You can get to safe in a very burdensome 23 way. A lot of complexity, and a lot of activity that 24 is not really productive, and that can get you to 25
159 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 safe. Or you can get to safe very efficiently, very 1
focused, very productive way of assuring safety. And 2
that would be efficient.
3 And by the way, that's one of the NRC's 4
principles of good regulation is to be efficient. And 5
where there are multiple ways to do it, choose the one 6
that's least burdensome. That's really what we're 7
asking for.
8 And what we're point out, and why we're 9
getting so animated is when we look at the alternative 10 the NRC's putting together, we see it as this very 11 complex and inefficient way to get to safety. What we 12 proposed back in February is what we think is the 13 streamlined efficient way to get to safety.
14 There's other alternatives that could be, 15 and there's obviously everything in between. And so 16 that's the discussion we want to have. Nobody's 17 asking, on the industry side, nobody's asking for, 18 let's be less safe in Part 53. We're very supportive.
19 We're very encouraged that the NRC is being as safe as 20 they are in Part 53.
21 What we want to do is get there 22 efficiently. And that gets back to the used and 23 useful comments that we had before. So that's why 24 we're getting animated, and we're trying to be kind in 25
160 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 our words, but we also want to be firm and clear in 1
our views because it gets to my third point.
2 The NRC had asked, or it made the 3
statement, hopefully, we're not coming across as stuck 4
in our ways, and we're open. I'll be very clear and 5
kind, you come across as stuck in your ways. Every 6
turn that we've said you're being inefficient, we've 7
not disagreed with achieving safety. We've said 8
you're doing it in an inefficient way. Here's an 9
alternative that's more efficient.
10 The NRC has not been receptive. They've 11 often shut down that conversation before it's begun.
12 We've never gotten responses on why our proposals are 13 not feasible, or not optimal. The only progress that 14 I do continue to want to, thank the NRC for this, the 15 only progress we've made in terms of seeking a more 16 efficient approach is with this graded approach to 17 PRA. So we do appreciate that.
18 But all of these other concerns that we've 19 identified, it's not the safety level that they 20 achieve, we like that. It's the inefficiency to get 21 to that point. And we're asking for more efficient 22 ways to get to that point, and that is where the NRC 23 typically comes back and says, well, our way is the 24 only way.
25
161 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And that's why I think you get the 1
comments from Jeff Merrifield, which is a question the 2
industry should ask itself, is there any productive 3
value in engaging with the NRC on this anymore. You 4
know, we're not being heard. And it's a role that's 5
not in the right direction.
6 So unless things change, I think you're --
7 we're going to be in this friction place. And so I 8
just want to say that. Thank you.
9 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. Thanks. I mean, as 10 we go forward, one of the things, one of the things to 11 consider, and we did look at submittals that were made 12 and suggestions, is where is the efficiency gained, 13 and much of what we saw was it might be more efficient 14 in rulemaking, but it basically deferred most of the 15 decisions to be case by case decisions at licensing.
16 And we intentionally, and this maybe is 17 where the friction is coming in, is trying to be 18 specific enough that what we are developing meets 19 another aspect to the principles of good regulations, 20 which is predictability.
21 And so you know, some of this is just, 22 it's a natural friction and yes, we could go up to 23 higher levels but applicants would then have to be 24 prepared that what was allowed in the rule, or 25
162 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 basically supported by the rule is case by case 1
reviews.
2 So we were and continue to be trying to 3
weigh that and also add a certain element of 4
predictability to it. So we do hear what you're 5
saying, but we're trying to weigh those competing 6
factors, if you will. Flexibility and predictability.
7 So Bob.
8 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thanks Bill. Cyril, 9
you still have your hand up.
10 MR. DRAFFIN: I do. Yes. I had five 11 points. First, safety is important to everybody. No 12 one's asking for a decrease in safety, and that's -- I 13 just want to be on record that that's important.
