ML22049B560
| ML22049B560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/01/2022 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Nguyen, Q, ACRS | |
| References | |
| NRC-1831 | |
| Download: ML22049B560 (424) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Regulatory Policies and Practices Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: teleconference Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 Work Order No.: NRC-1831 Pages 1-289 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433
1 1
2 3
4 DISCLAIMER 5
6 7 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 8 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 9
10 11 The contents of this transcript of the 12 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 14 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions 15 recorded at the meeting.
16 17 This transcript has not been reviewed, 18 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 19 inaccuracies.
20 21 22 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5 (ACRS) 6 + + + + +
7 REGULATORY POLICIES AND PRACTICES SUBCOMMITTEE 8 + + + + +
9 TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY 1, 2022 11 + + + + +
12 The Subcommittee met in Room T2D-10 of 13 Two White Flint North, located at 11545 Rockville 14 Pike, Rockville, Maryland, and by teleconference, at 15 8:30 a.m. EST, Vicki Bier and Joy Rempe, Co-Chairs, 16 presiding.
17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
18 VICKI M. BIER, Chair 19 JOY L. REMPE, Chair 20 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 21 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 22 VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 23 GREGORY H. HALNON, Member 24 WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Member 25 JOSE A. MARCH-LEUBA, Member NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
2 1 DAVID A. PETTI, Member 2 MATTHEW W. SUNSERI, Member 3
4 ACRS CONSULTANT:
5 DENNIS BLEY 6
7 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
8 QUYNH NGUYEN 9
10 ALSO PRESENT:
11 HOWARD BENOWITZ, OGC 12 JONATHAN FISKE, NSIR 13 DENNIS GALVIN, NRR 14 JOHN LEHNING, NRR 15 LAUREN NIST, NRR 16 JAMES O'DRISCOLL, NMSS 17 ERIC OESTERLE, NRR 18 CHANDU PATEL, NRR 19 MALCOLM PATTERSON, NRR 20 BRIAN SMITH, NRR 21 MARTIN STUTZKE, NRR 22 OMID TABATABAI, NRR 23 ROBERT TAYLOR, NRR 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
3 1 T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 2 Opening Remarks and Objectives 3 Vicki Bier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 Robert Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 Staff Proposed Rulemaking 6 James O'Driscoll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7 Background 8 Rulemaking Language 9 Part 52 Licensing Process . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10 Severe Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 11 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Requirements . . 63 12 Emergency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 13 Operator's Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 14 Miscellaneous Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 15 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 16 Adjourn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
4 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 8:30 a.m.
3 CHAIR BIER: This meeting will now come to 4 order. This is a meeting of the Regulatory Policies 5 and Practices Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee 6 on Reactor Safeguards. I am Vicki Bier, co-chair of 7 the Subcommittee together with Joy Rempe. Members in 8 attendance today are Ron Ballinger, Greg Halnon, Matt 9 Sunseri, Dave Petti, Joy Rempe, Walt Kirchner, Jose 10 March-Leuba. I believe Vesna is on Teams. And we 11 also have our consultant Dennis Bley on Teams today.
12 Is there anybody else that I am missing who's 13 participating?
14 CHAIR REMPE: I believe Member Brown will 15 be attending later today. He's just a bit late with 16 some personal duties.
17 CHAIR BIER: Yes, good point. Charles 18 Brown will be joining later.
19 And Mr. Quynh Nguyen is the designated 20 federal officer for today.
21 As posted in the agenda on the ACRS 22 website the topic for today is the draft proposed 10 23 CFR 50 and 52 rulemaking and related activities.
24 This has been an enormous and wide-ranging 25 task since the rule encompasses such a wide variety of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
5 1 topics ranging from probabilistic risk assessment, to 2 severe accidents, to emergency planning, to operator 3 licensing, et cetera. Personally I'm particularly 4 interested in how probabilistic risk assessment is 5 being handled, but I know that members will have a1/2 6 questions on a lot of other topics as well, possibly 7 also including the relationship to the Part 53 work 8 that's ongoing, although I know that's not the primary 9 focus of today's presentations.
10 A phone bridge line has been opened to 11 allow members of the public to listen in on the 12 presentations and Committee discussions. To my 13 knowledge we have received no written comments or 14 requests to make oral statements from members of the 15 public regarding today's sessions. However, there 16 will be an opportunity for public comment and we have 17 set aside time at the conclusion of the prepared 18 presentations and discussions for comments from 19 members of the public who are attending or listening 20 into the meeting.
21 A transcript of the open portions of the 22 meeting is being kept and it is requested that 23 speakers identify themselves and speak with sufficient 24 clarity and volume so that they can be readily heard.
25 It's also important that participants on Teams or on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
6 1 the phone line should mute themselves when they are 2 not speaking to avoid disruption.
3 To start off the staff's presentation I 4 would like to call on Robert Taylor, the Deputy Office 5 Director for New Reactors in the Office of Nuclear 6 Reactor Regulation, for his opening remarks.
7 Robert?
8 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Chairman Bier.
9 Can you hear me?
10 CHAIR BIER: Yes, we hear you.
11 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Great. So my 12 apologies. Today is a day of no school for kids in 13 Montgomery County, so I'm taking my son and some 14 friends skiing today. So I'm joining you from the 15 parking lot of the ski resort, but this is an 16 important meeting so I wanted to have the opportunity 17 to open it up for the staff and to provide some 18 perspective. So thank you for indulging me as I 19 juggle things today.
20 I mentioned this is an important meeting, 21 but first and foremost I want to congratulate Dr.
22 Rempe on her selection of chair of the Advisory 23 Committee on Reactor Safeguards. I think as you know 24 this calendar year is going to be a very busy year for 25 us on new and advanced reactors and we expect that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
7 1 we'll do many briefings to the subcommittees and Full 2 Committee, and we look forward to working with you 3 throughout the year to be successful on those 4 activities.
5 So as you indicated, the purpose of 6 today's meeting is to give an updated on the proposed 7 rulemaking that the staff has been working on since 8 the Commission our rulemaking plan in SECY-15-0002.
9 The objective of this SECY and rulemaking effort is to 10 align the NRC license requirements under 10 CFR Part 11 50 and 52 and to incorporate NRC staff's lessons 12 learned and the review of new reactor license 13 applications, as well as the construction of the 14 Vogtle plants.
15 The last time I think we briefed you on 16 this was on March of 2021. We've been working hard on 17 this rulemaking effort since we've completed the 18 regulatory basis and issued that and we're in the 19 process of developing the proposed rule at this time.
20 We drafted this proposal with input and 21 comments from industry and members of the public on 22 the regulatory basis, which we published in January of 23 last year. So I'd like to point out that the draft 24 proposed rule and the associated draft revised 25 guidance documents are currently under NRC management NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
8 1 review and they have not been reviewed yet by the 2 NRC's Office of General Counsel. So they are still 3 subject to change. Therefore, the contents of the 4 draft Federal Register notice should not be 5 interpreted as the NRC's official agency positions on 6 this rule yet.
7 We do feel that the draft proposed rule 8 addresses the Commission's direction to align Parts 50 9 and 52, incorporate lessons learned, and otherwise 10 update our licensing requirements to improve the 11 clarity of our regulations and reduce the unnecessary 12 burden on new reactor applicants and licensees.
13 While we've been drafting this proposed 14 rule the working group has been closely coordinating 15 with the Part 53 Rulemaking Working Group. In fact, 16 some members of the staff are working on both 17 projects. As we indicated before the primary focus of 18 this rulemaking is to align Parts 50 and 52, so what 19 we're attempting to do is to ensure that the same 20 regulatory requirements exist in Parts 50 and 52 and 21 not to develop substantially new requirements as part 22 of this activity, although we are incorporating the 23 lessons learned from the licensing activities that 24 we've done under Part 52.
25 So there are not planned changes in this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
9 1 rule related to non-light water reactors. We don't 2 think that is within the scope of the activities we've 3 told the Commission we would do under this rulemaking; 4 we're focusing those activities in Part 53 because 5 Part 53, as you know, is intended to be a technology-6 inclusive, risk-informed, and performance-based 7 approach which will be applicable to all future types 8 of power reactors as the staff currently envisions it.
9 As the two rulemakings continue their development in 10 this coordination among the staff and management we'll 11 continue to ensure that there are no conflicts in the 12 regulatory requirements.
13 So last but not least, we're looking 14 forward to having a productive meeting of the 15 Subcommittee members today and we will consider your 16 comments and questions to prepare for the staff's 17 interaction with the ACRS Full Committee members in 18 March of 2022 and further develop the proposed rule.
19 So I wanted to just briefly touch on the 20 comment that was made about the PRA. So it's a good 21 conceptual piece of this discussion. The idea is that 22 we're trying to align the requirements in Parts 50 and 23 52 with regards to a PRA. As it exists now if you 24 come to be licensed under Part 52, you need to provide 25 a PRA as part of that licensing approach, but a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
10 1 similar requirement does not exist within Part 50. So 2 we're aligning the two regulations so that if you get 3 licensed under Part 50 or 52, you'd meet the same 4 safety standards for both regulations. So we're not 5 trying to substantially change the PRA requirements 6 that exist under Part 52 for applicants that are 7 coming in in the future.
8 So with that I'm going to turn it back 9 over to you, Chairman Bier, and I look forward to a 10 great meeting today. Unfortunately I won't be able to 11 stay for the majority of the meeting, but we do have 12 staff and management who will be attending and 13 participating in the meeting. Thank you.
14 CHAIR BIER: Okay. Thank you. Have a 15 good rest of your day. And I believe that Brian Smith 16 is also online, Director of NRR Division of New and 17 Renewed Licenses. So thank you for the attention to 18 this topic. I agree that it is extremely important.
19 I think at this time we are probably ready 20 to turn to -- yes?
21 CHAIR REMPE: Excuse me for a minute.
22 CHAIR BIER: Yes?
23 CHAIR REMPE: I had a comment and 24 question. And then I noticed that Dennis Bley had his 25 hand up, too.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
11 1 CHAIR BIER: Oh, okay.
2 CHAIR REMPE: But, Rob, thank you for 3 opening remarks. I appreciate your finding time when 4 you're trying to juggle with an important other 5 activity today, because we all love to ski also here.
6 But anyway, I just wanted your perspective 7 with respect to alignment. If a design comes in, 8 isn't one of the underlying objectives of this effort 9 to make sure that it's assessed against the same 10 standard so that you didn't -- the staff would again 11 ensure that an equivalent level of safety is applied 12 or obtained whether they go Part 50 or 52? Isn't that 13 kind of the underlying objective of this whole effort?
14 And also I wanted to note as we go through 15 this activity, you mentioned that there is a lot of 16 guidance that's still under management review. And 17 I'd looked ahead at the slides and so I would like if 18 the staff could identify which guidance will be 19 impacted as they go through the different major 20 objectives that they're going to be presenting today, 21 whether it's related to emergency planning or PRA or 22 severe accident policy. Because there are a lot of 23 guidance that are going to be documents, whether it's 24 Reg Guides or SRPs, that are going to be impacted.
25 And it would be good if they could specifically NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
12 1 identify which one. Okay?
2 MR. TAYLOR: Absolutely. Thank you, Dr.
3 Rempe. To your latter point, sure we'll be glad to 4 discuss that during today's presentation and meeting.
5 We have a number of initiatives going on to update 6 guidance in a number of different areas for a number 7 of different reasons as we prepare new and advanced 8 reactors. So we can certainly discuss those ongoing 9 activities with you.
10 With regards to your first point, you're 11 correct, the point is to align and have the same 12 safety standard for licensing new and advanced 13 reactors that come in under Part 50 or Part 52. What 14 we found was that in the building of Part 52 we 15 incorporated things into Part 52 that had evolved from 16 the time we had originally developed Part 50, so 17 things like the Severe Accident Policy Statement, the 18 PRA requirements and things like that. That should be 19 the same whether you're seeking a license under Part 20 50 or Part 52.
21 To extend or extrapolate that thinking, 22 that safety basis and that safety standard should be 23 the same even under Part 53, even though we're going 24 to go with a different approach to how to build Part 25 53, to get a technology-inclusive, performance-based NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
13 1 regulatory framework.
2 So the standard for safety for the NRC 3 should be the same in licensing new and advanced 4 reactors under any part that an applicant would 5 pursue. That said, there are different ways to 6 demonstrate safety, and so we're going to allow a 7 flexible framework under Part 53 that's less 8 prescriptive than the 50 and 52 frameworks and less 9 deterministic than those in a lot of cases.
10 So the idea is that we're going to align 11 50 and 52 as part of this rulemaking to make sure that 12 they're similar since they're both based on a more 13 deterministic -- with a PRA supplemental role in Part 14 52, and then we'll incorporate that into Part 50 so 15 that you would -- whether you seek a CP&OL or you come 16 in for a design certification and a COL you would meet 17 the same safety standards. So hopefully that answers 18 your question.
19 CHAIR REMPE: Thank you.
20 Dennis, I believe you had a question, too?
21 Is it okay if I call on him, Vicki?
22 CHAIR BIER: Oh, sure.
23 CHAIR REMPE: Okay. Dennis, go ahead.
24 MEMBER BLEY: Yes, I kind of backed off of 25 it, but yes, thanks for the introduction, Rob; I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
14 1 appreciate it. But in there I think you specifically 2 said that Part 53 will be, as we all hoped, not only 3 technology-inclusive, but meaning any type reactor 4 should be able to use Part 53, not being limited to 5 so-called new reactors. Is that what you said?
6 MR. TAYLOR: So as the staff currently 7 envisions it, we're working on the definition for what 8 will be covered under Part 53 and we believe we can 9 cast a very broad definition that would allow and meet 10 the NEIMA requirements as they relate to safety. So 11 there are some NEIMA requirements in there that are 12 not necessarily NRC statutory rules, but we believe we 13 could cast a broad net for commercial new and advanced 14 reactors. So you could license SMRs under it, you 15 could license non-light water technologies, and likely 16 you could license advanced large light water 17 technologies under it. So we're still working through 18 those details 19 MEMBER BLEY: Would you be precluded from 20 licensing an LWR?
21 MR. TAYLOR: No.
22 MEMBER BLEY: Okay.
23 MR. TAYLOR: We do not believe presently 24 you would be precluded. We haven't finished that 25 work, but we're thinking that if you meet the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
15 1 provisions that are in NEIMA, they are a good basis to 2 say the technology itself doesn't need to be defined.
3 It's the attributes that are important to using Part 4 53.
5 MEMBER BLEY: Okay. Thanks. And I 6 certainly agree with you on that. I know along the 7 way we had language that seemed to exclude those, but 8 I hope as we finish up that will be all pulled 9 together. Thanks, Rob.
10 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, that very definition is 11 something we've been working on and we've I think in 12 public meetings have discussed the idea of expanding 13 that to be more inclusive than it even was at the 14 beginning.
15 MEMBER BLEY: I've heard it before, but 16 then I haven't seen the words, so that's -- I'm glad 17 it's --
18 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.
19 MEMBER BLEY: -- aiming that way. Good.
20 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you.
21 CHAIR BIER: Okay. Are there further 22 questions or comments for Director Taylor?
23 Okay. Hearing none, I think we can move 24 on with the staff presentations for today. I believe 25 that the presenters will be James O'Driscoll from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
16 1 NMSS, and Omid Tabatabai from NRR. So whoever is 2 going to start can go ahead and get going, I believe.
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thanks a lot, Chairman --
4 or Subcommittee Chairman. This is Jim O'Driscoll.
5 I'm the lead rulemaking project manager on the effort.
6 7 We've already talked about the purpose of 8 today's meeting, and we met again last March on this.
9 And if folks wants to look at the transcript for that 10 last March meeting, I can tell you what that is. It's 11 accession No. ML21075A211.
12 So again, this meeting is going to -- is 13 the opportunity to discuss the specific items in the 14 rulemaking as described in the preliminary draft 15 proposed rule Federal Register notice that we made 16 available to the ACRS just recently. And this 17 document can be found under ADAMS accession No.
18 ML22020A002.
19 So the detail of today's discussion is 20 going to be at a high level because the -- as we said, 21 the rule scope is so broad. And we may not have the 22 specific subject matter experts available on the phone 23 to address your question if it gets too technical, 24 however, you always have the option to submit your 25 questions formally. I also understand that there's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
17 1 going to be a follow-up ACRS meeting, Subcommittee 2 meeting scheduled for Friday, February 18th possibly, 3 where the staff will have another opportunity to brief 4 ACRS on this issue.
5 We're also going to discuss a little bit 6 about the estimates of costs and savings for the 7 activity. And as we go, we'll pause for questions and 8 answers on any topics the ACRS wants to talk on.
9 And finally, we'll provide you an update 10 on the next steps of the rulemaking.
11 So again, we hope this interaction will 12 help you understand the content of the preliminary 13 draft proposed rule that's under staff management 14 review; as we said, it's not complete yet, and the 15 status of the rulemaking.
16 So I think we said this before, but I'll 17 say it again: Like our previous public meetings we'll 18 take the information, perspectives, and questions we 19 hear today into consideration when developing the --
20 further developing the proposed rule. We don't intend 21 to formally respond to comments that you provide at 22 this meeting. As I'll discuss, we'll respond to 23 written comments about the subject that we receive 24 during the public comment period for the proposed rule 25 which will be coming up after it gets published, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
18 1 I'll go over that. I will briefly remind you of the 2 ways that you can provide comments that is detailed in 3 the preliminary draft Federal Register notice.
4 CHAIR REMPE: Jim, just to make sure we're 5 all on the same page, it's my understanding that ACRS 6 is going to be providing a letter during our March 7 Full Committee meeting.
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
9 CHAIR REMPE: And I guess if an individual 10 member wants to submit a public comment, that's fine, 11 but --
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's absolutely 13 correct. That's right.
14 CHAIR REMPE: Yes, but there's no reason 15 to go through like that we would as ACRS be providing 16 public comments. Okay? Because that's kind of come 17 up in a couple meetings lately and I want to make sure 18 we understand that. Okay?
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right. Okay. Right, so 20 I mean let me make sure I understand. ACRS is like 21 any other member of the public. They can submit 22 public comments like any individual that's out there.
23 CHAIR REMPE: Individual members. Okay.
24 So --
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Individual member, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
19 1 CHAIR REMPE: Yes.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. Okay. Yes, so all 3 right.
4 So just a couple of things: Please note 5 that I'm going to be -- there's going to be some 6 acronyms here and a list of the acronyms used in the 7 slides is at the end of the presentation. I'll try to 8 say the full term at least once to help folks follow 9 along.
10 I'll also note that a list of the ADAMS 11 accession numbers that I mentioned before, and I will 12 continue to mention that from time to time, to all the 13 documents referenced in this presentation can be found 14 at the end of the staff's presentation.
15 And please be careful not to discuss any 16 safeguard, security-related, classified, or 17 proprietary information during the meeting. Although 18 we intend to have an open dialogue, please note again 19 that the NRC staff will not be making any regulatory 20 commitment during the meeting.
21 All right. So we just had our opening 22 remarks and I will move on. So we're on slide 4. So 23 thanks, Vicki and Rob, for those remarks.
24 So we're going to roll into the 25 presentation. And again, I'm Jim O'Driscoll and I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
20 1 the lead rulemaking project manager on this activity.
2 I'm in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 3 Safeguards in the Division of Rulemaking, 4 Environmental and Financial Support, otherwise known 5 as REFS. Also joining me today is Omid from the NRC's 6 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of New 7 and Renewed Licenses. And we have several folks on 8 staff on the call if needed.