14 The question of efficiency and 15 predictability is a topic we've just touched upon on 16 previous meetings. But so far, at least me 17 personally, in terms -- I haven't seen the increase in 18 predictability of how the reviews are going to be done 19 faster, more efficiently. I've just seen the rule 20 language and a little bit of the thoughts of guidance.
21 And so therefore, that's a premise that is 22 going to be more predictable, but we haven't seen it.
23 I haven't seen the demonstration of that and so it's 24 hard to make a judgment based on hope.
25
163 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 One can look at efficiency and so that's 1
something that could be judged probably more near 2
term, and so we are judging that. But if there's a 3
long-term case to be made, it has to be made, it has 4
to be clear, and so far, that hasn't happened. And I 5
guess that creates the frustration that you've heard 6
from some of the speakers today.
7 The third point regarding, let's say 8
integrity, why don't you consider making it an 9
optional approach? If you think it's going to be 10 better, it's not going to be a path that companies 11 might want to take, make that as an optional path, 12 rather than a requirement.
13 And there would be a couple of these 14 things where you're adding requirements for the, 15 potentially the good of the applicant, but perhaps 16 it's not necessary, or they don't want it, and so 17 therefore, if you think it's better, but not really 18 required for safety, then make it optional. And so 19 that might be a path to take in terms of how you 20 approach the ruling.
21 Fourth, you made the comment that all 22 requirements need to be justified for safety, and I 23 guess you heard Mark's response to that. Just because 24 something's stated for safety, doesn't mean it has to 25
164 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 be captured in the regulations. There's lots of 1
things that are important to safety that the industry 2
does, that have been used in the past, the way the 3
licensing's done, that are not in the regulations, and 4
Part 53 seems to be adding them to regulations.
5 You know, defense of depth, PRA, you know, 6
virtual bar and regulations. So just because it's 7
something that's safe and helpful there, doesn't mean 8
that everything has to be loaded up to a formal 9
requirement.
10 And then finally, I do think that the 11 process you've been using, which is releasing language 12 when it's available, and particularly the discussion 13 columns, and the verbal presentation is helpful. So I 14 do commend the staff for the process that's underway 15 in doing this. That's all my comments for today.
16 Thanks. Or at least this section.
17 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thanks, Cyril. Not 18 seeing any other hands raised, I think this would be a 19 good time to take a break. So let's plan on coming 20 back, let's take a 15 minute break and come back at 21 3:05. So we will restart our, and move on to the last 22 topic we have, which is discussion of previous 23 released subparts at 3:05 p.m. East Coast time. Thank 24 you very much.
25
165 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter when 1
off the record at 2:52 p.m. and resumed at 3:06 p.m.)
2 MR. BEALL: Good afternoon, everyone. So 3
we are we ready to get started here for the last part 4
of our Part 53 public meeting. We are going to now 5
start on the discussions on Previously Released 6
Subparts. Before we get into that, though, I want to 7
make sure there's no final comments on the Subpart F 8
we just went over. Okay, not hearing anything.
9 Bill, why don't you go ahead and get us 10 started on our last topic for the night. Thank you.
11 MR. RECKLEY: This is just largely a 12 session to bring up any continuing discussions. Go to 13 slide 50. There were a few because with the focus on 14 Subparts B and C we had released some language but 15 thought maybe we needed to continue some of the 16 discussions on D and E, but we're open to any 17 discussion.
18 One of the items on Subpart D was in 19 regards to using this as an opportunity to actually go 20 away from the concept of having exclusionary 21 boundaries and low-population zone defined and 22 replacing that with a requirement basically to ensure 23 no dose at the site boundary would exceed the 25 REM 24 over the course of the event and, thereby, you could 25
166 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 in theory eliminate the exclusionary boundary, or EAB, 1
in the low-population zone boundary.
2 I would be interested in kind of maybe 3
exploring that a little bit as a topic. As we 4
prepared Subpart D and referred to the SECY paper on 5
population-related siting considerations, our thought 6
was the way it's worded where we keep the EAB and low-7 population zone concepts that allows those zones, 8
those boundaries, to collapse to the site boundary if 9
that's where the dose calculation goes so you can in 10 effect have an EAB and an LPZ defined as the site 11 boundary as we discussed in that SECY paper.
12 Whereas if the requirement is put in 13 specifically to exclude a dose of over 25 REM outside 14 the boundary, then that would preclude -- actually it 15 would become a technical requirement that no reactor 16 could result in a dose exceeding 25 REM offsite. It 17 seemed to be making things more restrictive and taking 18 away some flexibility, albeit I realize most advanced 19 reactors may not foresee that, may not foresee having 20 a dose that large offsite.
21 The question is do we really want to 22 preclude it by writing EABs and LPZs out of the rule.
23 I'll leave that as a question. Then, like I said, 24 really this is a free form allotment of time to talk 25
167 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 about any of the previously-released subparts.
1 With that, Bob, I'll yield to anybody who 2
has questions or comments.
3 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thanks, Bill.
4 So, Mark, go ahead.
5 MR. NICHOLS: Yeah, thanks. Bill, thanks 6
for that explanation on siting. I think we see it the 7
same way in terms of, one, thank you for the 8
clarification that your version could allow for the 9
LPZ, EAB, and site boundary all to be the same so 10 there is the flexibility to be able to do that.
11 I agree with your assessment that if you 12 require it that way that it's more restrictive. In a 13 sense, yes, it does limit flexibility but I think it 14 does more than that. I'll just point out that our 15 proposal back in February would have done that.
16 It would have said that the 25 REM the 17 first two hours and the EAB site boundary are 18 essentially the same to begin with. Then over the 19 entire plume, I think, is the terminology that it 20 would be the site boundary as well versus the LPZ.
21 Now, what that does, though, actually is 22 create a higher level of safety. We somewhat knew 23 that when we proposed it. We proposed it primarily 24 based out of the efficiency. Essentially what you 25
168 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 could advertise if you were to go that way which is 1
the site boundary EAB and LPZ all have to be the same 2
and you meet that 25 REM criteria is that you could 3
say Part 53 is actually going to require higher levels 4
of safety.
5 That does come with tradeoffs. As you 6
mentioned, it decreases the potential for designs to 7
make it in here. A design that would not be able to 8
achieve that could still be licensed under Part 50 and 9
52 so it's not the end of the world but it is, in 10 itself, exclusionary. I know we made several comments 11 about trying not to be exclusionary.
12 The one thing that made it somewhat 13 palatable from our perspective is that in looking at 14 these advanced reactors they are able to easily meet 15 that more conservative safety criteria, or that 16 enhanced level of safety so it really wasn't a 17 concern.
18 Now, you know, looking at a large PWR 19 would they be able to meet that? I don't know.
20 That's something that would have to be figured out.
21 Certainly, the designs that we're all pursuing today 22 would, and then it would have benefits as well.
23 One, because you have a higher level of 24 safety that's resulting from that criteria you might 25
169 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 feel more comfortable in not having all those 1
requirements that we're concerned about. You also 2
have a good discussion or, I would say, a good 3
reassurance with other stakeholders that are watching 4
the process that Part 53 is actually enhancing safety 5
in that regard.
6 Now, I would say that our proposal had 7
built in siting with the design, the safety and 8
security design, in EP so we looked at it as a 9
complete integrated approach. In that context we are 10 able to achieve a lot of efficiencies. It was, 11 therefore, acceptable to propose it.
12 If the NRC were to go down that road, you 13 know, we would reserve out judgment on it because if 14 it doesn't achieve all those additional efficiencies 15 we are proposing, then it may not have a net benefit 16 overall so I would say there's that consideration to 17 add to it. I think it's a great conversation. I would 18 encourage anybody else in this meeting to chime in 19 with their thoughts on that topic because I don't 20 think we've had a very robust discussion around it and 21 I think it's worthy of it.