9 So next slide. All right. So the purpose 10 of the rulemaking. And I think we covered some of 11 this. The staff's engaged in rulemaking to better 12 align portions of the regulations to 10 CFR Parts 50 13 and 52 in four areas as described in the preliminary 14 draft proposed rule. So four areas that are 15 alignment. Staff will also address items derived from 16 lessons learned from previous new reactor licensing 17 activities. As Rob said, the licensing reviews and 18 also the reactor construction efforts that are 19 described in the preliminary proposed rule.
20 And again this activity implements the 21 Commission's direction in SRM-SECY-15-0002. And again 22 the goal is to better align Parts 50 and 52 licensing 23 processes such that equivalent designs submitted for 24 NRC review under each licensing process are assessed 25 against consistent technical standards that yield NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
21 1 outcomes with equivalent demonstrations of adequate 2 protection, security, and environmental protection.
3 So in 15-0002 issued on January 8th, 2015 4 the staff made several recommendations to the 5 Commission regarding policy and regulatory updates to 6 ensure consistency in new reactor licensing reviews.
7 The staff also made recommendations to address staff-8 identified lessons learned obtained through the 9 licensing reviews completed up to July 2019. These 10 changes are intended to improve clarity and reduce 11 unnecessary burden on applicants and staff. So as 12 well as these the staff has addressed or intends to 13 address editorial and administrative changes as well.
14 Okay.
15 CHAIR REMPE: Hold on for just a second.
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes?
17 CHAIR REMPE: I've got a couple of 18 questions on that slide.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. I'm going 20 back. Hold on.
21 CHAIR REMPE: It's actually just in the 22 introductory type of remarks --
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
24 CHAIR REMPE: -- that I had several 25 questions, so you don't have to go back if you don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
22 1 want to.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. All right.
3 CHAIR REMPE: So in the prior meetings, a 4 couple of them, individual members of ACRS have 5 brought up the fact that there's a difference in Parts 6 50 and 52 in that there's always this final review for 7 Part 50 before an applicant is granted an operating 8 license. There is no final review that might 9 accomplish a similar objective in Part 52 to look at 10 the cumulative effect of changes made during 11 construction as ITAACs were closed.
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
13 CHAIR REMPE: And I know Member Ray, who 14 has retired from this Committee, was a very strong 15 advocate that something like that needed to be added.
16 And I've mentioned in a couple of meetings, or in 17 meetings since he retired and I haven't seen anything 18 in the information we've been provided to consider 19 that. Has the staff thought about that?
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, we're not changing 21 the -- essentially the real kernel with Part 52, which 22 is one design, one review. So basically we still are 23 hanging our hat on the fact that ITAAC, once 24 satisfied, basically covers that purpose. Now yes, 25 there is a change process associated that we are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
23 1 actually putting in some flexibilities for changes 2 during construction, but that process should not --
3 does not in our opinion, or my opinion does not cause 4 us to rethink the role of ITAAC and its role in 5 verifying that the Commission's findings, when they 6 certify the information, are -- remain valid. Does 7 that help?
8 CHAIR REMPE: Well, I think actually 9 Member Dimitrijevic had pointed out in the last 10 meeting even that if a PRA were available in Part 52 11 and were kept up to date and sufficiently detailed it 12 might give confidence that the cumulative effects of 13 changes during construction were not important, but 14 I'm not sure that the staff agreed with that. But 15 that was kind of what I was expecting you to say.
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right, and I wouldn't 17 disagree with that. We have PRA experts on the line 18 and I would -- I can assure you that the items we're 19 doing for Part 50 and 52 in regards to PRA provide 20 more assurance and make it clearer on the obligations 21 of basically maintaining the PRA during the 22 construction phase. And there's some clarity we're 23 adding to the Reg Guides on what exactly that means as 24 far as that goes. In other words, what you have to do 25 at the end when you're doing your walk-downs, et NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
24 1 cetera. And I think we have Malcolm on the phone; he 2 can talk to that when we get up to the PRA stuff.
3 Does that help?
4 CHAIR REMPE: Okay. I see his hand up if 5 he wants to add to something now.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
7 CHAIR REMPE: I guess it's allowed, if 8 it's okay with you.
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, it's fine. I'm not 10 sure how to -- I think, Quynh, you do that, right?
11 CHAIR REMPE: Yes, so his mic is open. He 12 can speak up.
13 MR. PATTERSON: I think I can speak. Can 14 you hear me?
15 CHAIR REMPE: We can.
16 MR. PATTERSON: Very simply I'd say before 17 the license is allowed to load fuel they have to 18 update and upgrade the PRA. There are walk-downs 19 performed to make sure that the assumptions of the 20 seismic margins analysis and other aspects of the PRA 21 have been preserved during construction. The PRA has 22 to be updated to match the as-built plant. So I think 23 we have that step at the end of construction to make 24 sure that the PRA is brought to the level required for 25 the operating phase.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
25 1 CHAIR REMPE: And does any guidance need 2 to be changed to accomplish that objective, or you 3 think it's there?
4 MR. PATTERSON: I think it's there for 5 Part 52 plants. It's necessary to change the guidance 6 to ensure that it applies to Part 50 plants as well.
7 This is addressed in 50.71(h)(1), and we'll get to 8 that later.
9 CHAIR REMPE: Okay. And that's REFS Guide 10 5071(h)(1), or what is it you're talking about.
11 MR. PATTERSON: Sorry. That's Regulation 12 10 CFR.
13 CHAIR REMPE: Oh, 50.71? And then you 14 said something about the guidance needing to be 15 changed. Which guidance?
16 MR. PATTERSON: The main change to the 17 guidance is to make sure that it applies to Part 50 18 plants as well as Part 52 plants.
19 CHAIR REMPE: Okay. So there's not a Reg 20 Guide or an SRP that you think needs to be -- that 21 will be changed to accommodate that?
22 MR. PATTERSON: There were minor changes 23 to the Reg Guides and SRPs to effect this scope 24 change.
25 CHAIR REMPE: And which ones? Which NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
26 1 chapters, which Reg Guides?
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Reg Guide 1-200, Reg 3 Guide 1-201, SRP Chapter 19.0, SRP Chapter 19.1. And 4 that's all I can remember.
5 CHAIR REMPE: Okay. The last general 6 comment that I had -- well, actually there's two: One 7 is your opening remark talked about security. And 8 yes, you're right there has -- there was an SRM issued 9 in 2003 where the Commission directed ACRS and the 10 rest of the staff on how to divide the security topic.
11 And I'd remind you that ACRS is allowed to -- has been 12 asked to look into accident progression, technical 13 issues, et cetera.
14 So when you start talking about -- there's 15 one slide here that mentions changes to physical 16 security. I think that it would behoove us to 17 understand information that you've already presented 18 in open meetings regarding which changes were made to 19 Part 50 and this Part 50-52 alignment issue so that we 20 can understand whether we should be inquiring further.
21 Because there is some scope regarding accident 22 progression that we are allowed to bring up, right?
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I do not presume to 24 debate you.
25 (Laughter.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
27 1 CHAIR REMPE: Anyway, I just wanted to 2 mention that because I am interested because micro-3 reactors and accident-tolerant fuel, HALEU, those kind 4 of things could come under ACRS purview, and we want 5 to make sure we follow the Commission direction on 6 that topic.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
8 CHAIR REMPE: And then the last item I 9 wanted to mention was that I just was curious if the 10 staff considered that some of the applicants that are 11 coming in nowadays are not the old-time applicants we 12 were used to, like by standards in the U.S. And as 13 you were doing this alignment issue if you considered 14 the fact that a different type of applicant is coming 15 in now? You know where I'm going on that kind of a 16 question, Jim?
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I think I know where 18 you're going, but I think the answer is that our 19 standards are our standards. There's a certain level 20 of detail that's needed in the applications to achieve 21 our ends. So ultimately we're going to need that 22 level of detail in order for us to perform the 23 function that we're supposed to perform. And that 24 level of detail may require a significant amount of 25 resources to be spent by the applicant. And I don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
28 1 see that changing. Or I don't see how we could have 2 it both ways, in other words. That's my personal 3 opinion.
4 CHAIR REMPE: Well, I guess I was seeking 5 clarity, maybe more clarity than one assumed in the 6 past is needed. And I have some questions later on 7 that I'll try and relate to this point, but that's 8 where I -- I just thought it was better to bring that 9 up now than just out of the blue later on. Okay?
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.
11 MEMBER PETTI: This is Dave Petti. Just 12 a follow-up question: I'm more concerned about --
13 with these newer reactor design teams coming in and 14 potentially less licensing experience that the -- the 15 historical guidance was built on a tremendous amount 16 of experience in the legacy vendor shops with people 17 that just discovered their bread and butter. Do you 18 see the need to expand the guidance, be more explicit 19 so that the learning curve is less for the new folks 20 coming in?
21 CHAIR REMPE: That's what I was trying to 22 say. Thank you.
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I've heard the 24 question and I can respectfully say that that is 25 outside the scope of this rulemaking, but just knowing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
29 1 -- as a technical reviewer we have pre-application 2 activities. We've done it before with more experience 3 and we've done it with other applicants. So I would 4 imagine those efforts, pre-application activities 5 would continue to whatever degree is needed to explain 6 the regulation to the applicant. But again, we 7 haven't -- that is more of an outside-the-scope type 8 of question for this rulemaking. Does that help?
9 CHAIR REMPE: Well actually I think Dennis 10 was really adamant in prior meetings about you can't 11 interpret the rule until you see all the guidance.
12 And the guidance is what better clarifies in the rule.
13 So that's why I think the guidance -- and that's why 14 I'm going to be asking you which guidance was changed 15 for this rulemaking language as we go through this a 16 bit more?
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
18 CHAIR REMPE: Because I really think 19 they're going to need to understand. It will help 20 make the process more efficient if --
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, I have that 22 information handy. The slide doesn't directly speak 23 to it, but I can answer that and be corrected by the 24 tech staff on the line.
25 CHAIR REMPE: Okay. And then there's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
30 1 another hand up, and with this set up here it takes me 2 a while to scroll because I'm a new learner here.
3 Brian Smith has his hand up right now. Is that okay 4 to --
5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, yes.
6 CHAIR REMPE: -- speak up? Okay.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Please. Yes.
8 MR. SMITH: Yes, ma'am.
9 And, Dr. Petti, back to your question on 10 the newer reactor vendor developers that are out 11 there. At this point in time we don't really have 12 plans to add a lot more detail to our guidance 13 documents essentially just for them. Jim I think hit 14 the nail right on top of the head there on the pre-15 application interactions with us. We've been highly 16 encouraging that for all of these vendors. You've had 17 a lot of interaction with Kairos leading up to their 18 Hermes interaction on their topical reports.
19 We issued a white paper on pre-application 20 engagement with the NRC on a long list of items that 21 we recommended that they interact with us on prior to 22 submittal of an application to help guide them if you 23 will along the path of developing sufficient 24 applications to come into us when they're finally 25 ready to do so. Hope that helps.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
31 1 CHAIR REMPE: We may have more questions 2 on that topic as we go through. And in fact, one 3 other item before you leave this slide, which is not 4 up on the screen now. But it's another higher-level 5 comment I had when I was going through this.
6 I saw that you have changed from earlier 7 versions of the language about -- that you've added 8 some details about -- and you've added words as 9 applicable a couple of places --
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
11 CHAIR REMPE: -- to try and avoid 12 exemptions. But I'm wondering if -- how much effort 13 when you were coming up with this language you thought 14 about just making the whole effort more performance-15 based? I'm thinking about TMI-type --
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
17 CHAIR REMPE: -- which is why I'm thinking 18 about.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I think it is in 20 there. And the fact that we -- the TMI items; that's 21 Appendix C we called it, works together or with -- we 22 have to do Part B, too, which is the PRA stuff. So in 23 other words, if you remember, TMI; this is pre-PRA, we 24 saw an accident; we put up a whole bunch of 25 deterministic stuff in the regulations, and PRA in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
32 1 background became more important. And then we've as 2 an agency said -- appreciated the value of PRA and we 3 said okay now in the Part 52 process you're going to 4 have to put the PRA in the front. You need to think 5 about that at the design phase.
6 And so what we're trying to do with Part 7 50 in this rule, in addition to updating, which means 8 various things to the TMI requirements -- we're also 9 saying hey, look, Part 50 plants, you need to give us 10 the results and the summary of your PRA at the 11 construction permit phase. That way we know that you 12 guys were thinking PRA and risk all the way in the 13 beginning. Does that help?
14 CHAIR REMPE: It does. I guess what I'm 15 thinking is I still see some things -- and although 16 you've added the words as applicable, I'm wondering if 17 one could have stepped back and said something that's 18 more performance-based, like keeping the hydrogen 19 below a certain level instead of worrying about 20 recombiners or igniters or whatever, or for venting 21 and depressurization, if you had a more performance-22 based so you avoid some specific features.
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right.
24 CHAIR REMPE: For example, I know with 25 Fukushima we're still trying to understand the sources NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
33 1 of hydrogen that led to the explosion in Unit 3. And 2 maybe it wasn't from fuel cladding oxidation or other 3 known sources to exist. What if there was another new 4 source? And you might have new information that might 5 come into play that you hadn't considered. But I know 6 it's hard to predict the future, but --
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
8 CHAIR REMPE: -- it's just something I was 9 thinking about when I was reading the wording of the 10 language.
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: But I would submit that 12 I think PRA covers that. The beauty of PRA is that 13 once you find something new, you find a new failure 14 mode, you've got to address it. You have a PRA.
15 You've got goals, safety goals for your plant. And 16 that PRA is supposed to support the fact that that 17 plant is -- reaches those goals.
18 And we find out, let's say, like you said, 19 a new failure mode, another source of a dangerous 20 situation, well that has to get modeled in there. And 21 if you have a requirement to have the PRA in all 22 future applications, you're kind of locked in. You're 23 future-proofed, in a way, to a degree.
24 So these deterministic requirements, 25 although some we kept because quite honestly we don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
34 1 have any other regulation that we've written since TMI 2 that covers that particular aspect -- others we've 3 removed because the PRA, if you would have it, if you 4 had it, Part B, you would -- you don't need to have 5 that analysis of the aux feedwater or whatever. So we 6 took that stuff out.
7 CHAIR REMPE: You've made progress, I 8 agree. I'm just wondering if more could have been 9 done. But we'll go there later today.
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.
11 CHAIR REMPE: I just wanted to have that 12 discussion early on. And I'll be quiet for a while 13 and turn back over to my co-chair.
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. All right.
15 CHAIR BIER: Okay. Any other questions or 16 comments before we move forward?
17 Okay. Then go ahead, Jim. Thanks.
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. So we are on 19 slide 7 for those folks on the phone and not following 20 on the screen.
21 So this is our typical rulemaking process.
22 You've seen this before. Rulemaking is how the NRC 23 developed its regs. With the publication of the reg 24 basis for comment; that was back in January of last 25 year, we've completed the tasks in the second box, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
35 1 that green box, which is the regulatory basis phase, 2 and we're now in the third box, which is the proposed 3 rule phase. And we've completed the 75-day public 4 comment period for the regulatory basis.
5 And the staff held a Cat 3 public meeting, 6 as you remember, in March -- well, March 4th for the 7 ACRS and March 3rd for the general public -- where we 8 briefed what was basically the contents of that 9 regulatory basis and also to encourage comments.
10 So we got some comments. And the written 11 comments we received during that comment period went 12 into the docket for the rule. In the preliminary 13 draft proposed rule we've included a summary of the 14 stakeholder interactions, the comments and the key 15 messages we've received from the public on the 16 regulatory basis. And in addition we have included 17 summaries of the public comments received and the 18 staff responses. We put that in the preliminary draft 19 proposed rule preamble discussion.
20 Now there's one word is -- that's a new 21 word, right? We used to call that the statements of 22 considerations, but I going to -- I think I'm going to 23 be the first ACRS meeting that I'm not going to call 24 it the SOC. It's called the preamble. So that's --
25 but that's what I'm talking about. So we basically NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
36 1 put the comment responses that relate to that item 2 directly in the discussion on the technical area.
3 So we developed the rule. The draft 4 proposed rule was entered in management review and 5 concurrence just this past December, December 6th.
6 And January 13th of this year we received division 7 director-level concurrence on the primary draft rule.
8 The preliminary draft is now at the office director 9 level of concurrence.
10 The staff is on schedule to send this 11 preliminary draft proposed rule to the Commission in 12 May of this year. When published we plan to have a 13 75-day public comment period on the proposed rule and 14 we'll also hold a public meeting during that public 15 comment period.
16 So the next major step will be the 17 development and the publication of the final rule. We 18 will continue to provide opportunities for ACRS to 19 comment on this process. Before the staff sends the 20 draft final rule to the Commission you will again have 21 the opportunity to review the draft final rule and 22 provide written comments to the NRC staff. We expect 23 to support an ACRS meeting for that purpose.
24 Any questions on this slide?
25 All right. So I'm going to go through a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
37 1 little bit of milestones here so you have it all. So 2 as we've kind of mentioned before, although we 3 received direction to commence rulemaking in 2015 --
4 that's when that SECY-15-0002 was signed. In that 5 SECY the Commission directed the staff to prioritize 6 the project in accordance with Project AIM. And if 7 you recall, the purpose of Project AIM was to ensure 8 the staff continued its focus on those tasks seen as 9 essential for our mission as projected in subsequent 10 years. To that end this rulemaking was deliberately 11 budgeted to start in fiscal year 2019. In other 12 words, fiscal year 2019 was the first opportunity to 13 put it into the budget and we put it into the budget 14 not as an emergent issue, but as a planned activity 15 for the future.
16 So in October of 2018 the staff's first --
17 we commenced work and our first task was to clearly 18 define the scope of the regulatory basis for the 19 rulemaking. So from the staff's outreach efforts 20 inside and outside the NRC the staff collected a large 21 number of items to consider.
22 On January 15th, 2019 the staff held a Cat 23 3 public meeting to request feedback from the external 24 stakeholders on what the staff should include in the 25 rule.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
38 1 NEI arranged for a panel of industry 2 representatives to attend. Using the input from the 3 staff and the stakeholders the staff aligned on a 4 scope on July 11th, 2019.
5 In late August of that year the staff 6 issued the information paper SECY-19-0084, which 7 provided information to the Commission and the public 8 on the status and scope of the regulatory basis that 9 we planned to write.
10 On September 20, 2019 the staff briefed 11 members of the ACRS Subcommittee on the regulatory 12 policies and practices, the subcommittee. The staff 13 received views and comments from ACRS and individual 14 -- as individual members. There was no ACRS letter 15 issued on the topic at that time. The slides and 16 transcript for that meeting are available in ADAMS at 17 accession No. ML19294A009.
18 All right. Slide 9. So we held a public 19 meeting November 21st of 2019. In that meeting NEI 20 and other industry representatives asked questions and 21 provided comments on the scope of the rule as it was 22 described in that SECY. The slides and transcript of 23 that meeting are available in ADAMS at ML19344C768.
24 In February 2020 the staff developed the 25 first draft of the regulatory basis. In April of 2020 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
39 1 the NRC held another public meeting where we discussed 2 several specific issues that were of interest to the 3 public. The slides and summary of that meeting can be 4 found in ADAMS under ML20141L609.
5 All right. So in January of last year the 6 NRC published the regulatory basis for public comment, 7 as we said before. We held a 75-day public comment 8 period and that comment period actually was extended 9 for a month at the request of NEI. In the public 10 comment period the NRC solicited comments on the 11 regulatory basis for consideration when developing the 12 proposed rule.