22 I want to move onto the manufacturing --
23 Subpart E, manufacturing and license. Two points.
24 One is Cyril made an earlier comment based around the 25
170 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 definition that manufacturing -- any manufacturing 1
requires a manufacturing license.
2 If you look at 1552 you can do 3
manufacturing outside of a manufacturing license. In 4
fact, if you have a construction permit operating 5
license or a COL, you delegate that manufacturing and 6
you don't need a manufacturing license so we would 7
like to preserve that in Part 53.
8 The question then becomes what do we want 9
to achieve with the manufacturing license. This is 10 one of my earlier comments in terms of what is 11 something Part 53 is trying to accomplish that can't 12 be done under 1552. Manufacturing license was one of 13 those that I mentioned. So we're looking at different 14 business models and we're putting together our 15 thoughts and we want to give those to the NRC in 16 writing, but I'll just give you a preview on some of 17 the stuff that we've been thinking about.
18 First, as we look at the scope of the 19 manufacturing license requirements, it should be 20 focused on the safety; the safety of the design and 21 manufacturing leading to operation so it should be 22 focused on the safety. It will need to consider other 23 general requirements that are applicable such as QA, 24 codes and standards, Part 21 reporting. Those are all 25
171 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 interfaces. It doesn't need its own set of 1
requirements, but it will have to figure out how it 2
interfaces with those.
3 Then it will have to figure out how it 4
interfaces with the broader set of requirements 5
depending on the type of activities. If there's going 6
to be fuel involved, what's the connection to Parts 7
30, 40, 70, that sort of thing. If there's 8
transportation involved, what's the connection with 9
Part 71.
10 All those need to be -- and then 11 environmental considerations. All those need to be 12 factored in. Those aren't where we need specific 13 manufacturing license requirements Part 53, but we 14 need to understand how they are all fitting together.
15 So let me move to the business activity, 16 or business strategies and activities that we are 17 thinking about considering around here. So in this 18 concept that manufacturing and license should enable 19 something that's not available with a construction 20 permit operating license, DCD, COL, that sort of 21 thing, it's really looking at a couple of things.
22 So would you assemble a fully-functional 23 reactor and so the only thing it's lacking is the 24 fuel. Otherwise, it's completely -- in primary 25
172 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 manufacturing license we're thinking in terms of 1
micro-reactor so it doesn't need that building 2
necessarily. So all you're lacking is the fuel. Does 3
that need a manufacturing license or could you 4
actually still do that under, say, a DCD? That's one 5
question we're trying to look at.
6 Fueling. If you actually put the -- you 7
have that fully assembled -- that assembled fully-8 functional reactor and then you put fuel in it at the 9
factory, we're pretty certain that's going to need the 10 manufacturing license so let's make sure the 11 manufacturing license is looking at that and there are 12 people that are interested in it.
13 What about the transportation of that 14 reactor either with or without fuel that's under the 15 manufacturing license to an operating site. I'm 16 guessing, you know, we're envisioning it's transported 17 to a site where somebody has an operating license, or 18 combined operating license, so you're transporting it 19 to them.
20 But then some other considerations. What 21 if you want to subcontract with others that have 22 capabilities here, acquiring some components from some 23 people or some other things.
Maybe you're 24 subcontracting some design. The Part 50/52 seems to 25
173 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 prohibit that.
1 It seems to require that the manufacturing 2
license holder has all capabilities and facilities 3
that are needed under that manufacturing license so 4
there's no ability to subcontract or delegate. That 5
might be something we want to look at enabling under 6
Part 53. Then there's a question what about 7
speculative manufacturing. Speculative is like a spec 8
house. You build it without knowing who's going to 9
buy it.
10 In this instance the manufacturing license 11 would be able to -- if it can't be done with the DCD 12 would manufacture, say, 100 of these not knowing who's 13 going to buy one through 100 and then some time before 14 they're completed, or maybe even after they're 15 completed and on the shelf, a customer comes by and 16 says, "I want that one off the shelf. I've got a 17 truck out back. Why don't you hook it up and we'll 18 drive it to my site." That type of thing. Of course, 19 there's design and analysis function that that 20 manufacturing license capability is going to have.
21 Now, there are some activities that, you 22 know, probably fit outside the manufacturing license.
23 They might fit underneath the COL or operating license 24 and that would be things like you have that operating 25
174 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 site. What is that interface between a manufacturing 1
license and the site.
2 What if you want mobile operations, mobile 3
operations meaning you take it to a site, operate it 4
there, shut it down, move it to another site and 5
operate it there. Is that a whole set of new 6
considerations that have to be put in there, or is it 7
pretty simple that you can just move it from one 8
operating license location to another operating 9
location. That will be things to consider.
10 Then what if the manufacturing license 11 themselves want to be at that site and be the owner of 12 where it's going to operate? Is there an opportunity 13 that the manufacturing license can come with some site 14 or do you have to file a combined manufacturing 15 license and operating license to be able to do that?
16 So there's all of those factors. Then below it 17 there's a whole bunch of considerations in terms of 18 technically how do you assure that those activities 19 are being done safely.
20 I did want to lay out a framework because 21 I think the most important thing to inform the 22 manufacturing license is what are these new business 23 models that people are pursuing so that we can write 24 requirements that enable them and ensure that they're 25
175 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 safe.
1 With all that said, please ask me any 2
questions you want. We're working on a paper to help 3
provide to you but we wanted to give you those 4
thoughts. We don't have any major issues with what 5
you put out, but we do see that more is needed in 6
order to enable these business plans.
7 MR. SEGALA: Hey, Mark, this is John 8
Segala. Thanks for that. I think those business 9
models will be very helpful to us. I don't know if 10 you can do it or if it's feasible but I think it would 11 be helpful for us if we had some idea of the timeframe 12 for when somebody might want to implement a business 13 model because it could be that tackling one of these 14 might be a huge effort so we want to be able to 15 understand, you know, if that's not needed for 15 16 years from now, is that something that we need to 17 include in the rule today, or is that something that 18 we could modify the manufacturing license later.
19 I'm just trying to look at, you know, 20 we've got about a year left to get the proposed rule 21 finished. I'm just trying to add some realism. We 22 want Part 53 to do as much as we can have it 23 accomplish but, at the same time, being realistic as 24 to when we need those things.
25
176 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 As we look at fusion, we're seeing that 1
fusion is a little bit further off and so that might 2
be something that we handle in Part 53 or outside of 3
Part 53 but by 2027. Just trying to have some idea of 4
the timeframes when those business models might be 5
needed to be implemented will help us. Some of these 6
might be much easier to address quickly and some of 7
them might be much more involved. I don't know.
8 MS. CUBBAGE: This is Amy Cubbage. Just 9
wanted to add to that real quickly. Where it gets 10 tricky is if there are things that would require a 11 change to the act. You know, they are kind of by 12 definition not as feasible on the current schedule.
13 MR. NICHOLS: Yeah, absolutely. I left 14 off the one that we know would require a change to the 15 act and that's a general license type of approach 16 where you would get these things licensed and you 17 wouldn't have to have site-specific licensees. The 18 siting aspect is sort of taken care of generically 19 within the generic license but you would have to 20 notify the NRC before you put it at a site.
21 The generic license would have, you know, 22 a certificate of compliance which would specify the 23 site conditions that have to be met in order for it to 24 be a suitable site and you'd have to verify that and 25
177 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 provide it to the NRC, that sort of thing. We didn't 1
include that. That might be longer term.
2 MS. CUBBAGE: Some of the things you were 3
saying sort of touched in that direction so I wasn't 4
sure how far you were taking it.