13 So on March 2nd and March 4th the staff 14 held public meetings to provide the public and ACRS an 15 update on the rulemaking, to answer any questions the 16 public and the ACRS had on the regulatory basis that 17 was out for comment and to solicit public 18 participation and ACRS inputs on the comment process.
19 The slides and summaries of those meetings can be 20 found in ADAMS under accession Nos. ML21076A098 and 21 ML21075A211, respectively.
22 All right. Next slide, slide 10. The 23 comment period ended on May 14th. That was with the 24 30-day extension. Also in late May the senior 25 technical project manager, Omid, received the first NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
40 1 drafts of the proposed rule inputs from the technical 2 writers. The staff developed a working document and 3 incorporated summaries of the public comments received 4 and the rulemaking project manager, me, received the 5 final technical inputs in early November of last year.
6 In December the preliminary draft proposed 7 rule entered management review in the concurrence 8 process. And all of these efforts are in direct 9 support of the next steps, which is slide 11.
10 All right. For the next steps in this 11 project the staff will continue to address management 12 input received during the concurrence process. We 13 expect to complete management review of the proposed 14 rule by early May and send it to the Commission by 15 late May. After this the Commission reviews and votes 16 on the proposed rule. After a favorable vote from the 17 Commission the staff will publish the proposed rule 18 for public comment.
19 So under the current schedule in March 20 2024 the staff will forward a draft final rule to the 21 Commission for approval. We continue to assess our 22 process for efficiencies to improve the schedule. So 23 we're trying to improve this, try to make it as 24 efficient as we can.
25 Next slide.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
41 1 CHAIR REMPE: On this --
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes?
3 CHAIR REMPE: In the schedule over the 4 last several slides when exactly will all the guidance 5 be done?
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So we are required -- and 7 I don't recall the SECY, but in rulemaking space we 8 are required to provide all the guidance that is 9 needed to understand the rule to be available for the 10 Commission to review. So although they're not 11 physically in the rulemaking package, the Reg Guides 12 are -- that we are talking about and we will talk 13 about are -- have already been drafted. They have 14 gone into concurrence with the rule that I mentioned 15 before.
16 And they are also -- they've been through 17 the division director level of concurrence. And those 18 documents will be made available to the Commission for 19 review in May, basically when we sign out the rule to 20 the Commission. So we have substantially -- well we 21 have essentially those guidance documents ready to go.
22 Does that help?
23 CHAIR REMPE: Okay. Now I'm thinking 24 about Part 53 --
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
42 1 CHAIR REMPE: -- and I thinking about the 2 fact that a lot of the guidance that you'll be 3 identifying today, as well as the SRP, would be also 4 changed by Part 53 activities.
5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
6 CHAIR REMPE: And I don't think you're 7 going to have two sets of guidance, like 1.200 or --
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
9 CHAIR REMPE: -- 1174. You're going to 10 have one.
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right.
12 CHAIR REMPE: And this came up a couple of 13 weeks ago, too --
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
15 CHAIR REMPE: -- with the ISG for 16 construction permits. How do you keep track of all 17 the --
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
19 CHAIR REMPE: -- changes?
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So let me try to explain.
21 So you're right, when we're doing a draft guide in 22 support of a rule we're only making the changes in the 23 draft guide and we're only -- that support that 24 rulemaking change described in the FRN. So there may 25 be a lot of stuff we need to do with Reg Guide 1.206, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
43 1 for example. We are not going to put all the stuff 2 that we need to do in that in the draft guide when we 3 prepare it for this rule. We only discuss the changes 4 and show the changes that relate to this rule.
5 So what does that mean? It means that 6 there's a version of that guide floating around there 7 that could be different than another version of the 8 guide that somebody else is working on for another 9 purpose.
10 And how does that all get put together?
11 That's a good question. The issue is is that when 12 this rule goes up to the Commission for signature and 13 it comes back down, that could be at some 14 indeterminate point in the future. We absolutely have 15 to make sure when it goes out for public comment that 16 that Reg Guide reflects on the changes -- basically 17 it's based off of what's actually in effect at the 18 time the rule is going to go out for public comment.
19 So let's say this rule is first before 53 20 and there's no other changes. Well, the next Reg 21 Guide version that goes out will be shown this version 22 of Reg Guide 1.206. But even then it's not signed 23 off. It's not -- become official until this rule 24 becomes final, which is in March 2024, if it ever 25 does. If we decide not to do this rulemaking, guess NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
44 1 what, that Reg Guide version disappears.
2 So at some point the Reg Guide has to be 3 reconciled with what's actually in effect. So 4 basically when we send it out for public comment, 5 we're trying to show what's out there and what we --
6 and choose to change for this activity. The same 7 rules apply for Part 53. And of course both of those 8 rules we try to align as best we can, but we don't --
9 we can't predict the future.
10 We don't know if there's going -- if Part 11 53 is going to be further fast tracked, or maybe this 12 rule might be fast tracked. And one rule might get 13 ahead of another. We can't obviously predict that.
14 But we do have systems in place to make sure that 15 we're not talking cross-wise. Also, the same -- like 16 we said before, the same guy or girl that's working on 17 this change, they're working on both rules most likely 18 and they're well aware of these differences. So we 19 think we got it covered. Does that help?
20 CHAIR REMPE: So let's say we have Reg 21 Guide 8.B that supports emergency planning, and you've 22 made some changes for Part 50/52.
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
24 CHAIR REMPE: So it's Reg Guide 8.b Rev 2.
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Rev 2?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
45 1 CHAIR REMPE: And the guys working on the 2 EPZ rule --
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
4 CHAIR REMPE: -- say oh, I'm going to make 5 some changes also. So they take your draft, because 6 you got ahead of them --
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: No, no, ma'am. No, no, 8 no, no.
9 CHAIR REMPE: They go back to the 10 originally-issued one?
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: They go back to the 12 original. And they also call it Rev 2. And if 13 they're lucky enough to go final, then that really 14 indeed will become Rev 2. And guess what, Jim's rule, 15 I have to then change the -- adjust the changes in the 16 draft to reflect what's actually out there, which 17 would be Rev 2, and we would have a Rev 3. That won't 18 happen until we're close to publication, all the way 19 after the Commission votes. That's part of the SRM 20 adjudication process.
21 Basically when this gets voted on the 22 Commission's going to -- I mean, it's going to be 23 perfect, right? So they're not going to make any 24 changes; of course not. They're going to make 25 changes. They're going to ask us to update this, do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
46 1 this, don't do that. And we'll have -- given a 2 certain amount of time to address those changes. And 3 a part of that is to make sure that the guidance --
4 you know, this is camera-ready for public review.
5 Okay?
6 CHAIR REMPE: Okay. So the Commission 7 theoretically could see three versions of Reg Guide --
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. Yes.
9 CHAIR REMPE: -- 8.B?
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Or --
11 CHAIR REMPE: One to support the emergency 12 planning; one to support your Part 50/52; and one to 13 support Part 53?
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That is right.
15 CHAIR REMPE: And they all would be 16 different --
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right. And so --
18 CHAIR REMPE: -- changes and they're going 19 to have to try and muddle through that?
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's right?
21 CHAIR REMPE: Okay. And there is a saving 22 grace. Reg Guides are run centrally out of the Office 23 of Research. There's Reg Guide PM. Those folks are 24 keeping all the balls in the air and keeping 25 everything aligned. So there are folks dedicated to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
47 1 make sure that that goes smoothly.
2 CHAIR BIER: So if I can summarize briefly 3 and kind of informally -- it sounds like what you're 4 saying is that just even though from an engineering 5 perspective it looks like it would be much more 6 efficient to make one set of changes and accommodate 7 everything from a regulatory perspective, that can't 8 be done because there has to be a version that's ready 9 to go when anything gets approved. Is that a fair --
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's right. The 11 process is is we have -- this is -- we're all subject 12 to notice and comment, all of these. Even if you 13 don't have a rulemaking, if you do a Reg Guide, our 14 process calls for -- if you're going to issue a Reg 15 Guide as a routine update, it's got to be noticed and 16 commented. So everything needs to have an FRN 17 associated with it that explains the changes. And it 18 would be -- essentially it's scope creep. In order to 19 do it otherwise we would have to somehow delay all the 20 rulemakings and have them perfectly synchronized so 21 that they all go -- and that's not going to happen.
22 That's not how we work. So yes, this is an 23 unavoidable feature of rulemaking.
24 CHAIR BIER: Thank you. I think that's 25 really a helpful explanation. And I see Dennis has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
48 1 his hand up also.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.
3 MEMBER BLEY: Yes, I was going to say 4 something similar. I think what Jim's just talked 5 about is kind of crucial to the things that have been 6 bothering many of the folks on the Committee. And 7 that Reg Guide tells you how you meet the regulation, 8 so it has to be consistent with the existing 9 regulation, or the one you're about to pass, which 10 kind of makes all this make sense.
11 I guess your comment, Jim, that it's not 12 going to happen -- well, it seems to me it would make 13 sense to hold these and get them out at the same time, 14 but I guess there are forces moving on each one that 15 want them in place as soon as possible rather than --
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right.
17 MEMBER -- synchronizing, putting them all 18 out together, which would simplify this a bit.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right. So, Dennis, if I 20 could humbly submit that -- like this rule here, for 21 example, it's -- I don't want to say it's world 22 hunger, but it's a million things. Any one of these 23 things could snag the whole show. If we have an issue 24 on one item, the whole thing stops until we resolve 25 it. So we have eight parts we're touching in this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
49 1 rule. We have 60 -- I'll go through this. We have 60 2 items in scope. So it just becomes impractical.
3 MEMBER BLEY: Let me make a last comment 4 though on this area. Not all 60 of those are going to 5 result in changes in the guidance, I wouldn't expect.
6 There are some changes in the guidance that are just 7 kind of bringing it up to date with current practice, 8 which --
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
10 MEMBER BLEY: -- whether you were working 11 on 53 or 50/52, they'd kind of be the same kind of 12 additions.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
14 MEMBER BLEY: So that probably helps 15 simplify things, especially if the same person or 16 small group is in charge of each of the guidance 17 documents so that they can track them under both 18 rules. Anyway thanks. That was a helpful discussion.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Great. All right.
20 CHAIR BIER: Any other questions or can we 21 move on?
22 Looks like we're good. Thanks, Jim.
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. So we talked about 24 the -- going to the next slide here. So I want to do 25 a little talk about this. And I apologize in advance.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
50 1 I was told that maybe you guys don't want to hear 2 about this, but I think this is also helpful to talk 3 about. So please indulge me on some basics.
4 So what's the proposed rule? A Notice of 5 Public Rulemaking is the official document that 6 announces and explains the NRC's plan to address a 7 problem or accomplish a goal. All proposed rules must 8 be published in the Federal Register to notify the 9 public and to give them an opportunity to submit 10 comments. The proposed rule and the public comments 11 received on it form the basis of the final rule.
12 The proposed rule will be referenced --
13 will reference a preliminary cost-benefit analysis of 14 the proposed changes. Proposed rules have preambles 15 which were formerly called SOCs, or statements of 16 considerations at the NRC. So the preamble contains 17 a summary, the date and contact information, and 18 supplementary information.
19 A proposed rule begins with a summary of 20 the issues and actions under consideration. It also 21 states why the rule is necessary. Under the dates and 22 addresses captions the NRC invites everyone to comment 23 on the proposed rule, sets a date for comments to be 24 submitted, and specifies the method for conveying the 25 comments. The FRN will encourage -- this one will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
51 1 encourage electronic submittal of the comments through 2 the official federal electronic comment portal, 3 regulations.gov.
4 So in the supplementary information 5 portion the NRC discusses the merits of the proposed 6 solution, cites important data and other information 7 used to develop the action, and details its choices 8 and reasoning. The NRC just also identify the legal 9 authority for issuing the rule. Following the 10 preamble the NRC publishes the regulatory text of the 11 proposal in full.
12 So the preamble is very important. We 13 sometimes -- think of this way: we're trying to --
14 this is something for the future where you try to get 15 inside the head of the NRC at the time that they 16 approved the rule. Why did they say this? What were 17 they thinking? That's the kind of information that 18 you get out of a proposed rule preamble. It's very 19 important and it's used in the future when we have to 20 look at things we maybe never thought of that come up 21 and what did we think when we wrote this? So that's 22 the sort of thing that is important here.
23 MEMBER HALNON: Hey, Jim, this is Greg 24 Halnon?
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
52 1 MEMBER HALNON: Since you brought it up, 2 the cost-benefit analysis, about -- maybe it was a 3 decade ago industry worked really hard with the NRC to 4 try to improve that process to get a better cost-5 benefit analysis with industry input. Is this --
6 preliminary cost-benefit analysis, does it get any 7 industry input --
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: The whole thing? Yes.
9 MEMBER HALNON: -- given the importance of 10 it downstream?
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. Yes, so let me --
12 the answer is yes. We had a preliminary cost-benefit 13 analysis. It was baked in. It was part of --
14 integral to, rather, the reg basis. So in other 15 words, every -- if you go back to the old reg basis of 16 this rule, you can see what the staff figured. And we 17 got comments from the public saying no, no, no, this 18 is low. This is why. That's very helpful to the 19 staff because we only know what we know. And if 20 you're saying -- industry or others are saying no, no, 21 it really costs this much, you need -- we consider 22 that, those questions. So it's part of the rule as 23 far as the whole thing goes out for public comment.
24 Does that help?
25 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, I guess is it correct NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
53 1 to say that that second bullet there, the preliminary 2 cost-benefit analysis, the one that's issued for 3 public comment, already had industry input?
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, we had to have some 5 input from what we got from the regulatory basis.
6 MEMBER HALNON: Okay. So it does --
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well then, so it goes out 8 and industry inputs -- industry gets a chance during 9 the proposed rule comment period to comment on the 10 rule language, on the preamble, any attached 11 documents, which include the reg analysis. That's all 12 open for inspection by the public.
13 MEMBER HALNON: Okay. Is there any 14 threshold that the cost-benefit analysis comes back 15 and says do nothing from here on out?
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. Well, we could 17 change -- we're not committed right now at this point, 18 so we're in -- let me try to explain the rulemaking 19 process. So this goes out for public comment 20 hopefully over the late summer, right? Our job is to 21 develop the final rule after that. So the final rule 22 is based on what we said in the proposed rule, but if 23 it's a logical outgrowth from that -- what we said in 24 that proposed rule, it's something that hasn't been --
25 it's basically not a de novo, brand new issue, if it's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
54 1 something that we've already talked about in some way, 2 in some fashion; we asked the question, we made a 3 statement and it is -- it could be construed as a 4 logical outgrowth and that could make it change in the 5 final rule.
6 We still have -- we are supposed to take 7 public comments in the propose rule into account when 8 we issue the final rule. So this is not the final 9 say, this rule, when it goes out in -- hopefully in 10 the summer. Does that help?
11 MEMBER HALNON: Okay. But before you go 12 further, the question was at what point is that 13 preliminary cost-benefit analysis -- does it have the 14 ability to say it's not cost-beneficial if we're 15 stopped?
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. If we find it's not 17 cost-beneficial, why are we doing it? I mean, there's 18 other reasons. It's not all based on cost-benefit.
19 And I don't want to digress.
20 MEMBER HALNON: That's the point is 21 that --
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right, but there -- yes, 23 it's not --
24 MEMBER HALNON: -- is it a go/no go on the 25 cost-benefit?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
55 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: No. No, that's not -- I 2 mean we take into account cost, but if there's other 3 reasons: adequate protection, or substantial increase 4 in safety, or other reasons, something may not be 5 cost-beneficial, but we'll do it because it makes 6 sense or we're trying to achieve the overall goal of 7 the rule, which is alignment. So there's things in 8 this rule -- I'll tell you now, this rule is overall 9 well -- very much so cost-beneficial, but there's 10 elements in it that are not and there's elements that 11 are.
12 But all of these things that we're --
13 that's in this rule achieve the goal that we were 14 directed to -- or at least in my opinion, to answer:
15 align parts 50 and 52; encourage the use of PRA in 16 design; severe accidents in design, all that stuff.
17 So we'll get to that. And I have a little bit of a 18 blurb on each topical area, whether it was cost-19 beneficial or not, or how we calculated, which I hope 20 helps.
21 MEMBER HALNON: Okay. Thanks, Jim.
22 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron Ballinger.
23 Is there stakeholder input on the cost-benefit 24 analysis?
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: The answer is yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
56 1 MEMBER BLEY: Jim, this is Dennis Bley.
2 I want to say something about cost-benefit and ask you 3 a question about preamble. In that last discussion 4 you had on cost-benefit, I think one thing that's 5 important for us to recognize in the more general kind 6 of cost-benefit analysis that many of us have been 7 involved in all those extra things you talked about 8 are actually benefits. In the formal cost-benefit 9 analysis it's all dollars, so it's only the dollar 10 cost in benefit. So the other things that would 11 factor into a more general cost-benefit analysis are 12 the things Jim talked about.
13 I'm wondering if changing from statements 14 of consideration to preamble is more than just a name 15 change. I'm thinking that before we had all our 16 records on computers in the past it's been really hard 17 at times for certain old rules to find the statements 18 of consideration, but at least when legal issues come 19 up or new issues arise, reviewing those can be very 20 helpful in deciding what one needs to do.
21 Is it that the preamble now will be more 22 formally kept track of or is it just a name change?
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: It's just a name change.
24 I mean what I understand is that every other 25 regulatory agency uses the word preamble except for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
57 1 the NRC. I remember rulemaking classes. They would 2 always kind of -- these are external training classes.
3 They would say you know I don't know why you guys use 4 statements of consideration when everybody else uses 5 preamble. So I think we're trying to become a little 6 bit more uniform. But it doesn't -- in my -- at least 7 what I understand is it is absolutely not changing the 8 purpose of what that is in any way.
9 MEMBER BLEY: But somehow; and I guess 10 it's with ADAMS, it's now for rules that come forward 11 it's going to be easier to find the old preambles than 12 it had been in the past. I think that's already built 13 into the process.
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right, and we also have 15 a group that helps us, the Legal Research Center in 16 NRC. They are essentially a bunch of folks that are 17 ready to jump to help staff find this kind of 18 information. It is a challenge, but they know where 19 a lot of this old, old stuff lives and they're able to 20 do some searches that are kind of high-powered and 21 more outside of our tech staff's ability. So we do 22 have those folks there. They help us out.
23 MEMBER BLEY: Okay. Thanks. For members 24 who haven't been deeply involved in this process 25 before, one of the important things with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
58 1 statements of consideration or the preamble is when 2 issues come up of what does this rule actually mean, 3 that's often the place where you go to find out what 4 the Commissioners really were trying to do with the 5 rule. So they're very helpful at times.
6 CHAIR BIER: Yes, again as kind of an 7 informal layperson commented, it sounds like what the 8 court talks about of legislative intent, right.
9 Except that the legislature never write down their 10 legislative intent, so we have to guess. Whereas here 11 somebody actually writes down what the intent is so 12 you can go back later. So that sounds very helpful.
13 MEMBER BROWN: This is Charlie Brown. Can 14 I ask one thing on thought process?
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.
16 MEMBER BROWN: I've been through this 17 before on statements of consideration and I guess I've 18 always viewed those -- the rule should be able to 19 stand on its own. You go read the rule. Industry 20 should read the rule. They should be able to figure 21 out what to do to meet that rule. If they have to paw 22 back through statements of consideration, that's not 23 a good idea.
24 I understand the intent is a good point; 25 forgetting who -- Vicki said that or somebody said NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
59 1 that. That part I can understand quite well, but the 2 rule should stand on its own. You shouldn't have to 3 search back through statements of consideration to try 4 to figure out is that what they really meant? It's 5 just a thought that when -- when this rule is finally 6 finalized the rule really should stand on its own.
7 That's the only point I was trying to make.
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's absolutely 9 correct.
10 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you.
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, that's perfect.
12 Any other questions or comments?
13 CHAIR REMPE: Dennis, your hand's up but 14 I think you just forgot to put it down, right?
15 CHAIR BIER: Okay. I think we can move 16 on. Thanks.
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. All right. So let 18 me show you a little bit more about the preamble here.
19 So this is the actual preamble; I hope you can see 20 this, for this rule. So I'll try to provide an 21 overview of the content and scope of the proposed 22 rule. So here's the table of contents in the 23 preliminary draft proposed rule preamble for this 24 rule.
25 So there's 61 items discussed in 11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
60 1 general technical areas in the scope of the proposed 2 rule, and that's about -- that's up from the 50 items 3 we had in the scope of the regulatory basis that was 4 issued for public comment as briefed at the last time 5 we met, which is last March.
6 The proposed rule preamble discusses how 7 the staff dispositioned each item that the staff 8 communicated in the regulatory basis. So in other 9 words, we wrote this thing to have no gap or a 10 complete story so that you'll know what we did. Using 11 this rule you'll be able to know how we adjudicated 12 all of those items in the proposed rule phase.
13 Any questions on that?
14 So I'm going to be referring to these 15 sections, like III.A. You might see them in 16 parentheses. That's what I'm talking about. This is 17 the preamble,Section III.A. These are your technical 18 areas. This is really the meat of the entire rule 19 right here.
20 And this stuff here is some focused area 21 items. Some of it's boilerplate; other it is not, but 22 basically you're -- where you want to understand the 23 thinking you go through thisSection III. And then 24 after availability of contents you actually get what 25 they call -- we call issuing instructions, which is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
61 1 actually the rule language. So that's the whole 2 proposed rule.
3 MEMBER HALNON: Hey, Jim, this is Greg 4 Halnon. To Dennis' point earlier, will this have a 5 report number or something that's searchable, or how 6 is this going to be retrievable?
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, so this -- well, 8 let me see. There's a couple ways I can answer that.
9 First off, this is -- actually the draft that's 10 available to the ACRS is available publicly in ADAMS.
11 I mentioned the ML number of this preliminary draft.
12 And again as we said before, we're still reviewing the 13 thing in staff. We could change it. But if you want 14 to -- this actual snapshot of the rule is available 15 now for --
16 MEMBER HALNON: Yes, well, I got that.
17 I'm talking about 10 years from now.
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Ten years from now this 19 is -- there's a Federal Register notice. The way 20 rulemaking works is we cite -- we note -- everything 21 that goes out has got a -- a final rule, has got a 22 Federal Register notice citation. And that's the 23 Office of Federal Register keeps track of that.
24 MEMBER HALNON: There would be a footnote 25 in the rule -- I mean on the --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
62 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
2 MEMBER HALNON: -- 10 CFR whatever?
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
4 MEMBER HALNON: There will be a footnote 5 saying what Federal Register number it is?
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, sir.
7 MEMBER HALNON: Okay. All right. Thanks.
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. All right. Any 9 other questions?
10 I'll move onto slide 14. So I just 11 mentioned this stuff. So many of the items that was 12 in the reg basis screened into the proposed rule. And 13 the staff added a few more based on public and staff 14 feedback. So of those items 18 of them will also 15 require the staff to develop guidance updates for 16 notice and comment with the proposed rule. There are 17 no new guidance documents proposed. So we're not 18 creating something brand new here, just changes.
19 So we identified 14 different guidance 20 documents that will be issued for comment with the 21 proposed rule, specifically 8 Regulatory Guides and 22 six revised sections of NUREG-0800, which is a 23 Standard Review Plan. The staff also identified the 24 need to update one technical report with this 25 rulemaking, a NUREG.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
63 1 So this rule also spans a huge -- or not 2 huge -- a large number of CFR parts besides Part 50 3 and 52 in order to make conforming changes. So those 4 parts are Parts 2, 21, 26, 51, 55, 70, and 73.
5 So I can just go real briefly for the 6 record of what those eight guidance documents are.
7 I'll just say what they are.
8 Regulatory Guidance is Draft Guide 1384, 9 which is Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for 10 Use in Operator Training License Examinations, and 11 that is Revision -- would be Revision 5 to the 12 existing Regulatory Guide 1.149.
13 Draft Guide 1394, which is An Approach for 14 Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed 15 Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing 16 Basis. And that would be Revision 4 to the existing 17 Reg Guide 1.174.
18 Draft Guide 1395, which is An Approach to 19 Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic 20 Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities.
21 And that would be Revision 3 to existing Reg Guide 22 1.200.
23 Draft Guide 1398, which is Guidance for 24 Implementing 10 CFR 50.59 Changes, Tests, and 25 Experiments. And that would be Revision 2 to existing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
64 1 Reg Guide 1.187.
2 Draft 1399, Applications for Nuclear Power 3 Plants, which would be Revision 2 to existing Reg 4 Guide 1.206.
5 Draft Guide 4031, which is General Site 6 Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations. And 7 that would be Revision 4 to Reg Guide 4.7.
8 Draft Guide 5067, which is Access 9 Authorization Programs for Nuclear Plants, which would 10 be Revision 3 to existing Reg Guide 5.66.
11 And finally, Draft Guide 5069, Fitness for 12 Duty Programs for New Nuclear Power Plant Construction 13 Sites. And that would be Revision 1 to Reg Guide 14 5.84. So those are the eight guides.
15 And for the SRP sections I will tell you 16 what those are. Section 1.0, which is Introduction to 17 Interfaces. And that would be Revision 3 to the 18 existing Section 1.0.
19 Section 13.3, which is Emergency Planning.
20 And that would be Revision 4 to the existing Section 21 13.3.
22 Section 13.6.1, Physical Security. And 23 that would be Revision 3 to the existing Section 24 13.6.1.
25 Section 13.6.4, which is Access NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
65 1 Authorization Operational Program. Would be Revision 2 1 to existing Section 13.6.4.
3 And as I mentioned before, Section 19.0, 4 Probabilistic Risk Assessments and Severe Accident 5 Evaluation for New Reactors, which would be Revision 6 4 to the existing Section 19.0.
7 Section 19.1, Determining the Technical 8 Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for 9 Risk-Informed Activities would be Revision 4 to the 10 existing Section 19.1.
11 And that one technical report is NUREG-12 1021, which is Operator Licensing Examination 13 Standards for Power Reactors. And that would be 14 Revision 13 to the existing NUREG-1021.
15 So I hope you guys took good notes. No, 16 there will be a transcript.
17 CHAIR REMPE: Thank you for that.
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I will --
19 CHAIR BIER: That's exactly what I wrote 20 down in my notes. There will be a transcript.
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. So we're on 22 slide 15. So the scope includes six items in four 23 technical areas meant to better align Part 50 and 52.
24 The FRN, which is the Federal Register notice -- I'll 25 be calling it an FRN from time to time -- includes a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
66 1 detailed discussion of these items in the preamble 2 Sections III.A through III.D of the proposed rule.
3 And they're basically the -- well, they are -- they're 4 the same areas that we identified in the originating 5 SECY.
6 Next slide. All right. So here's all the 7 fun stuff. So this is the lessons learned from recent 8 experience. The scope also includes 54 lessons 9 learned items. The staff organized these in general 10 areas of operator licensing, physical security, 11 fitness for duty, emergency planning, parts 52 12 licensing process, environmental topics, a topical 13 applicability of other processes to Part 52 process, 14 and finally miscellaneous topics. And those numbers 15 in parentheses show the number of items in each area.
16 There is one more item in the scope that 17 is not on this slide that would be part of the 18 licensing process. So if you do my math, you'll see 19 it's actually 22 items. The reason why it's 21 is for 20 that item we are stating in the proposed rule that we 21 want to stay status quo with an item. I'll go into 22 detail in a few minutes, but basically during the 23 course of development of the proposed rule we decided 24 we didn't want to make any changes. So again we want 25 to make sure there's a complete story of what we said NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
67 1 in the reg basis and what we're saying in the proposed 2 rule. That's why we have to talk about it.
3 CHAIR REMPE: So, Jim, is this a good 4 place to remind you of my comment earlier about the 5 SRM on physical security and that ACRS does have some 6 -- the Commission asks ACRS to look into some specific 7 technical issues? So could you give us a highlight of 8 what the physical security changes are since -- unless 9 we go to the back where you have the actual rule 10 language there's no other slides discussing what 11 you've done.
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. I can do that as 13 a really kind of short highlight. Give me a second.
14 Well, one thing we do have, too -- and 15 again I'm not sure if we're going to have this meeting 16 later on in the month, but we do have the opportunity 17 to come back to you guys on the 18th. Let me just see 18 if I can bring it up. I can --
19 CHAIR REMPE: Again, I'm just asking for 20 a high-level overview.
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Got you.
22 CHAIR REMPE: And even if we didn't have 23 the meeting on the 18th, you could bring it up to us 24 during the Full Committee meeting. Just in your words 25 what are the major changes that you made?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
68 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. Sure.
2 CHAIR REMPE: And you've discussed them in 3 public meetings.
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So yes. So there's 5 really two main areas here in physical security:
6 Well, we have first off -- well, in Section F.1 and 7 F.2 we cover both physical security and fitness for 8 duty. So in physical security we're talking about two 9 areas, which is the protection of un-irradiated fuel 10 and implementation requirements of Section 73.55 and 11 73.66. And then another topic on requirements for 12 special nuclear material of moderate or low strategic 13 significance.
14 So, well, those --
15 CHAIR REMPE: I'm not so interested; maybe 16 other members are, in fitness for duty changes. I am 17 curious though when you talk about protection of un-18 irradiated fuel because again that might affect source 19 terms. How do you treat somebody who brings a mobile 20 reactor to the site? It's a loaded core and yet it's 21 not been irradiated. Does it need more protection or 22 do you leave it in the less protection area?
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I can assure you that 24 I don't have the answer to that.
25 (Laughter.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
69 1 CHAIR REMPE: That's a great answer. And 2 just get back to us, okay?
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. Sorry. But 4 we do have folks -- we heard the question and we can 5 start thinking about that and reengage with you guys.
6 CHAIR REMPE: That's fine. I see a hand 7 up. I don't know. I'd have to stand. The way this 8 is set up I can't tell who it is.
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
10 MR. NGUYEN: Howard, you can speak.
11 MR. BENOWITZ: I'm trying. Thank you.
12 Howard Benowitz, NRC's Office of the General Counsel.
13 The two issues that -- physical security. One is the 14 protection of Category 2 and 3 materials, special 15 nuclear material. Right now our current regulations 16 in Part 70 and 73 apply to Part 70 and 52 licensees.
17 There's an exception for Part 50 licensees operating 18 nuclear power -- excuse me, Part 50 nuclear power 19 reactor licensees, talking about the power reactor 20 licensees.
21 And in this proposed rule the staff would 22 remove that exception so that -- it is part of the 23 alignment aspect of this rule to align the Part -- the 24 physical security requirements for Part 50 and 52, 25 power reactor licensees, so that when one of those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
70 1 licensees brings a Category 2 or 3 SNM, quantity of 2 SNM onto its -- within a Zone of Controlled Area but 3 outside the protected area, they would protect that 4 material under the same physical security 5 requirements, whether you're a Part 50 or 52 licensee.
6 Today the Part 50 licensee does not have to protect 7 that material like the Part 52 licensee does. So we 8 want to align those requirements. That's one change.
9 The second one is it's a timing provision.
10 Right now under 73.55 when a licensee has special 11 nuclear material within a protected area, there's some 12 ambiguity, depending on who you ask -- so we're 13 clarifying it to make it as clear as possible that a 14 licensee, when they bring the material into the 15 protected area they have to protect that material 16 either under the current -- 73.67 or 73.55. In 73.55 17 though they must protect it under 73.55 when the fuel 18 is -- the initial load of that fuel into the reactor.
19 That's sort of the latest point at which the licensee 20 could protect the material under 73.67.
21 And just to give you an understanding of 22 why that's important, the requirements under 73.55 are 23 the much more stringent than the requirements under 24 73.67. So once the material is in the protected area 25 and there's an initial fuel load, then the licensee is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
71 1 required to have a physical security program under 2 73.55, the most stringent requirements for the nuclear 3 power reactor licensee.
4 So the second change of the two physical 5 security changes -- it's really a timing change, 6 proposed change. When would the licensee's 73.55 7 requirements be required? When would the physical 8 security program be required to comply with 73.55?
9 And under the proposed rule no later than when that 10 initial fuel is loaded into the reactor. So in a 11 nutshell those are the two physical security 12 proposals.
13 CHAIR REMPE: Okay. Well, thank you for 14 that clarification. I am still curious though about 15 my question that I asked Jim earlier. Because there's 16 an emphasis on when you load the fuel in the reactor 17 on how things are implemented, and I would be curious 18 how the staff intends to address that with a mobile 19 reactor.
20 So whenever you get a chance, let me know.
21 Okay, Jim?
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
23 All right. Any other questions on the 24 scope here of the lessons learned stuff?
25 CHAIR REMPE: Actually I guess I did have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
72 1 one other. What about high-assay, low-enriched 2 uranium? It seemed like -- that some of the 3 requirements might affect it --
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So --
5 CHAIR REMPE: And I'm guessing from what 6 you told -- oh, go ahead and answer.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sorry. I kind of have a 8 little extra cheat here. I'm also working on a 9 rulemaking plan to ensure that future enriched fuel --
10 we have the right regulatory structure in place to 11 license that stuff. So we are thinking along those 12 lines, but that's a separate rulemaking activity that 13 we are proposing. We're at the rulemaking plan phase.
14 In other words, we're trying to obtain Commission 15 approval to proceed with the efforts to develop the 16 rule, or actually the reg basis for that. But we are 17 thinking along the lines of the need to ensure that 18 our regulations will support some of this HALEU stuff.
19 Does that help?
20 CHAIR REMPE: Yes. So none of the Part 21 50/52 changes will affect HALEU is what you're telling 22 me, right?
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That is correct. That is 24 correct.
25 CHAIR REMPE: Okay. That helps. Thank NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
73 1 you.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.
3 All right. So this is a good one. So 4 let's talk about this. So relationship to non-LWRs.
5 So we're on slide 17. So we asked a question in the 6 regulatory basis basically on what should we -- in 7 addition to what we're doing what should we do, if 8 anything, to address non-LWRs? And we determined that 9 based on public comments that the staff needed to add 10 a cross-cutting item to the scope, and that is -- we 11 call it the relationship of this rulemaking activity 12 to advanced reactors. And the FRN covers this topic 13 in detail in Section 2.1.2.
14 Basically when we say covers it, it 15 explains what the relationship is of this rulemaking 16 to advanced reactors. So it basically explains how 17 the reader should -- reader of this rule should put 18 the rulemaking activity in context with other NRC 19 licensing process efforts and rulemakings that relate 20 to non-light water reactor technology.
21 So the comment recommended -- commenter 22 recommended that the NRC perform a comprehensive 23 review of Part 50 and 52 to evaluate such -- sorry, 24 each provision of the regulations with respect to the 25 applicability to non-light water reactor technology.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
74 1 So the staff partially agreed with that comment, 2 however the effort to conduct such a review would be 3 outside the scope of the Commission's direction on 4 this activity. However, the staff agreed to evaluate 5 the applicability to non-LWRs on those areas where we 6 are already changing the regulations to ensure the 7 recommended rule language is as technology-neutral as 8 possible. Does that help, I hope, try to explain that 9 a little bit? Any questions on that?
10 CHAIR REMPE: It helps me. And actually 11 going through the guidance situation really helped 12 earlier today, so thank you.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.
14 All right. I'll move onto the next slide.
15 So these are topics of interest. Basically what that 16 means it's our understanding or my understanding of 17 what you folks would -- are interested in talking 18 about. So basically what I'm trying to say is that 19 the following slide discussion is not the whole scope 20 of the rule. So I picked what I believe is the most 21 important stuff and put it in priority order for 22 discussion to get the best kind of discussion as 23 possible. And so we're going to go through these 24 items.
25 CHAIR BIER: So, Jim, at some point this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
75 1 morning we are probably going to need to take a break, 2 and I'm thinking now might be the time before you 3 delve into a long topic. I know we're probably behind 4 where you thought you would be, but --
5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: No, I am all for that.
6 CHAIR BIER: Okay. Shall we say 10 7 minutes?
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
9 PARTICIPANT: Fifteen?
10 CHAIR BIER: Fifteen? Fifteen. There's 11 a vote for 15.
12 PARTICIPANT: I got to let my dog out.
13 CHAIR BIER: Oh, that's fair enough.
14 Okay. Fifteen. All right. So we will all be back 15 here shortly.
16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 17 off the record at 10:01 a.m. and resumed at 10:17 18 a.m.)
19 CHAIR BIER: Okay, I think we are back in 20 session here, and one or two members may be a little 21 slow getting back, but we should probably go ahead, 22 and move forward Jim, if you're ready.
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. So, just to recap 24 where we broke, the rest of this presentation is going 25 to be on specific topics of interest, and again, these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
76 1 are topics that the staff believes HRS is interested 2 in. So, it's broken up in these areas, and we have a 3 little guide here for what slides each one is on, and 4 with that I'm going to proceed to the next slide, 5 which is the licensing process.
6 So, the proposed rule addresses several 7 different areas that relate to lessons learned from 8 the Part 52 licensing process, and these are design 9 certification renewal discussed in proposed rule 10 section III.H.1. The Part 52 change process, which is 11 discussed in section III.H.2 of the proposed rule FRA.
12 Design scope and standardization discussed in section 13 III.H.3. References to standard design approvals 14 discussed in section III.H.4.
15 And finally, the content of new reactor 16 applications discussed in section III.H.5. All right, 17 next slide, I am now on slide 20 for folks that are 18 just on the phone. So, this is a DC renewal topic.
19 The proposed rule removes the 15 year duration of the 20 standard design certification along with the 21 associated renewal requirements. The effected 22 regulations are 10 CFR 50.55, duration of 23 certification, where the staff proposed to retain the 24 provision to allow an applicant to reference a DC 25 application under review.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
77 1 And 10 CFR 52.57, application for renewal, 2 that's also 10 CFR 52.59, criteria for renewal, and 10 3 CFR 52.61, duration of renewal. All those will 4 remove, and reserve those sections. So, the proposed 5 ruling, which for this we put it on a backup slide, 6 slides 73, and 74, and I can jump to those if need be, 7 but the language for these changes are in slides 73, 8 and 74.
9 So, why did we do this? The staff found 10 that renewing a design certification has little value 11 if there is no license applicant who references the 12 design prior to design certification renewal.
13 Although the proposed change would eliminate the need 14 for staff to use a renewal application, the proposed 15 changes retain the issue of finality requirements of 16 the design certification.
17 These requirements allow the NRC to 18 modify, rescind, or impose new requirements on the 19 certified information if necessary for safety. Thus, 20 the NRC retains the flexibility to address significant 21 issues that affect the DC when required. DC vendors 22 would continue to be subject to the DC information 23 maintenance requirements indefinitely. The DC vendor 24 may seek recision of the DC by submitting a request to 25 the NRC.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
78 1 So, if it comes to it, you can rescind 2 your certification, and then you won't have to worry 3 about that information collection need. The NRC 4 received seven public comments on the item as it was 5 discussed in the regulatory basis. The FRN has a 6 summary of the comments, and the staff response in 7 response to these comments in section III.H.1. These 8 comments were supportive, generally, of the staff's 9 recommendation.