5 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. Yeah, you might be 6
aware of some things that require a change to the act 7
that we haven't identified. Everything I mentioned we 8
identified as not needing a change to the act but 9
certainly you might identify some things that we 10 missed. We'll also take a look at that.
11 John, we'll provide you on timing. I 12 would say part of it depends on what could be done 13 under a DCD or what could be done under DCD COLs right 14 now. That could get into policy issues. Maybe it 15 doesn't, but things like could you speculatively 16 manufacture some of these. Could you assemble a fully 17 functional reactor in a factory, both of those under, 18 say, a DCD.
19 Fueling a reactor, I'm sure you need more 20 than a DCD but could you do it with that plus a Part 21 70 license or just a Part 70 license. Are there other 22 fixes that we might be able to use before we get a 23 more efficient solution under Part 53 would be part of 24 the question.
25
178 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. MERRIFIELD: Mark, this is Jeff. May 1
I interject for just a second?
2 MR. NICHOLS: Please do.
3 MR. MERRIFIELD: I just want to get back 4
to John Segala's question, is it released to fusion.
5 I just want to -- I think that's a fair question. The 6
Fusion Industry Association has made it pretty clear 7
that they do see fusion going on a separate track.
8 They've suggested Part 30. That's obviously a 9
discussion that's going to need more time to play out.
10 But to your point of the timing, in their 11 business plans will they want to see progress 12 continue. The 2024 deadline that's been imposed by 13 the Commission on advanced reactors is not necessary 14 to allow the fusion industry members to move forward 15 with their plans. They certainly would feel 16 comfortable with a separate track for 2027.
17 MR. RECKLEY: Yes, thank you, Jeff. You 18 said that better than I did so I appreciate that.
19 MR. NICHOLS: And I was done with my 20 comments. Thank you.
21 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thank you, Mark.
22 Would anybody else like to make a comment 23 or ask a question? Go ahead, please.
24 MR. DRAFFIN: Thanks. Just a couple 25
179 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 things kind of going back to the ACRS meeting 1
yesterday. They indicated that they did not find 2
value in the two-tiered approach to safety 3
requirements which is a concern we have as well.
4 Also, for discussion of PRAs, as we said 5
before PRA insights that are important for design, not 6
specific numerical requirements and we don't believe 7
the PRA should be evaluated and elevated to a 8
compliance tool in the application calling for a 9
construction permit. We think that the graded 10 approach does have certain merit so we look forward to 11 seeing that when it's available as an approach because 12 I think that would be helpful.
13 And then just to reiterate that just 14 because something is important such as ALARA as a good 15 business practice and defense of depth doesn't mean it 16 has to be in the regulations. Just because things can 17 be used and deployed as a criteria without being 18 something that's forced in regulations which has lots 19 of other ramifications for implementation. I would 20 just pause with that comment for Part B and C. The 21 other comments we've made earlier you have that from 22 previous meetings. Thanks.
23 MR. BEALL: Thanks Cyril. Does anybody 24 else have any other comments they would like to make?
25
180 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Steve Kraft.
1 MR. KRAFT: Hey, thanks, Bob. Am I on?
2 MR. BEALL: Yes, you are. We can hear 3
you.
4 MR. KRAFT: Thank you. I think I finally 5
figured out the magic here. First, what Cyril said 6
about the ACRS. Until you see the ACRS letter, you're 7
not going to really know where they are. They were 8
working on a letter this morning, as I understand it, 9
or this afternoon. They did say what Cyril said, no 10 question.
11 One of the questions they did raise and, 12 Bill, they asked you this quite a bit, was Mark raised 13 a question of transportation from the factory to the 14 site, but they were asking the other way around. What 15 happens at the end of life of one of these plants and 16 they were really focusing on micro reactors but it's a 17 good point. Whether it's 20 years, or whatever it is, 18 and there's still no place to send spent fuel, then 19 what happens? Do you have to expand the site? Do you 20 have to have a different EP? Do you have to have guns 21 and guards? All that sort of stuff.