10 In addition to response to public 11 comments, the staff agreed that like DCs, for similar 12 reasons, the proposed rule should eliminate the 13 duration, and renewal requirements for standard design 14 approvals, and manufacturing licenses. The staff is 15 now proposing to revise the rule language in sections 16 52.147, 52.173, 52.177, 52.179, and 52.181 to remove 17 such requirements, and those you can see on slide 75 18 of the backup slides.
19 Also in consideration of a specific 20 request for comment, the staff decided to propose to 21 remove the expired DC appendices, B for system 80 22 plus, and C for the AP 600 from the CFR. So, that's 23 in slide 76, although the response to the public of 24 that question that we asked, the public supported 25 retaining the expired DC information. When we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
79 1 evaluated the rule, and what we have to do to retain 2 it, or if we should update it, or not, we decided that 3 it would not be completely correct to -- it would be 4 more correct to remove the expired information from 5 the CFR.
6 There's no need to have expired 7 information in the CFR, all that work is still out 8 there, it's in ADAMS, but it doesn't need to be in the 9 CFR. Does anybody have questions on DC Renewal?
10 CHAIR REMPE: So, it's not really on DC 11 renewal, it's more related to the manufacturing 12 license, and I didn't see any other place to bring 13 this up in this slide, so I'm going to bring it up 14 here. But could you clarify a little bit about what's 15 going on about the mandatory hearings, the changes in 16 the requirements for a mandatory hearing for the 17 manufacturing license?
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I don't --
19 CHAIR REMPE: Isn't there a change, and 20 it's reducing the need for a mandatory hearing? Or 21 maybe I misread something, there was a lot of material 22 we had to read, and I might have missed something.
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, so if this was a 24 Part 2 change, are you referring to some of the Part 25 2 changes that we have?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
80 1 CHAIR REMPE: It was related to, I think 2 Part 52, I don't think it was a 50 thing, and it was 3 something about there's not -- I guess I may have 4 misunderstood it, but it looked like the requirements 5 for a mandatory hearing for manufacturing licenses 6 were changing. But maybe I misunderstood it, and I'll 7 go back, and look at my references, and see if I can 8 figure it out. But it probably won't be until the 9 18th meeting before I can figure it out, or the 10 committee meeting.
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: We do have an item on 12 clarifications for what can be discussed in a hearing 13 in --
14 CHAIR REMPE: For manufacturing licenses?
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well no, I don't recall 16 that, but it basically has to do with ITAAC, and the 17 scope of ITAAC hearings, to basically be clear that 18 those hearings are limited to the issue of the ITAAC 19 itself, and not everything. So, we made some 20 clarifications there, I'm not sure if that's related.
21 CHAIR REMPE: Let me go back, I didn't 22 fully understand what I was reading, so I'll go back, 23 and try, and understand better. But nothing jogs your 24 mind in that topic, okay.
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, but that doesn't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
81 1 mean that -- all right, I'll move on. Does anybody 2 else have any questions about this issue of DC 3 renewals? All right, I'll move on. So, we're on 4 slide 21. So, the proposed rule contains six rule 5 making items related to various change processes in 6 Part 52. These items are changes to allow combined 7 license applicants to make changes to the plant 8 specific design control document related to the 9 organization, and section numbering without prior NRC 10 approval.
11 Inclusion of 10 CFR 50.59C provisions in 12 the Part 52 change process, but these are specifically 13 the addition of the provision that the change process 14 in the DC appendix applies unless a more specific 15 change process governs the change. And that's 16 basically making the change process more parallel in 17 50.59, and the change process in Part 52. And then 18 we're also making changes that reduce the burden to 19 implement a change when the plant is being 20 constructed.
21 And then we are adding a couple of new 22 processes, one is the addition of a new process that 23 will allow an applicant to request variances from a 24 referenced standard design approval. We basically 25 needed this because it really became important when we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
82 1 decided to remove the duration of SDAs, there's going 2 to be more need to proceed, there's more need to 3 request a change.
4 So, we needed to create a process to 5 support that. We also created a new process to allow 6 a standard design approval holder to amend a standard 7 design approval to basically make a generic type 8 change. The addition of provisions that permit a COL 9 applicant to reference SDAs, and manufacturing 10 licenses that are currently under review. So, 11 basically just like we made the allowance for DC under 12 review, we're also going to allow that for an SDA, and 13 manufacturing license that are under review.
14 MR. BLEY: Jim?
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah?
16 MR. BLEY: The one that's a designer, you 17 make a change to their existing rule, how is that 18 setup to reflect -- supposing we already have half a 19 dozen of these plants built, and then make a change to 20 the design cert, how does that reflect on the ones 21 that are already out there?
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, that's a -- I 23 understand that question has to do with 24 standardization, and we do talk about this a little 25 bit later, and I will say that we are also making a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
83 1 change to the change process to remove the need to 2 justify the change on the impact to standardization.
3 So, let me see if I can explain this a little bit 4 clearer. So, we're not -- we still uphold the 5 commission's policy on standardization.
6 Part 52 is still a standardization rule, 7 it is designed from the get go to make sure plants are 8 more standard. However, we found out as a lesson 9 learned that we got little to no value out of the 10 response requirement that we had in regulations in the 11 change process for the applicants to justify, and the 12 NRC to review the impact of a proposed change on 13 standardization.
14 So, what we're doing is we're eliminating 15 that need to discuss that issue for a change. So, the 16 answer is that we don't believe that we're going to 17 have much of an impact on standardization to the 18 degree that we think we're going to be reducing, or 19 eliminating the goal of standardization, which is to 20 make the plants more standard. I mean we're certainly 21 -- these plants are going to be very much the same.
22 They're not going to be identical, but 23 they're going to be very much the same, unlike the old 24 plants, or the old process where we had a very wide 25 variety of design, and every plant was quite NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
84 1 different.
2 MR. BLEY: I'd like to challenge your 3 thinking on that just a little bit. Up until now, 4 we've had designs that were certified, and quite a bit 5 later somebody actually tried to build one, and when 6 they tried, they had to make substantial changes to 7 the design cert. But with some of these small 8 reactors, the rumors are some will come in, and get a 9 Part 50, and then come over, and get a Part 52 after 10 they've had some experience with it.
11 And if that actually comes to pass, Part 12 52 might operate in the area of standardization, like 13 it was expected to do originally, and it might become 14 more important in the next 5 to 15 years.
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, anybody on the call 16 from the staff that would like to respond, or provide 17 input on that? Please raise your hand. Omid?
18 MR. TABATABAI: Yes, sorry, good morning, 19 this is Omid Tabatabai. I think I just wanted to 20 point out that there are two aspects to that 21 standardization question. One is that the NRC is 22 still maintaining standardization as the licensing 23 goal for Part 52. The item that this rule making is 24 touching on is only when an app, and license request 25 an exemption, and as part of that request, they don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
85 1 have to consider, or justify how that extension 2 request would impact the standardization.
3 I just wanted to make it clear that it is 4 still the NRC's policy with the standardization of 5 Part 52 as a goal.
6 MR. BLEY: So, this is really affecting 7 the people who have come in for a COL, to actually 8 build their design, and they want to make a change, 9 they don't have to justify its impact on 10 standardization.
11 MR. TABATABAI: Yes, it's actually 12 depending -- because it has no impact on safety -- if 13 it's not a safety issue, has minimal impact on safety, 14 then the standardization should not be an unnecessary 15 burden on the applicant, that's the idea.
16 MR. BLEY: You've got me -- well if it has 17 minimal impact on safety, what's it even doing in 18 here? But go ahead.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, all right. The one 20 thing I want to talk about a little bit more is 21 remember I mentioned that there were 61 items in the 22 FRN, and there's only 60 that we're doing rule making.
23 So, there was another item here in the change process 24 area. That was an item, if you recall from the reg 25 basis, we wanted to move the portions of the Tier 2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
86 1 change process from the DC appendices to the Part 52 2 subpart B.
3 And so we were working on that, and we 4 decided, based on what we would have to do with the 5 regulations, the resulting regulation would be more 6 complicated. So, we decided not to do that. So, the 7 proposed rule explained why we were no longer 8 recommending rule making to move that 10 CFR 50.59 9 change process from the Part 52 appendices to the Part 10 52 subpart B. All right, I'll move --
11 CHAIR REMPE: Jim, before you leave the 12 slide, including the 50.59 provisions in the Part 52 13 change process, could you talk about some of the 14 comments you received from the public, and the staff's 15 disposition?
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, I'm going to cover 17 that in slide 23.
18 CHAIR REMPE: Okay, I'll be patient.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, any other questions 20 before I roll into this?
21 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, this is Charlie Brown, 22 part of that transition on slide 23, we went through 23 considerable gyrations in Part 50 last year with the 24 NEI 96-07, and reg 1.187, and there were several 25 rounds to get that resolved. Does this, providing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
87 1 these provisions, does that carry all that stuff 2 forward into Part 52 also? It goes along with Joy's 3 question, you can answer then, it's just the thought 4 process, I wanted to make sure we hit on that.
5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
6 MEMBER BROWN: Because you've also 7 proposed changes to Part 50.59C, you've added nine, 8 and ten under there, which when I read it, looks like 9 it considerably expands, or lessens the likelihood of 10 being able to make changes without an LAR. So, we 11 need to talk about that, that's all.
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right, and there's a 13 couple of aspects about 50.59 here. We touch it in 14 two areas in this rule. We talk about the change 15 process here, but we also talk about it in severe 16 accidents. So, some of these things, we'll be talking 17 about 50.59 two times in this presentation.
18 MEMBER BROWN: Okay, thank you.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, yeah, once we're done 20 with slide 23, we'll make sure that we check with you 21 to make sure that we've got your answer. Okay, so I'm 22 going to move on to slide 22. So, this one is pretty 23 straight forward. We're on slide 22 for folks that 24 are following on the phone. The proposed rule would 25 change DC appendices A, D, E, and F, and any other DC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
88 1 appendix in effect when the final rule is published.
2 So, specifically the proposed rule would 3 amend section IV.A.2 of each appendix to remove the 4 requirement for an applicant that references the 5 appendix to use the same organization, and numbering 6 in its plant specific DCD that was used in the 7 referenced appendix. And this would -- purposefully 8 this is to reduce unnecessary burden on the NRC, and 9 the industry by eliminating the need for one type of 10 an exemption.
11 This language, if you want to look at 12 reference slide 77, that's where we talk, that's where 13 you can see the change. Requirement is basically 14 administrative in nature, and we think that it's not 15 related to safety, it's certainly something that we 16 can do. So, public comments on this were supportive, 17 but requested the NRC to make further changes to allow 18 licensees to change more Tier 1 information without 19 prior NRC approval.
20 The NRC disagrees with these 21 recommendations, and the staff is not proposing 22 further changes to the regulations as a result of the 23 comments. So, as far as cost goes, other than the 24 rule making cost, which all of these incur a small 25 incremental rule making cost, the staff assessed the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
89 1 cost benefit of this item qualitatively. In other 2 words, there was no dollar value assigned in our reg 3 analysis.
4 Next slide, we're right here where we want 5 to be, slide 23. The proposed rule would change the 6 change process in each DC rule to include provisions 7 similar to 10 CFR 50.59C. Specifically, the proposed 8 rule had a provision in section VIII.B.5.A that would 9 direct that if applicable regulations establish a more 10 specific criteria, for example tech specs, I think 11 tech specs is a good example, maybe 50.55A is another 12 one.
13 That process supersedes the change process 14 described in the DC rule in section VIII.B.5.B, and 15 that change, you can see that on reference slide 78 of 16 this presentation. So, the purpose of this change is 17 to better align the change process between Part 50, 18 and 52, because those provisions are already in the 19 Part 50 change process. So, similar to the previous 20 item, public comments were supportive, but requested 21 NRC to make further changes to allow licensees to 22 change more Tier 1 information without prior NRC 23 approval.
24 The NRC disagrees with that 25 recommendation, and the staff is not proposing further NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
90 1 changes to the regulations as a result of the comment.
2 So, again, other than rule making costs, we assessed 3 the cost qualitatively on this one. So, we're now on 4 slide 23, and I'd like us to reapproach the question.
5 CHAIR REMPE: Sure, I looked at the 6 comment from NEI, and it seems like they had a lot of 7 detailed background where they were citing some 8 examples, it seemed to be from Vogtle as I recall.
9 Could you go through some of their examples, and why 10 the staff just didn't think it was -- I mean I got 11 your point, that it would be better if they had 12 changed things from being Tier 1, but you just didn't 13 -- could you cite some of the examples that they were 14 so concerned about, and why they pushed so hard for 15 it?
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, I don't recall 17 offhand in the regulatory -- in the preamble, if we 18 cited their examples, or not in our response. But I'd 19 like to see if somebody from DNRL that's familiar with 20 the Vogtle licensing amendments to chime in. Omid, do 21 you want to take this one?
22 MR. TABATABAI: I can't in detail talk 23 about that, no, I'm sorry, not at this time. Anyone 24 else from the staff has a --
25 CHAIR REMPE: There's someone with a hand NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
91 1 up, it went by too quickly. There it is.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Hey Chandu, go ahead.
3 MR. PATEL: This is Chandu Patel, okay let 4 me give you background. So, I have been on Vogtle 5 licensing staff for about six years, and I have gone 6 through almost like 130 amendments for Vogtle. So, I 7 can tell you general background for -- yeah, there 8 were some changes, of course industry is speaking on 9 saying there are so many license amendments which are 10 not necessary.
11 And they're claiming that changing Tier 1 12 process should be simplified, and to some extent, yes, 13 there are some changes like there is an editorial 14 change, according to existing regulations, it will 15 require license amendment exemption. But the staff --
16 I mean I can personally tell you that yes, there are 17 some examples like that, but they are few, and far in 18 between.
19 Out of 140 -- well, I'll give you the 20 exact number actually. Roughly around 160 amendments 21 which I was involved in, there might be about four 22 amendments which are related to editorial type of 23 changes. So, it's not significant in amount. So, 24 industry telling us that there are unnecessary 25 changes, and we should simply void Tier 1, but the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
92 1 staff position is no, these regulations will establish 2 with the commission's guidance that we should minimize 3 the changes, particularly in the Tier 1 process.
4 So, there are not really so many examples 5 which I think are unnecessary. Yes, some of the 6 editorial type, those significant type of changes 7 could be simplified, but that would require whole 8 changes in the regulations. And that will be an 9 expensive project. So, there is the one, the 10 information -- the statement we are making is this is 11 only one DCD we are talking about, namely AP-1000.
12 We do not have extensive experience with 13 this type of thing, so it would be premature to change 14 the whole process based on only the Vogtle. So, 15 that's basically yeah, we are saying it should not be 16 accepted at this time for changing the Tier 1.
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thanks Chandu. Does 18 anybody have a reply, or another comment? It looks 19 like Chandu -- is there anybody else whose hand is up, 20 or has a question on this?
21 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, where I asked about a 22 few minutes ago, Charlie Brown again.
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Hey Charlie. So, can you 24 repeat the question just to be sure we're all on the 25 same page? I'm sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
93 1 MEMBER BROWN: Let me do these two things 2 first. C4 in 50.59 is a single sentence which says 3 the provisions of 50.59 do not apply to changes in the 4 facility, or procedures when the applicable 5 regulations establish more specific criteria for 6 accomplishing such changes.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
8 MEMBER BROWN: That's what you're going to 9 incorporate in 52, is that correct?
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, so let me see if I 11 can just really quickly keep everybody on the same 12 page.
13 MEMBER BROWN: That's question one.
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right, so this is the 15 change that we're proposing that is related to 50.59, 16 and this item that we're talking about right now.
17 MEMBER BROWN: That's B5, or 7, is that 18 the same B5 that you --
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, that's VIII.B.5, 20 and each serial number, this is every DC appendix will 21 have this added change. Every effective appendix.
22 MEMBER BROWN: I'm going to slide 78 right 23 now so I can read it. Or, I thought I could read it.
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, I think the answer is 25 yes. I think you've read it. See, in red is the new NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
94 1 text.
2 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, it says the provisions 3 of B5, which is not shown on the page.
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right, so it's basically 5 B5B is again not shown on the page. It's B5B of the 6 Tier 2 change process that we're talking about. So 7 basically it lays out the change process, and saying 8 well hold on, if you have a more specific change 9 process, then these provisions don't apply, you need 10 to go to that change process.
11 MEMBER BROWN: This 50.59 is more general, 12 you're saying if there's a more specific change 13 process that gives you details, you can follow that, 14 and that's not in Part 52 right now?
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right, it's not in Part 16 52, and this change would align this change process 17 with Part 50 in that regard.
18 MEMBER BROWN: Okay. My second question 19 was 50.59 -- where was I, my brain is recalibrating 20 right now. The locator bit's just getting lost, and 21 scattered around.
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
23 MEMBER BROWN: Last summer we went through 24 a drill where NEI was trying to obtain some additional 25 flexibility in the use of 50.59 for the application, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
95 1 or redesign of systems for digital I&C upgrades. And 2 after a couple rounds, we came to the document they 3 prepared, which was NEI96-07 Appendix E I think. My 4 question is does that get carried forward? Does Reg 5 Guide 1.187, which approved the Appendix D in this 6 application to make sure the flexibility, it was 7 fought out viciously for almost a year, is going to be 8 carried over into 52 as well? That's what I'm trying 9 to figure out.
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Got you. So, I'm going 11 to venture a flat statement. That's not in the scope 12 right now. There's two changes to 50.59 we're talking 13 about. This one we're talking about right here you're 14 seeing, and also provision to ensure that ex-vessel 15 severe accidents are addressed in the 50.59 change 16 process for future applicants of Part 50.
17 MEMBER BROWN: That was question three by 18 the way, I had another.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, I got you. So, the 20 answer is we'll talk about question three maybe in the 21 afternoon, or maybe later if that's okay.
22 MEMBER BROWN: That's fine.
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: And question two, the 24 answer is no. So --
25 MEMBER BROWN: I have a hard time NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
96 1 understanding why --
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, let me -- now again, 3 I may be wrong, but I believe the answer is no. And 4 what we did, just to go back to how we scoped this 5 rule, we asked staff in a very methodical way to 6 provide those things that they feel are lessons 7 learned, and needed to be made under this rule making 8 activity. Aside from the four alignment items that we 9 go into quite a detail in the actual SECY itself, and 10 it took a year, but we got inputs from the staff, 11 inputs from the industry.
12 And we cogitated, and debated on this, and 13 we established the items, and we aligned on that 14 scope. And once that scope was set, we, as a working 15 group, established pretty tight control over that 16 scope. We didn't want that to expand, or not. I 17 don't even recall this coming up as a proposal. So, 18 whether we didn't think it was something that we 19 wanted to put in, or there was something else going 20 on, I don't recall this issue ever coming up for 21 discussion.
22 MR. BLEY: Before you go on, this is 23 Dennis, Charlie, I forget the eventual resolution on 24 that. Did they just upgrade the ISG, or how was it 25 resolved? I forget.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
97 1 MEMBER BROWN: It was resolved, NEI made 2 some innovations, and NRC, we eventually got -- the 3 staff agreed with the Appendix D based on -- I didn't 4 go back, and read all the words, but they ended up 5 approving Appendix D as NEI approved it with whatever 6 -- remember, we had that one --
7 MR. BLEY: You can stop there, yeah, NEI 8 changed Appendix D, and the staff went along with 9 that.
10 MEMBER BROWN: Yeah, we said they would 11 work together, and resolve it, and they did.
12 MR. BLEY: That's not in the rule, so I 13 don't know why it wouldn't stand as is, and maybe 14 somebody from the I&C staff is on the call, I didn't 15 spot a name when I came in.
16 MEMBER BROWN: I'm like you Dennis, I 17 can't understand why we'd preclude Part 52 people from 18 being -- why do we want to create the problem that 19 people have been fighting on getting your computer 20 based I&C systems upgraded for years. And now, all of 21 a sudden, we stick a cork in the bottle again, that 22 just doesn't make sense to me.
23 MR. BLEY: Well maybe, is there somebody 24 from I&C staff on the call? I didn't see if you're 25 on.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
98 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I don't believe so, but 2 is there anybody from NRR DSS on this call, or DES?
3 MR. BLEY: Jim, maybe you can flag this 4 for the next meeting, and maybe somebody from I&C can 5 give us a comment on that.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Will do.
7 MR. BLEY: While you're at this point, can 8 you back up one slide to 77, which you referred us to 9 earlier?
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah.
11 MR. BLEY: I think you've got a typo on 12 that slide, that's the only reason I'm asking.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, that's good, this 14 is why we do this.
15 MR. BLEY: Comply with the following 16 requirements, and there's only a little piece of a 17 sentence dangling, this is different from the one I 18 have.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, this is the thing on 20 this. I noticed that if you don't have the Zoom quite 21 setup, at least on the version that's in PowerPoint of 22 this presentation, some of that red line doesn't show 23 up as red line, it just looks like red text. I 24 noticed that when I was putting these things together.
25 So --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
99 1 MR. BLEY: The way it's now written, 2 there's nothing following the colon.
3 MEMBER BROWN: Exactly, I agree Dennis, I 4 missed that.
5 MR. BLEY: On the first slide there was 6 something following the colon, but it didn't make any 7 sense.
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: You probably were looking 9 at maybe a PowerPoint, or something, and one thing 10 too, is remember, this is all derivative information.
11 Please -- we're going to be -- we also made the actual 12 draft of the actual document. So, if you guys see 13 anything in that draft that we missed, please let us 14 know. That's what's actually in concurrence now, not 15 these slides. So, again, thank you for that though.
16 MEMBER BROWN: Okay, before we leave, can 17 we ensure, Dennis made the suggestion, I agree with 18 him, that we ought to make sure that we get -- I don't 19 want to see this I&C upgrade thing get put back in the 20 boxes again, it's just too hard a fight, and we really 21 ought to make sure that carries forward into Part 52.
22 I don't know how you do that without messing up your 23 information, but it's difficult for me to agree not to 24 do that. I hate going through this fight over, and 25 over again.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
100 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, so what I propose 2 is I guess it's really Quynh's call, but I think we're 3 writing these things down, and we have a follow up 4 meeting that we may, or may not have, and I will make 5 sure that we talk about this if we have another 6 opportunity to this month.
7 MR. BLEY: Well we will, we'll certainly 8 have a full committee meeting, so if there isn't a 9 follow up, then do it at the full committee.
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
11 MEMBER BROWN: Yeah, that would be okay, 12 but the only solution is to incorporate it. Still not 13 -- I didn't want anybody to think I've lost my edge 14 here, so I thought I'd throw that one in.
15 CHAIR REMPE: I'm thinking more about the 16 response I got about the NEI concern, and they seemed 17 pretty strong that they wanted to take it to the 18 commission, and I'm just kind of wondering if they 19 would agree with the response that we heard from the 20 staff a few minutes ago about there were only a couple 21 of editorial changes, and it seemed like they really 22 were concerned on that.
23 I mean if you issue this for public 24 comment in the language, do you think you're going to 25 have them say yeah, we agree with the staff response, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
101 1 or you think they're going to come back a bit 2 stronger?
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, is that question 4 for the staff, or is it --
5 CHAIR REMPE: I mean do you think you've 6 reached concurrence with them, and they would agree 7 with your characterization of --
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I don't know, but I do 9 know that I do agree with you, that this is something 10 that has been brought up numerous times, and we've 11 been addressing this, and there are some letters I 12 believe that we've written on this issue in the past, 13 and we are trying to -- I think we're trying to be as 14 clear as we can about our limits on what we feel we 15 are able to do to make changes to certify information 16 without prior NRC approval.
17 I mean I think it's something that --
18 you're talking about changing the rule, so I don't 19 know what else to say.
20 MEMBER BROWN: Well, look at it this way, 21 I mean I am constantly being addressed as to why 22 aren't we making more progress? And the commission is 23 interested in this, there has been feedback even in 24 congressional letters if I remember correctly.
25 Dennis, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought I've heard NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
102 1 a lot of noise about not being able to upgrade 2 systems.
3 And the staff, and industry has complained 4 about that, so there was considerable effort in 5 Appendix D to 96.07, which was endorsed by Reg Guide 6 187 with some clarifications, and that was finally 7 agreed to so they could do that. I wasn't -- I didn't 8 think that it was restricted -- I mean we operated 9 under the Part 50.59 corrections, and now you're 10 carrying them forth into 52, and then you've added two 11 more restrictions on the end which address quotes 12 whatever it is, ex vessel severe accidents.
13 And now it's going to -- with 14 probabilities, and increase to probabilities more than 15 a little bit, blah, blah, blah, and pretty soon we're 16 not going to be able to make any change. We might as 17 well go back to vacuum tubes, or something like that.
18 Excuse me for being cynical, but --
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, one thing we did have 20 from the beginning, from Part 52, if I can be so bold 21 to bring it up, we had a concept of design acceptance 22 criteria. We understood that things like I&C are not 23 settled technology to the degree at which we would 24 feel comfortable certifying the information, but there 25 would likely be changes to -- and the state of the art NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
103 1 is rapidly changing.
2 And that was recognized back in 07', and 3 we created DAC, and I'm just trying to see how this 4 argument fits with the concept of DAC, and why is it 5 so different? And if you think it's going to change, 6 well you just provide some acceptance criteria for the 7 SSC, and I believe I&C is still open door for DAC.
8 MEMBER BROWN: No, it's not, if you look 9 at the certifications we've done, there have been 10 specific chapter seven designs, and architectures that 11 were approved. I mean you can stick peanut butter 12 into the computer if you wanted to, and with the 13 architecture, it would still work if peanut butter 14 worked. That's a little bit more cynicism, but the 15 technology moves as long as you get the architecture 16 right, it almost makes no difference.
17 I speak with a little bit of -- there's 18 always something you can argue about. So, it's not 19 like this stuff is rampant, a microprocessor is a 20 microprocessor, an operating system is an operating 21 system. The stuff runs faster rather than slower now.
22 So, it's not like we have something different, they 23 all work the same. So, the architecture is well 24 defined in at least three of the most recent design 25 certifications.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
104 1 And they're fixed, I mean it's computer 2 based, and the technology can change, you just have a 3 slightly different platform. Or you might have 4 different software in some places because of the plant 5 variation. So, it's not as fluid as everybody seems 6 to make it. The design acceptance criteria are there, 7 the DAC did not work well at all for I&C, somebody 8 said just build one, and then we'll go test it. It 9 doesn't make sense with too many piece parts, you have 10 to have an architecture.
11 I think the committee has heard that from 12 me at least 5 million times now the last 13 years.
13 The principles of redundancy, independence, defense in 14 depth, and processing, which is a deterministic, which 15 people don't like to do, it always ends up being 16 interrupt driven, but you can accommodate that if you 17 design the architecture properly, as well as control 18 of access, and you don't allow the outside world to 19 talk to you.
20 In other words you have one way 21 communications which are hardware based, and cannot be 22 changed by software. Those five principles, you meet 23 those, and you're pretty good to go. So, and that's 24 why we're trying to support getting some flexibility 25 so that the industry can move forward, and get rid of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
105 1 some of these older systems, and upgrade to where they 2 have better information coming into the operators, 3 which they don't have.
4 The analog works, but the computer based 5 stuff gives you a lot more accuracy, a lot more 6 information, and you can do comparisons of information 7 better. So, it's much better for overall plant 8 operations.
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Can I ask, is that more 10 of a Part 52 legacy plant thing, or is this more of a 11 52 issue? I mean, because it sounds like -- are we 12 talking about digital I&C upgrades to existing design 13 Part 50 plants, is that what this is --
14 MEMBER BROWN: Eventually, you may want to 15 upgrade your systems in the Part 52 plants 20 years 16 later.
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right.
18 MEMBER BROWN: So, I mean the guidelines 19 are the same, the framework is the same. Right now, 20 the argument is for operating plants. Obviously in 21 new designs, you get the thing defined in the design 22 control document, or in whatever the licensed 23 applications, and it moves forward. There's a -- you 24 get too wrapped up in separating new plants from old 25 plants. I'll quit right now. All I'm saying is you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
106 1 want to carry it forward, you don't want to lose this 2 as a process.
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, I think the action 4 is on this, is that we've got the comments, we are 5 going to take it to the right staff, and then follow 6 up on this.
7 MEMBER BROWN: Okay, thank you. Dennis, 8 did you have anything else to say, or?
9 MR. BLEY: No Charlie, I'll be honest.
10 MR. NGUYEN: Chandu has his hand up.
11 MEMBER BROWN: I'm done.
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Chandu, do you have a 13 comment, or?
14 MR. PATEL: Yeah Jim, I just wanted to 15 help. There was a very extensive license amendment 16 for Vogtle on digital I&C, and it took a long, long 17 time. So, yeah, you might want to look at that to 18 address the question from this.
19 MEMBER BROWN: I actually wrote the 20 letters on the approval of the design for Vogtle. So, 21 their architecture worked out, we went back, and 22 forth, it took us over a year to get their 23 architecture settled. It got better with NuScale, and 24 APR1400, they listened. I'm well aware of the detail 25 we went through then.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
107 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, I'm just making a 2 note here.
3 MEMBER BROWN: Okay, thank you.
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. All right, any 5 other questions on this change process slide? What 6 we're doing with 50.59C? All right, so I'm going to 7 move on to the next slide, 24. So, this is one on the 8 approval process for changes while a plant is being 9 constructed, slide 24. And you can see reference 10 slide 79 for this change that we're making. But the 11 proposed rule would make changes to make the process 12 to review, and approve a change during construction 13 more efficient.
14 It would align the departure process in 15 Part 52 with practices in 10 CFR 50.59. Specifically 16 the change would allow Part 52 licensees to continue 17 construction while the change request is under review.
18 The purpose of the change would be to eliminate 19 construction delays related to NRC staff review of 20 license amendment requests. The staff received one 21 comment on this item that requested the NRC to remove, 22 or explain a 45 day, and you'll see that in our rule, 23 45 day period for submission of the license amendment 24 requests as stated in regulatory guide 1.237.
25 So, the NRC essentially disagrees that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
108 1 there was no basis for that. So, we disagree with 2 that, and the staff is not proposing any changes to 3 that 45 day requirement. And then other than rule 4 making costs, we assess this item qualitatively. Does 5 anybody have questions on this, or want me to jump to 6 the background slide on this?
7 MEMBER HALNON: Jim, this is Greg. So, 8 they're proceeding at risk for construction.
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: They are, that is 10 correct.
11 MEMBER HALNON: And the risk is that 12 either it's not approved, or conditions are put on it 13 that would either change, or cause -- and I'm going to 14 say this, cause something to need to be inspected that 15 is now not inspectable. I guess the question is is 16 what is the NRC doing outside of the review of the 17 change, what is the NRC doing to ensure the result of 18 the change review equals to the field work that needs 19 to be adequately done as well. That wasn't real 20 clear, I'm not sure exactly how to ask it.
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, so there's lots of 22 different ways we ensure safety. We have inspectors, 23 so there's inspectors involved during construction.
24 So, some of this assurance is outside the realm of 25 rule making. You can't regulate certain things.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
109 1 Nobody is going to replace the value of an inspector.
2 So, there's an element of that involved here for 3 assurance.
4 MEMBER HALNON: I get that, but it's got 5 to be something being done with the inspector knowing 6 that they're inspecting something that is at risk.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, the idea is that 8 we're being no different than what we currently allow 9 for changes in the Part 50.59 process, where it's 10 basically this process of prior to implementing the 11 change, it needs to be approved. So, what we're 12 trying to say is go ahead, we don't want to cause 13 delays in construction. Start making the change, but 14 remember, like you said, this is at risk change.
15 So, if we eventually determine that this 16 change is not appropriate, they are at risk to having 17 to go in there with a jackhammer, or whatever to take 18 it out.
19 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, so you don't feel 20 like there would be undue influence to approve 21 something when they come back, and say I know you want 22 us to inspect that, but it's uninspectable now because 23 we proceeded beyond the point where that could be 24 inspected. Therefore it just seems like that would 25 put some undue influence on the reviewers to try to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
110 1 figure out maybe something else on the approval 2 process.
3 Maybe some other condition. I know it's 4 all going to be equal from a safety perspective, the 5 reviewers will make sure that the review is right, and 6 safe. But it just seems like when you say it's a 7 qualitative cost benefit, I can probably come up with 8 some scenarios where it's not cost benefit.
9 CHAIR BIER: Greg, maybe one way to frame 10 what you're asking is that this is giving applicants, 11 or licensees more flexibility, and it could be the 12 rope where they hang themselves --
13 MEMBER HALNON: Well that, plus it puts 14 the inspectors, and the reviewers in an awkward 15 position if for some reason a tremendous amount of 16 money has been spent, and they come back, like you say 17 Jim, have to have a jackhammer to pull it out, that's 18 a hard message. So, I guess the qualitative cost 19 benefit, I can come up with narratives where it's not, 20 but I understand where you're going.
21 And I don't disagree with it, but I think 22 the guidance documents for the inspectors make sure 23 that they know that they're inspecting something 24 that's at risk. Is there any guidance that's going to 25 go along with this, or is this just a --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
111 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, there is a reg 2 guide already out there, Reg Guide 1.237. What I 3 understand is we made changes to that under a 4 different activity, and we've evaluated the current 5 version, and I don't believe we are making any changes 6 that are needed for Reg Guide 1.237. Is there anybody 7 from DNRL that would like to expand on that, or 8 correct me?
9 MEMBER HALNON: The other question I 10 guess, as you're searching for a friend, is there any 11 tie to the inspection criteria that might be used? I 12 guess it's ITAAC, or whatever field inspections are 13 going on, is any of this rule language heading into 14 the inspection procedures themselves?
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: No, there is no 16 inspection procedures that are required to be changed 17 for this rule making.
18 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, we can move on. I 19 understand what you're doing, I just think, like I 20 said, the licensees need to proceed with tremendous 21 caution when they do this.
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. All right, any 23 other questions on this item? All right, so we'll 24 move onto the next one, slide 25. So, the proposed 25 rule would add a new process to the COL, and SDA NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
112 1 subparts of Part 52 to govern how an application can 2 take variances from one, or more referenced SDAs. The 3 purpose of this change is to establish a clear 4 regulatory process for an applicant to request, and 5 the NRC to approve an approved variance from the SDA, 6 or SDAs.
7 The regulations affected are 10 CFR 52.93, 8 10 CFR 52.145, and if you want to look at those, 9 that's in slides 80, and 81, backup slides. The goal 10 of this new process is to establish a variance process 11 that would retain the SDA finality on the portion of 12 the referenced SDA that the applicant incorporates 13 without any changes. The staff added this item in 14 response to several public comments on the regulatory 15 basis, as I discussed earlier, or I mentioned earlier.
16 The public expressed concern that the 17 removal of the SDA duration would, over time, increase 18 the need for an applicant to take variances from a 19 referenced SDA while preserving the benefit of 20 finality on the portion of the referenced SDA 21 incorporated without changes. The staff agreed with 22 the comments, and is proposing this regulatory change 23 in response. Other than rule making cost, it's sort 24 of a speculative situation.
25 The staff assessed the cost benefit NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
113 1 qualitatively on this one as well. So, does anybody 2 have questions on that?
3 MR. BLEY: Just a quick one Jim, this is 4 Bley again. When you do a design cert, and then a 5 COLA wants to make changes, I forget what we called 6 that, but it's not called an exception, but it's 7 something like that, and they have to show that it's 8 okay. My memory of having gone through Part 52 on 9 SDAs is there's not a whole lot of information there, 10 and I kind of thought it reverted to the other side, 11 the design cert for things that weren't fully worked 12 out.
13 But I guess that's not true, is the 14 approach going to be essentially the same as we use 15 for a COLA under a design cert?
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I don't know if I can 17 answer that, I'd rather pass that one off to somebody 18 in DNRL. So, I think if Dennis --
19 MR. GALVIN: Jim, this is Dennis Galvin.
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: There you are, go ahead, 21 shoot.
22 MR. GALVIN: So, essentially there's a 23 whole change process in part for the design 24 certifications. And so this is really -- you just 25 have to justify -- there was no change -- if you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
114 1 reference an SDA, there was no way to take a variance 2 from the SDA, it was not part of the regulations.
3 MR. BLEY: Yeah, the regulation there is 4 pretty sparse, I agree with you.
5 MR. GALVIN: So, we've essentially said, 6 the intent of the rule change is to allow a COL to 7 take a variance, to change something in the SDA, and 8 the intent is -- the rest of the SDA that's unimpacted 9 by the change will not be -- will still have finality, 10 right? So that's --
11 MR. BLEY: Which is very similar to what 12 we do on a design cert COLA that takes a deviation 13 from the design cert.
14 MR. GALVIN: I guess in that case there 15 could be -- there might be a need for an exemption, 16 but of course an SDA, there would be no need for an 17 exemption, there's no Tier 1. So, I guess the fact 18 that there's no Tier 1 could simplify the process for 19 an SDA.
20 MR. BLEY: Where I'm kind of drifting to 21 is this is one thing you've come up with, we've never 22 gone through an SDA before, and there's probably going 23 to be other places where we say oh my gosh, we didn't 24 tell people what to do in this spot. I'm wondering 25 why it wouldn't be a more prudent change to the SDA NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
115 1 part of Part 52 to say in areas that haven't been 2 fully defined here, the procedures under the design 3 cert rule apply, or something like that.
4 Because there's going to be other things 5 turning up that we haven't thought of yet, because we 6 haven't been through the process. Have you thought 7 about that?
8 MR. GALVIN: I mean the only thing that 9 really came up in the comments, really was being able 10 to make a change to the SDA incorporated by reference, 11 and also to change the SDA. I mean --
12 MR. BLEY: I understand that, but what I'm 13 suggesting to you is because the SDA is not a process 14 that's actually been used, that when we do it the 15 first time, we're going to find other places where the 16 lack of definition under the rule for SDA is somewhat 17 incomplete, and the change that would refer such 18 things over to the design cert side might cover 19 everything comes up rather than having to do it by 20 something new.
21 We're just saying no, you can't use the 22 SDA here. A comment to think about, not something I 23 expect an answer on. I know nobody's brought it up on 24 anything else, because we haven't thought of it yet.
25 MR. GALVIN: Jim, we understand the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
116 1 comment, I guess we can think about it.
2 CHAIR BIER: So, before we move on, I just 3 want to issue a reminder that as people speak over 4 Teams, or the phone line, they should introduce 5 themselves, and state their name for the court 6 reporter, and that applies to staff as well.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, Dennis, you are a 8 licensing project manager in --
9 MR. GALVIN: Division of Operating Reactor 10 Licensing supporting the rule making -- supporting the 11 Division of New Reactor Licenses.
12 CHAIR BIER: It's Dennis Galvin.
13 CHAIR REMPE: I'm just wondering, is there 14 a limit to how much of a change you can have in an 15 SDA? For example, if you tried to double the power, is 16 that still a change to an SDA?