22 Bill, is that going to be covered in the 23 life cycle, under the full life cycle of requirements 24 in this part?
25
181 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. RECKLEY: Yeah, we would envision that 1
we will need to cross that bridge. We haven't started 2
yet really looking at the decommissioning retirement 3
stage, Subpart G. We had even talked early on about 4
whether that would be one we would try to get done in 5
this period, or maybe one we would reserve and come 6
back to.
7 The thought is somewhere we will need to 8
address the end of life questions. Some of that will 9
interface with Part 71 in terms of how it will be 10 transported away from the site. The short answer is 11 yes, we'll have to address it somewhere. We may not 12 address the actual transportation requirements. That 13 will be under Part 71 and might be a different 14 activity, but we'll have to make sure that we have an 15 appropriate interface with those other requirements.
16 MR. KRAFT: So going back to the 17 manufacturing question, though, transport from a 18 fully-loaded unit from the factory to, then that unit 19 must meet new fuel transportation requirements which 20 may be different from HALEU that needs to be 21 addressed.
22 Secondly, if you think about it, Bill, I 23 mean, if you imagine the ability to transport, you 24 know, the classic sort of battery reactor, as we 25
182 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 discussed, some place else, then you would imagine 1
either the reactor itself would have to be qualified 2
as a special transport which is really onerous, or an 3
overpack be designed at some point.
4 Then the question just sort of if you're 5
going to deal with it in advance, it needs to be 6
pointed to or say, hey, there's something that needs 7
to be considered going forward. It may not be part of 8
the licensing requirements now but you need to be 9
aware that this is something that might come up.
10 MR. RECKLEY: Right. That goes to John 11 Segala's question of -- our thought is we will need to 12 address this. The question is do we need to address 13 it in this first round of Part 53 or maybe we could 14 come back and fill in this area after this first 15 effort that's due by 2024.
16 That's a question and why we were asking 17 about potential business models and timeframes. But 18 the thought is that there's enough effort going into 19 the development of these types of reactors that we 20 will likely need to address it in Part 53. The big 21 difference comes with the loading of the fuel at the 22 factory.
23 MR. KRAFT: No question.
24 MR. RECKLEY: That's what we're asking 25
183 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 about.
1 MR. KRAFT: Yeah, no question. This may 2
be more applicable to micro reactors than anything 3
else. But one of the things that you said that just 4
sort of rang a bell, if you think about -- again, it's 5
micro reactors. If you think about a 10 to 20-year 6
course, and the fact you're going to have to have 7
pretty heavily enriched material to do that, close to 8
higher levels of HALEU, attempting today to specify a 9
requirement of transport 20 years from now is hard 10 enough now.
11 Beyond that, if you don't -- I'm just spit 12 balling here, but if you don't, then you get subject 13 to requirements that you don't know yet that you have 14 to then 20 years after you put it in operation, you 15 then have to figure out how to meet the requirement.
16 That's a lot different than now when, yeah, you have 17 to meet requirement transport now but the fuel is out 18 of the pot. It's in storage some place. That's a 19 different matter altogether. I don't know how to 20 answer these questions, Bill. I'm not smart enough.
21 I'm just saying it kind of comes to mind 22 if we're going to try to be as comprehensive as 23 possible, then the question arises, I'll just raise it 24 again, is that you could have indicators, you could 25
184 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 have place holders, you can have pointers, but then 1
the question comes do you license against that and 2
say, wait a minute, this is all good with the 3
exception of there's a Part 71 thing you're not 4
meeting now. Just think about the complications that 5
gets into. I have no answer to the question, I'm just 6
thinking about it as we're talking.
7 MR. RECKLEY: Right. And I guess all 8
we're saying is we have the same questions and 9
designers will have to think through, as much as we're 10 trying to do for Part 53, the whole life cycle of the 11 machine with the added -- for these fueled variations 12 the added complexity of transport and safety in the 13 factory.