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Dennis, I think you want 18 to answer this one.
19 MR. GALVIN: Essentially, if it's a 20 completely new design, then we'll tell them you're 21 going to need to get a new SDA. It's the same concept 22 as in design certification.
23 CHAIR REMPE: The AP-600 went to an AP-24 1000, would that have been a change to an SDA in your 25 opinion, or is it a new submittal?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
117 1 MR. GALVIN: I think a 60 percent up rate 2 is going to be a new submittal.
3 CHAIR REMPE: Okay, that's good to know, 4 thank you.
5 MR. GALVIN: This is Dennis Galvin again.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: And Dennis, just want to 7 add that this did come up as a question during 8 concurrence on this rule from the staff, and we've 9 made some changes to the regs on these processes to 10 assure that we have -- basically the issue is framed 11 in the context of interface requirements. So, 12 basically we're not expecting -- you can't operate the 13 reactor piece of the SDA, and not operate the 14 containment.
15 Because the containment was designed to a 16 certain power level, so these are interface 17 requirements, so we'll go into that a little bit 18 later. I think it might be a little bit more clear.
19 CHAIR REMPE: Again, I guess to follow on 20 my question earlier on, and Dr. Petti was also saying, 21 we've got a new group of people submitting 22 applications, and will the regulation, and the 23 supporting guidance make it clear you can't do 24 something like a 50, or 100 percent power up rate 25 without doing a lot of other changes? And you'd be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
118 1 better off just resubmitting the application.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I would answer that the 3 intent of the staff is to make it clearer, and we 4 believe we are doing that. But again, that remains, 5 we're going to have to -- this is a proposed rule, if 6 we need more, we will add more as needed.
7 MR. GALVIN: This is Dennis Galvin, the 8 design certification rule, and this rule doesn't try 9 to pre-guess what criteria would make you submit a new 10 application. There's going to have to be, obviously 11 something that would be discussed with a potential 12 applicant, and the NRC staff, what is a reasonable use 13 of the change process.
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. Is there any 15 other questions on the SDA approval -- I'm sorry, SDA 16 variance process? All right, we'll move on to slide 17 26, which is sort of a similar topic. So, this is the 18 generic standard design approval change process. So, 19 the proposed rule would amend several NRC regulations 20 to add a new process that would allow SDA holders to 21 make generic changes to their SDAs, that is amend the 22 SDA.
23 The purpose of this change is to establish 24 clear regulatory process for request, and approval of 25 generic changes for SDAs, which will no longer expire, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
119 1 because we're taking away that date. The regulations 2 affected are exiting 10 CFR Part 2.100, 2.101, and 3 Part 52.3, and new sections 10 CFR 52.145E as in echo, 4 and then if you want to look at this, it's in 5 reference slides 82 to 85.
6 And so the goal of this process is to 7 establish a change process that would retain the SDA's 8 finality on unchanged portions of the SDA. The staff 9 added this in response to public comments on the 10 regulatory basis. The public expressed concern that 11 removal of the SDA duration would increase the need to 12 make, and review changes to the SDA while preserving 13 the benefit of finality.
14 The staff agreed with the comments, and is 15 proposing this regulatory change in response. Again, 16 other than rule making costs, we assessed this 17 qualitatively. So, does anybody have any questions on 18 that?
19 CHAIR BIER: So, just to come back, this 20 is Vicki Bier, this is back to an earlier comment, can 21 you talk about what would happen in the situation 22 where they're generic changes, but there are some 23 plants already built, or approved with the previous 24 version of the SDA?
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, is your question NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
120 1 about finality concerns in the situation where an SDA 2 is changed generically, and implications on the 3 existing fleet, is that the question?
4 CHAIR BIER: Correct, yeah.
5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, so I'm not sure, 6 does somebody in DNRL want to take this one?
7 MR. GALVIN: Jim, this is Dennis Galvin 8 again. So, I think there's a slightly different 9 change from Part 52, I mean from the design cert.
10 Design cert is talking -- there's a process for the 11 NRC to impose a standard change, that's not really 12 what we're proposing here. This is really, it would 13 probably be better to be titled as an amendment. Once 14 the license is issued, the SDA now is subsumed.
15 We're proposing that the SDA would be 16 subsumed into the FSAR. So, essentially it would not 17 be impacted by an amendment to the SDA once the SDA is 18 amended. So, for existing COL holders, it would not 19 have an impact.
20 CHAIR BIER: Thanks, I think the FSAR is 21 the part of the answer I was looking for.
22 MEMBER HALNON: So, this is Greg, in that 23 perspective, if it did have a significant impact on 24 the plant, you'd be doing a back date analysis on it, 25 is that right?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
121 1 MR. GALVIN: Yeah, the staff would have to 2 do -- well in this case, this the SDA holder proposing 3 an amendment. So, I guess --
4 MEMBER HALNON: Well, on the existing 5 plant though, if that amendment was discovered to be 6 a significant change to the plant that needed to be --
7 say it was a safety concern, in order to impose that 8 on a plant that's already been operating, you'd have 9 to do a back dated analysis.
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I think we'd be in a 11 different process, but I think the answer is yes.
12 MEMBER HALNON: So, Vicki, I think that's 13 the question. There's a different process you would 14 go through to get --
15 CHAIR REMPE: So, your question also 16 brings into play the discussion that some of the folks 17 who had comments had about finality with SDAs, and why 18 the staff said no there's no finality with an SDA 19 until somebody puts it in their FSAR. So, I expected 20 them to respond back to you using that type of 21 discussion, but this is worth mentioning here, because 22 it was another topic that came up in reviewing this 23 material.
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. Any other 25 comments?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
122 1 MR. GALVIN: Let just clarify, this is 2 Dennis Galvin again, so when we issue an approval, 3 that has an approval, but of course it's not a 4 license. So, I mean we're not disagreeing. Once it's 5 incorporated by reference, the staff has to accept it 6 unless there's a good cause for not accepting it in an 7 application.
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: In other words there's a 9 degree of finality associated with an SDA. It's a 10 staff review, the whole thing is still subject to ACRS 11 review, NRC -- sorry, commission review, and ASLB 12 review, and hearings.
13 MR. GALVIN: They have finality with 14 regard to ACRS, which I guess isn't part of this 15 discussion.
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's right.
17 MR. GALVIN: This is Dennis Galvin again.
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: You're correct, yes. But 19 they don't have finality with ASLB, and the 20 commission.
21 CHAIR REMPE: Right, but what I was trying 22 to say was that if you changed an SDA, you wouldn't go 23 back, and impose it on a licensee because you've 24 accepted in approving their operating license, and 25 that has finality, and so you'd have to go to the back NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
123 1 date process, is my interpretation of this process.
2 Is that not true? Because there's more finality with 3 an operating license that incorporates the SDA than 4 there is with an SDA that's approved.
5 And that's why you wouldn't let them use 6 the 50.59 process on an SDA, correct?
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: The 50.59 -- sorry, I 8 agreed totally up until the point about the 50.59 9 thing, and now I'm kind of trying to think about that.
10 CHAIR REMPE: Didn't the -- someone, was 11 it NEI, or someone wanted to try, and also use 50.59 12 for an SDA? And I thought the staff said no.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. So, Dennis do you 14 want to go into this?
15 MR. GALVIN: This is Dennis Galvin again.
16 So, they want to do a -- it doesn't really make any 17 sense in the sense of the 50.59 process is 18 intentionally for operating licenses, and of course 19 it's incorporated in for the design cert. But for 20 this case, they want to change something that's an 21 approval without prior NRC approval, it just doesn't 22 -- it just gets to become a whole configuration, it's 23 a whole mess, right?
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I think what it helps is 25 to agree violently with you Dennis, the fact is that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
124 1 having a 50.59 process implies the existence of other 2 things, right? Quality control, record keeping, that 3 may, or may not be there to the degree as it's 4 required to have for a DC holder. So, we're trying to 5 fit a kind of Cadillac process on an entity that may 6 not have the desire, or the ability to support what's 7 required to make sure that 50.59 process works right.
8 You've got to have record keeping, right?
9 And like you said, it becomes a bit of a mess, because 10 we're doing a change process on a staff approval, and 11 it becomes kind of confusing.
12 CHAIR REMPE: I agree.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah. All right, okay, 14 we'll move on to the next one. Okay, so this one, we 15 talked about this before, this is on slide 27. No, we 16 didn't, this is slide 27, referencing manufacturing 17 license, and standard design approvals while they're 18 under review. So, this is a process where Vogtle's 19 rule would amend 10 CFR 52.173, and you can see that 20 on reference slide 86, to repurpose it.
21 Basically we're changing the name to allow 22 an applicant for a construction permit for a combined 23 license to, at their own risk, reference in its 24 application designs for which the manufacturing 25 license is not yet granted. The staff proposes to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
125 1 update guidance to clarify that the same can be done 2 for a design for which an SDA is not yet granted. The 3 purpose of these changes is to add clarity, and 4 flexibility to the NRC's regulations.
5 The proposed change would afford the same 6 flexibility for manufacturing licenses, and standard 7 design approvals as that already exists, and is 8 afforded for design certifications, and early site 9 permits. Since manufacturing licenses have already 10 received an adjudicatory hearing finding, a regulatory 11 change is necessary for manufacturing licenses. For 12 SDAs though, there is no adjudicatory hearing, so 13 changes to guidance is appropriate.
14 The affected regulation is 10 CFR 52.173, 15 which will be repurposed, and retitled. The affected 16 reg guide is Reg Guide 1.206. This is a new scope 17 item, so there was no public comments on this. And 18 again, other than the rule making costs, we assessed 19 this qualitatively. Anybody have any questions about 20 this? Okay, I'll move on. All right, so this one we 21 talked about earlier.
22 This is again, this is a no change.
23 Finally, there's one other item under the change 24 process, technically where the staff included 25 discussion in the Federal Register notice. The item NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
126 1 is not related to any change in the regulations, or 2 guidance. The staff included the issue on the FRN for 3 completeness. The FRN discussion explains how the 4 issue was dispositioned from what was previously 5 recommended in the regulatory basis.
6 During the development of the proposed 7 rule, the staff reconsidered the merit of its 8 preferred option, which was rule making. The staff 9 determined that the resulting regulatory changes that 10 would be needed would not solve the identified 11 regulatory issue as discussed in the Federal Register 12 notice in Section III.H.2. The goal of this item was 13 to eliminate perceived redundancy in the regulations.
14 The staff believed that since the Tier 2 15 change process was very similarly described in each DC 16 appendix, the public would be better served if we 17 moved the identical language to Subpart B 10 CFR 18 52.63. This change would have the appeal of reducing 19 the size of the NRC regulations, because future DC 20 rules would no longer have to describe the change 21 process for that appendix in full, but would instead 22 reference Subpart B for a majority of the process.
23 The staff discovered that because Tier 1, 24 and Tier 2 change processes are closely coupled, the 25 resulting draft regulatory language would be more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
127 1 confusing. Therefore the staff does not propose to 2 make any changes in the regulations in this proposed 3 rule for this issue. Any questions on this? All 4 right, well I'll move onto the next topic, which is 5 actually a new technical topic called design scope, 6 and standardization.
7 We're on slide 29. So, the proposed rule 8 contains four items related to the issue of design 9 scope, and standardization in Part 52. These items 10 are the addition of standard definitions of tiered 11 information to the definitions section of Part 52.
12 Regulatory changes that clarify the phrase essentially 13 complete design. Regulatory changes that remove the 14 need to justify changes based on their impact on 15 standardization, we talked a little bit about that 16 before.
17 And removal of design certification rule 18 Section IX from the DC appendices, and I'll provide 19 some more detail about each of these. So, we're on 20 slide 30, and we're talking about adding the 21 definitions of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2*. So, the 22 proposed rule would add the definitions of tiered 23 information to 10 CFR 52.1 definitions, and would be 24 applicable to future design certifications.
25 The proposed rule would add a new NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
128 1 requirement that DC applicants should identify the 2 tiered information in their applications, and the new 3 language you can see in reference slide 87. The 4 purpose of this change would be to better standardize 5 expectations for what should be classified, how, and 6 by whom, ending the current practice of allowing 7 applicants to use custom definitions of this 8 information in each design certification would add 9 clarity, and efficiency to future staff, and 10 applicants on how to identify, and review the 11 information.
12 An improved definition of Tier 1 should 13 reduce the occasions where incorrect information is 14 classified as Tier 1, which may reduce the need for 15 future exemptions. The NRC received two comments on 16 this item as it was described in the regulatory basis.
17 The commenters requested that the NRC clarify that the 18 curing of information is not required in FSARs for 19 applications other than DCs, the staff agrees with 20 those comments.
21 As a result, the staff modified its 22 proposal to ensure the tiering of information will 23 only be required for DC applications. The proposed 24 changes are cost beneficial to both the industry, and 25 the NRC. Any questions on this?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
129 1 CHAIR REMPE: Sure, first of all I have a 2 comment that really pertains more to Part 50, and 3 what's coming up later on today, but you have made 4 this definition for what is an essentially complete 5 design, what about adding a definition later about 6 what's an essentially complete conceptual design for 7 the folks wanting to put a construction permit in?
8 I guess I was thinking about what we've 9 seen with some of our Part 52 interactions, and is 10 there anything that actually discusses what we often 11 refer to in slang as carve outs? Because I mean it's 12 happening regularly, and that kind of counters the 13 definition of this essentially complete design.
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, that's a good 15 question, I'm wondering if we want to delve into that 16 now, or -- because we do have a slide, and a 17 discussion on that. I think it's coming up, it 18 probably will come up in the afternoon, yes. Omid, do 19 you want to respond now on that?
20 MR. TABATABAI: Yes, this is Omid 21 Tabatabai, NRR. With respect to the term essentially 22 complete design, that phrase has been used in Part 52 23 in quite a few places, but we had not defined it. And 24 this rule making provides a definition, which is 25 consistent with our lessons learned from Vogtle NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
130 1 constructions, license amendment requests, and how we 2 can also improve some processes for the staff, and for 3 the applicants.
4 With respect to your question about 5 construction permits, if we want to add some similar 6 definition for -- I didn't quite understand if you 7 meant construction permit, or conceptual design, I 8 didn't understand that.
9 CHAIR REMPE: Well, let me clarify what I 10 meant real quick. For a construction permit, the 11 staff has said that the applicant needs to provide an 12 essentially complete conceptual design, is that 13 defined anywhere?
14 MR. TABATABAI: I would defer that to one 15 of my colleagues who is leaving the ISG for 16 construction permits. I think the ACRS has been 17 briefed on that, and I can find more, and get more 18 information, and get back to you on that. But that's 19 outside my area, or knowledge.
20 CHAIR REMPE: And again, you're welcome to 21 discuss the carve outs later today if that works, but 22 the reason I brought up the conceptual design thing is 23 this rule making applies to both, and it just seems 24 that in past -- I've only interacted with a medical 25 isotope applications on construction permits during my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
131 1 time on ACRS, but the issue of what is really required 2 regularly comes up.
3 And I know in our review we always wanted 4 more, and I'm sure the staff did too, and it shouldn't 5 be that it's a fuzzy line, and it might be good to 6 provide a definition for that while you're at it. I 7 see Dennis's hand up.
8 MR. BLEY: Yeah, for a design cert, and 9 for a COL under a design cert, well once they get 10 their license, if they make changes -- Tier 2 gives 11 them flexibility for making changes without prior 12 approval by staff, and Tier 1, they always need prior 13 approval. If we don't have Tier 1, and 2 for an SDA, 14 what do they default to? Do they always need to get 15 a change approved by the staff?
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, I think that it 17 goes back to what Dennis says, and the licensing 18 process, and what we anticipate for an SDA. The SDA 19 is going to be subsumed into the FSAR in that case, so 20 it becomes part of the FSAR, and they have to do the 21 50.59 process for changes. Does that help?
22 MR. BLEY: When we have Tier 1, Tier 2, 23 Tier 1 is kind of sacrosanct, and not subject to some 24 evaluation to say I'm okay. But if we don't have 25 either, then yeah, okay, I guess that makes sense.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
132 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah. I mean I think the 2 point is that the reason why you have Tier 2 is 3 because of the fact that you have one review, one 4 design, and that stuff has been approved, it's been 5 certified. In other words, the commission has made a 6 final finding on it, and for an SDA that is not the 7 case.
8 MR. BLEY: Okay, yeah, thanks.
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.
10 CHAIR REMPE: I think there's a hand up 11 from the staff. Malcolm Patterson, and again, 12 although I've called on your name, you're supposed to 13 say your name just for the court reporter please.
14 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, this is Malcolm 15 Patterson in NRR. I'd like to come back to this when 16 we get to the later slides on the definition. The 17 intent when writing the definition was to write it 18 sufficiently generally that it would apply to an SDA, 19 as well as to certified design construction permit, 20 everything else. So, that would be a good time to 21 address any deficiencies in the current proposed 22 deposition.
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: And just to ask a 24 question, Malcolm you're talking about in that 25 statement, the essentially complete design definition, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
133 1 correct?
2 MR. PATTERSON: Yes.
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, because that's 4 important to say. Because again, this tiering stuff, 5 we're only talking about design certifications for --
6 MR. PATTERSON: Right, nothing to do with 7 the tiers.
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, all right, because 9 we kind of are talking two subjects right now, that's 10 all. Okay, any other questions on Tier 1, Tier 2, and 11 Tier 2* definitions? All right, I'm going to move on, 12 it's later. So, slide 31 clarify the phrase 13 essentially complete design. The proposed rule would 14 add the definition of essentially complete design in 15 the definitions section of Part 52. So, take a look 16 at reference slide 88 for that.
17 The added definition would provide more 18 clarity regarding the level of design detail needed in 19 the DC application, and to better convey that the 20 safety significance of the plant design features is 21 relevant to this level of detail. Improved clarity on 22 what it means for a design to be quote essentially 23 complete unquote should better focus the applicant, 24 and the staff to address matters that relate to 25 safety.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
134 1 The NRC received one comment on this item.
2 The commenter requested that NRC review a letter sent 3 to the NRC from NEI on September 24th, 2020. That 4 letter had several recommendations on this subject.
5 The staff partially agreed with the comment, the staff 6 is not proposing any further changes to the 7 regulations as a result of that comment. The proposed 8 change is cost beneficial to both industry, and the 9 NRC. Any questions on this concept?
10 CHAIR BIER: Yeah, this is Vicki Bier, and 11 I do have a question. I want to make this super 12 concrete to make sure that I understand what's 13 actually being proposed. Would essentially complete 14 include things like which electrical bus serves which 15 component, or it's just like this pump gets power from 16 DC power, or AC power, or whatever it is?
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, I think the answer, 18 I'm going to defer to Omid, but before I do that, I'm 19 going to bring up the slide on that so that we can all 20 see what we're talking about, if you guys don't mind.
21 So, Omid do you want --
22 CHAIR REMPE: Could you say the number of 23 the slide? Because I --
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: It's slide number 88.
25 CHAIR REMPE: Thanks.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
135 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: It's on the screen, you 2 should see that, I hope everybody sees that. It's a 3 52.1 definition, maybe a minute for folks to read 4 that.
5 MR. TABATABAI: Jim, this is Omid 6 Tabatabai, and Jim you may want to read it for folks 7 on the phone who cannot --
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's a great point, so 9 let me read this. So, the definition is going to read 10 as follows --
11 MR. BLEY: Jim, before you read it, I'm 12 going to throw in a question to think about as we 13 listen to it. But it almost sounds like essentially 14 complete design is what we say it is. Go ahead.