14 Mark, you're right based on the last 15 conversation we're looking at what combinations of 16 Part 70 requirements and what, if anything, would be 17 needed in the manufacturing license to address safety 18 in the factory. All of these are questions in play.
19 As NEI prepares its input, we will be very interested 20 in seeing it.
21 Bob.
22 MR. KRAFT: Thank you, Bill.
23 MR. BEALL: Okay. Are there any other 24 discussions on this topic? Okay. Not seeing 25
185 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 anything, can we go to the next slide, please? Okay.
1 Are there any additional comments or questions from 2
the other topics we discussed today; Subpart A and the 3
two sections in Subpart F? Anybody on the bridge line 4
also? Use star 6 to unmute your phone. Okay.
5 Do you have any follow-up comments or 6
anything, Bill, you'd like to say?
7 MR. RECKLEY: No, I don't have anything.
8 I missed this morning so if Nan has anything, or 9
Jordan.
10 MS. VALLIERE: No, I have nothing further.
11 Thank you.
12 MR. BEALL: Okay. Can we go to the next 13 slide, please? This slide provides an overview of the 14 current Part 53 rulemaking schedule. As you can see 15 on the slide, we are still on the first milestone with 16 staff performing public outreach meetings with ACRS 17 and working on the draft proposed rule package.
18 The staff has 11 months to complete these 19 activities before the draft proposed rule package is 20 submitted to the Commission on April 2022. The staff 21 is still projecting that the Part 53 proposed rule 22 will be published for public comment in October of 23 2022.
24 Next slide, please. The staff is planning 25
186 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 to host additional public meetings each month. We are 1
proposing to hold future meetings on the first 2
Thursday of every month with our next public meeting 3
tentatively scheduled for June 3, 2021. These public 4
meetings will cover additional topics and will include 5
the release of additional Part 53 preliminary proposed 6
rule language.
7 The staff will continue to also post 8
preliminary proposed rule language and any additional 9
comments submittals received on the preliminary 10 proposed rule language on Regulations.gov under our 11 docket ID, NRC-2019-0062, prior to the public meeting.
12 The staff is also meeting with the ACRS 13 Future Plants Subcommittee to receive feedback on the 14 Part 53 rulemaking. The next meeting with the ACRS 15 Subcommittee will be May 20, 2021. Additional ACRS 16 meetings will be held every month.
17 Next
- slide, please.
If you have 18 additional input or suggestions for future topics 19 related to the Part 53 rulemaking, please send an 20 email to Bill and I at the email addresses on this 21 slide. Your interest and comments will improve our 22 rulemaking effort. I also encourage you to monitor the 23 Part 53 rulemaking docket ID, again on 24 Regulations.gov, which is NRC-2019-0062, for updates 25
187 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 and important documents related to this rulemaking.
1 Finally, we are always looking for ways to 2
improve our public meetings and your feedback is 3
important to us. At the end of the meeting, please go 4
to the NRC Public Meeting website and click on 5
recently held meeting button and look for this 6
meeting. The meeting feedback form will be at the 7
bottom of the meeting announcement.
8 I would like to thank everyone for 9
participating in today's meeting and I hope everyone 10 has a good evening and this meeting is now closed.
11 Thank you very much for your participation.
12 MR. HOELLMAN: Hey, Bob, this is Jordan.
13 It looks like Cyril has his hand up. I don't know if 14 you want to -- I know people are dropping off now but 15 16 MR. DRAFFIN: Thanks. Quick question for 17 Bill. What percent of the documentation do you think 18 we've seen so far in terms of the language you'll be 19 provided and maybe anything with guidance, just as an 20 order of magnitude guess.
21 MR. RECKLEY: Less than half probably.
22 MR. DRAFFIN: Thanks.
23 MR. BEALL: Okay. Thank you very much for 24 your participation today.
25
188 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 1
off the record at 3:42 p.m.)
2 3