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, all right.
16 Essentially complete design means a nuclear power 17 plant design of adequate scope, and detail to enable 18 the commission to reach a conclusion that the 19 applicant has satisfied all applicable regulations 20 associated with the design. The scope of an 21 essentially complete design describes all structures, 22 systems, and components required for safe operation of 23 the plant in all modes.
24 Interface requirements are specified for 25 features that are not included within the scope of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
136 1 design. The level of detail is sufficient to allow 2 resolution of all technical issues using an approach 3 informed by the safety significance of the plant's 4 structures, systems, and components, and that's it.
5 So, I guess going back to the design, I think the 6 desire is always to be, to make this black, and white.
7 But I think unavoidably, this is my 8 personal opinion as a technical reviewer, is that 9 because we don't know what we're going to see, there's 10 significant flexibility needed here for the staff to 11 achieve its ends. So, you can't really get down to 12 what bus, or whatever on this, it's a conceptual type 13 of idea. And again, I'll just stop with that, that's 14 just my opinion as --
15 MEMBER SUNSERI: This is Matt.
16 MR. BLEY: Go ahead Matt.
17 MEMBER SUNSERI: Just my initial reaction 18 to that statement, is that's a pretty high bar, and I 19 can't imagine how you would assess that until after 20 the review is complete. Because how do you know that 21 all information to resolve all technical issues are 22 known until you review them? It's kind of like, well 23 when it's done, we know it was sufficiently complete.
24 But the applicant won't know at the time they're 25 submitting it, right? You can't anticipate what are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
137 1 all the questions you're going to have.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right, so we do have --
3 and this is sort of, maybe I shouldn't bring this up, 4 but I will. We do have a reg guide that provides 5 applicants guidance on what the contents of an 6 application should be. It's Reg Guide 1.206, and that 7 guide is supposed to help with that issue.
8 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron Ballinger, 9 what is the difference between essentially complete, 10 and removing the word essentially by that definition?
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Omid, do you want to try 12 to answer that one?
13 MR. TABATABAI: Hi, Omid Tabatabai here 14 again. Essentially complete design, I don't know how 15 to explain that without being too prescriptive from an 16 NRC staff perspective. Not everything has to be 17 spelled out, but I think Malcolm kind of went into 18 that definition, that what's important for the staff 19 is the design has to address main aspects of the 20 design itself without site specific items.
21 And also, it has to allow the staff, the 22 commission to come to a conclusion whether the design 23 meets the requirements, or not. And one important 24 aspect of making an application review a success is 25 pre-application. We have a pre-application readiness NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
138 1 assessment process that we encourage the applicant to 2 take advantage of, and that interaction goes into 3 talking about whether, or not the application is in a 4 form that allows the staff to conduct its review.
5 Or basically the design is complete, there 6 is a sufficient amount of information for the staff to 7 make a regulatory decision. So, that's to the extent 8 that I can describe what we mean by essentially 9 complete design. Malcolm, do you want to?
10 MR. PATTERSON: Yes. You made reference 11 to a specific issue, which was for example the 12 ultimate heat sink, or parts of a plant design that 13 wouldn't be specified at the design certification 14 stage. You would only need to specify the interface 15 requirements. When you're doing a combined license 16 application, or a construction permit, of course you 17 would need to address those as part of an essentially 18 complete design.
19 And so the wording of the definition 20 attempted to cover both to address the fact that very 21 different information requirements will apply at 22 different stages, they'll be less required for a 23 design certification, they'll be even less potentially 24 required for a standard design approval, because that 25 may not include the entire scope of the plant. It may NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
139 1 be limited to just the NSSS. Does that help?
2 CHAIR BIER: I thought I understood I 3 before your clarification, and now I think I'm more 4 confused. So, you're saying that an essentially 5 complete design at the stage of a construction permit 6 application, or a combined operating license 7 application would need to include all that level of 8 detail of like what wiring diagrams you're going to 9 give the electrician during construction, but it's 10 just not required at the earlier stages like SDA. Is 11 that correct?
12 MR. PATTERSON: The specifics of your 13 example are wonderful, they give me the opportunity to 14 make the point. No one is going to have that level of 15 detail when they apply for a combined operating 16 license, or a construction permit.
17 CHAIR BIER: Got it.
18 MR. PATTERSON: They're simply not going 19 to invest in that level of detailed engineering, but 20 we shouldn't think that that doesn't mean that they 21 provided a design that's not complete.
22 CHAIR BIER: I understand that point, I 23 think this is important for something that I'm going 24 to bring up later with regard to PRA, so as long as I 25 understand what the requirement is here, I can NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
140 1 postpone the rest of my discussion, thank you.
2 MR. PATTERSON: The issue is created 3 because we've used the term essentially complete 4 design to apply to designs at different stages, and 5 it's created confusion on the part of the industry.
6 This definition was an attempt to clarify that an 7 essentially complete design isn't the same thing at 8 all stages of the process. That it's less in the 9 conceptual stage, it's going to cover everything in 10 the plant when you get to an operating license.
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, I believe Eric 12 Oesterle has his hand up too.
13 MR. OESTERLE: Yeah, thanks, this is Eric 14 Oesterle from the staff. I just wanted to offer that 15 there is a lot of good background, and additional 16 information regarding level of detail for design 17 certification, and essentially complete for design 18 certification contained in a SECY paper back in 1990.
19 It's90-241, so that provides some additional 20 background for folks to take a look at in developing 21 some perspective on essentially complete design, and 22 level of detail for a design cert.
23 CHAIR REMPE: Could you specify the number 24 for that SECY paper please?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
141 1 MR. NGUYEN: What I'll do is I will find 2 it, and download it to the reference documents for the 3 committee.
4 CHAIR REMPE: Thank you Quynh.
5 MEMBER HALNON: This is Greg, real quick, 6 are you going to scrub through Reg Guide 1.206?
7 Because you've got several definitions of essentially 8 complete in there.
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Omid, do you want to take 10 that one on?
11 MR. TABATABAI: This is Omid Tabatabai, 12 the definition of that term is going under 52.1 13 definitions section in Part 52. And the Reg Guide 14 1.206 will not repeat the definition, but provide 15 additional context to the definition, and examples, 16 and things like that.
17 MEMBER HALNON: Okay. It does talk in 18 1.206 about procurement specifications, construction 19 installation specifications remain complete enough to 20 be able to be audited by the NRC, that seems a little 21 bit different than safe operation of the plant. I 22 think it just seems like if you're going to have a 23 definition, it should include at least a tie to some 24 of the other words you're using in 1.206.
25 MR. TAYLOR: I wanted to make another NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
142 1 point since the subject of PRA came up. There are 2 aspects of the consensus standards that we've endorsed 3 that can't be addressed at design certification, or 4 combined license application. The same would apply 5 for a PRA developed for a construction permit. And we 6 have an ISG, if memory serves, it's ISG 28 that 7 establishes the staff's position about those 8 supporting requirements of the PRA that need not be 9 addressed at those stages. We don't expect them to be 10 addressed until you're talking about the PRA that's 11 required in order to load fuel for the operating 12 phase.
13 CHAIR REMPE: Dennis, you've got your hand 14 up.
15 MR. BLEY: I do, and I've got a couple 16 points, and things to bring up, this discussion has 17 been very helpful. One of the things Malcolm said 18 earlier struck a chord, and I think if you think about 19 this one, your first sentence, essentially complete 20 design means nuclear power plant, and on, and on, all 21 applicable regulations associated with the design --
22 if you added a phrase at the end of that for this 23 stage of the licensing process, or something like 24 that, it would emphasize the point that you folks 25 made.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
143 1 That essentially complete design changes 2 over time, and I don't think the definition quite 3 gives that sense, and a couple of words might get you 4 there. Two, Jim's point earlier that really, the 5 guidance documents are what you have to go to at each 6 stage of the design to see in more detail what the 7 staff thinks you need to satisfy this issue, and I 8 agree with you on that.
9 One question is you made this change, did 10 that lead you to think that you need to make any 11 changes to any of the guidance documents? That's all 12 from me.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Omid, do you want to add 14 to that one?
15 MR. TABATABAI: This is Omid Tabatabai 16 here, we looked at the reg guides, and specifically 17 1.206, and again, looking at the comments that the 18 staff received from members of the public, or 19 industry, I can't remember, to include a definition 20 for that term in the regulation, we did that. And we 21 don't think that there is any contradiction, or 22 inconsistency between the definition, and what's 23 already provided in the reg guides.
24 Again, the question is how much 25 elaboration we need to make to translate what's in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
144 1 regulation into guidance documents. I think there has 2 to be, at some point -- to keep it at a level that 3 allows the applicants to come up with their own 4 methodology to address the regulation, as opposed to 5 us prescribing everything that's on the regulation.
6 MR. BLEY: Thanks Omid, I agree with you.
7 CHAIR BIER: So, I know we're going to 8 need to break for lunch in just a minute, or two.
9 Unfortunately one of the committee members has a hard 10 stop, so we can't kind of get to a more natural 11 stopping place. Are there any last quick comments on 12 this set of slides, or this topic? And then we'll 13 pick up again after lunch.
14 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes Vicki, this is Walt 15 Kirchner. I think you have a more fundamental problem 16 in 10 CFR 52. The word essentially complete design 17 shows up in the beginning of 52, and if you go back to 18 when the staff created that rule back, now what, 20 19 some years ago. It implied, or the thinking I believe 20 was that there would be a level of maturity in the 21 design, and I'd suggest it would be evolutionary LWR, 22 something that was fairly well demonstrated, might 23 have been a prototype, or whatever.
24 But you have a break point, when that 25 phrase shows up, it goes on, and then it says or a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
145 1 design with advanced, or inherent -- I'm doing this 2 from memory -- passive safety features, or something.
3 So, there's a fundamental problem in 52, because I can 4 see in the eyes of an advanced reactor designer, that 5 that essentially complete design, that only applies to 6 the LWR people.
7 I've got a new novel design with all these 8 great inherent safety features, and that doesn't apply 9 to me. And if you look at the language in 52 that I'm 10 referring to, you'll see that. And when it branches 11 in 52, and says or is designed with passive features, 12 et cetera, there's no -- the level of maturity is not 13 -- the requirement, or the parallelism isn't there 14 requiring a prototype, or other demonstration for 15 these new designs.
16 So, this is an observation, not a 17 question, I just think there's a fundamental problem 18 in 52 that opens the door to potential designs that 19 just aren't mature enough for you to really 20 disposition through the 52 process. End of statement.
21 And I would suggest that somehow there's something 22 missing that would have the staff take those people 23 back to 50, and go through the two step process, which 24 is more appropriate for a less mature design.
25 CHAIR BIER: That's a really interesting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
146 1 comment. So, we can take that all up later. I think 2 at this point we are adjourned for lunch until 1:30, 3 is that correct? Okay, all right, I'll see everybody 4 soon, thank you.
5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 6 off the record at 12:01 p.m. and resumed at 1:30 p.m.)
7 CHAIR BIER: So, it looks like it is 8 officially 1:30, is staff on the line, and ready to 9 pick up where we left off?
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: This is Jim O'Driscoll, 11 I'm ready to go.
12 CHAIR BIER: Okay, I think we're ready to 13 go also again, we may have one, or two people 14 trickling in a little late, but we should probably get 15 started. So, thank you.
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, welcome back 17 everyone from lunch. We were on slide 31, where we 18 talked about the phrase essentially complete design.
19 I believe we finished discussion of that for now, and 20 I'm going to move onto slide 32. Slide 32 has to do 21 with restrictions on changes to a design certification 22 for a combined license referencing a design 23 certification for reasons of standardization.
24 So, the proposed rule makes changes to the 25 Part 52 change processes for design certifications, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
147 1 combined licenses, and manufacturing licenses. And 2 you can see those changes on reference slides 89, and 3 90. Those changes remove the requirements to consider 4 the impact of proposed change on the standardization 5 of design when requesting exemptions from a referenced 6 design certification.
7 The purpose of this change is to reduce 8 the staff, and applicant burden by removing any -- I'm 9 sorry -- and a necessary justification argument from 10 the exemption request. The staff did not receive any 11 comments on this item, and the proposed rule -- sorry, 12 the proposed change is cost beneficial to both the 13 industry, and the NRC.
14 So, with that, is there any questions on 15 this item? All right, I'll move on. So, we're on 16 slide 33, design certification rule Section IX. So, 17 the proposed rule would remove redundant Section IX, 18 the ITAAC section from Appendix D, which is just the 19 AP-1000 DC rule. In earlier rule making in 2007 made 20 the information in this section redundant with 21 information in several sections of Part 52.
22 So, we address this issue, basically the 23 redundant information issue in the ABWR renewal in 24 2020. We are removing, and reserving Appendices B, 25 and C in this rule making, so that takes care of those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
148 1 two appendices, and we identified this issue before 2 the ESBWR design certification was issued. So, we 3 took care of this issue with that one. Therefore only 4 Appendix D would need to be amended.
5 The NRC received one comment on this 6 related to ITAAC in general. The commenter requested 7 that the NRC considered revising the required schedule 8 of ITAAC closure notification. The NRC agreed with 9 the comment, and the staff now proposes to amend 10 10 CFR 52.99, which is on slide 91, to reflect the 11 reality of ITAAC schedule, and completion. So, other 12 than rule making costs, again, the cost benefit was 13 assessed qualitatively.
14 Any questions on this? Okay, I'll move 15 on. Slide 34. References assigned to standard design 16 approvals. We're now at slide 34, the proposed rule 17 would amend the regulations to clarify that applicants 18 can reference more than one SDA in a license 19 application. The regulations affected are 10 CFR 20 52.73, 52.79, 52.133, and 52.153, and you can see 21 those on reference slides 92 to 94.
22 So, the purpose of this change is to 23 resolve ambiguity on the subject. The NRC did not 24 receive any public comments on this item, and other 25 than the rule making cost, the staff assessed the cost NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
149 1 benefit qualitatively. Does anybody have any 2 questions on this? Okay, we'll move onto the next 3 topic, which is content of applications. And this is 4 also, we're still under the licensing general area, 5 but this is another topic.
6 So, we're on slide 35. The proposed rule 7 contains four items related to the content of license 8 applications. These items are the removal of the 9 requirement for a light water reactor applicant to 10 submit a report detailing how its application conforms 11 with the standard review plan. Regulatory changes 12 that align Part 50, and 52 requirements for timely 13 completion of construction.
14 Clarifications in the DC appendices on 15 what parts of the CFR, Code of Federal Regulations, 16 apply for certified designs. And clarification of 17 requirements for an environmental qualification 18 program for manufacturing licenses. And I'll provide 19 more detail about each of these. Slide 36. So, 20 modify requirements to evaluate conformance to the 21 standard review plan.
22 So, the proposed rule would remove, and 23 reserve several regulations that require an applicant 24 to include an evaluation of conformance with the 25 standard review plan that was in effect six months NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
150 1 before docketing of the application. So, the changes, 2 you're going to see these in reference slides 95, 96, 3 and 97. So, recent experience with the reviews of 4 large light water reactor applications showed that 5 applicants expend significant resources to evaluate 6 the differences between their application, and the 7 SRP, and to develop a report of this information.
8 The staff observed that such an extensive 9 report, or evaluation was not necessary, because the 10 information in the body of the application provides 11 the same information. The NRC did not experience 12 sufficient review efficiency increases to justify the 13 burden of the requirement on applicants. The NRC did 14 not receive any public comments on this item, and we 15 have calculated that the proposed change is cost 16 beneficial to the industry.
17 Any questions on this? Okay, moving on to 18 slide 37. This is to align requirements for timely 19 completion of construction. The proposed rule would 20 amend 10 CFR 50.100, and that you can look at in 21 reference slide 98. By removing a reference in that 22 section that makes the requirement for quote timely 23 completion of construction unquote grounds for 24 revocation of a combined license per the requirements 25 of 10 CFR 50.55.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
151 1 Which is condition of construction 2 permits, early site permits, combined licenses, and 3 manufacturing licenses. This reference is incorrect, 4 because Section 50.55, which governs conditions of 5 certain licenses, including combined licenses 6 specifies which provisions apply to combined licenses.
7 These provisions do not include the requirement for 8 timely completion, that is 10 CFR 50.55B.
9 Among those that apply to combined 10 licenses, 50.55 does not apply to Part 50 operating 11 requirements. So, the purpose of the change is to 12 clarify the regulations, and the NRC didn't receive 13 any public comments on the item other than rule making 14 costs, the staff assessed the cost qualitatively. Any 15 questions on that? All right, I like it, it's after 16 lunch.
17 Slide 38, clarify applicable regulatory 18 parts for certified designs. We're now at slide 38.
19 The proposed rule would amend Section V of the design 20 certification rules in Appendices D, and E to specify 21 that Part 52 is among the regulations that apply to 22 the designs. This would align these appendices with 23 the others. So, you can look at the change, it's in 24 reference slide 99.
25 The purpose of this change is to clarify NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
152 1 the regulations. The NRC did not receive any public 2 comments on this item, and other than rule making 3 costs, the staff assessed the cost benefit 4 qualitatively. Any questions on that? Okay, going 5 onto slide 39. So, this one is clarify the 6 requirements for environmental qualification program 7 for manufacturing licenses.
8 The proposed rule would amend the 9 regulations, and you can see the change in reference 10 slide 100, to address an inconsistency, and clarify 11 the regulations indicate that an applicant for a 12 manufacturing license must include a program for 13 environmental qualification of electric equipment in 14 its final safety analysis report. This clarification 15 would ensure future applicants include such a program 16 in their applications.
17 As was the intent of the commission when 18 the 2007 Part 52 rule was issued. The 2007 Part 52 19 final rule revised Section 52.79 A10 to require a 20 description of the program, and its implementation 21 required by Section 50.49A for the environmental 22 qualification of electric equipment important to 23 safety. But of course finding revision was not made 24 to Section 52.157 F6. So, this is a new item the 25 staff added to the scope during the development of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
153 1 proposed rule.
2 Therefore the NRC did not receive any 3 comments on this item from the public as of yet.
4 Other than rule making costs, the staff assessed the 5 cost benefit qualitatively. All right, so any 6 questions on that? All right, here we go, fun stuff.
7 CHAIR BIER: So, we are about to move onto 8 the whole next topic, so if there's any kind of back 9 log of questions, or concerns on what we've been over, 10 it might be a good time to raise them. But if not I'm 11 happy to move onto severe accidents. Okay, carry on, 12 you can go ahead Jim.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, so we are now on 14 slide 40, severe accident treatment requirements.
15 This is one of the alignment items specified in the 16 SECY-15-0002. The proposed rule would amend 10 CFR 17 50.34 to require future Part 50 construction permits 18 and operating license applicants to identify 19 information on severe accidents. You can see that 20 reference slide 101, and 102, those two slides.
21 The proposed rule would also add 22 evaluation criteria related to ex-vessel severe 23 accidents in 10 CFR 50.59. These criteria would apply 24 only to future Part 50 licenses. The NRC received 25 five comments on this item as it was discussed in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
154 1 regulatory basis. One commenter stated that the new 2 requirement would require detailed analyses that would 3 not be available at the construction permit stage, the 4 staff disagreed with the comment.
5 The staff believes that the current level 6 of design detail that the regulations currently 7 require to be provided in a Part 50 construction 8 permit would be sufficient for the applicant to 9 develop the required severe accident analyses 10 sufficient to demonstrate what is needed to grant a 11 construction permit. Another commenter said that the 12 current regulatory framework for severe accidents as 13 described in the regulatory basis is incomplete, and 14 does not reflect all issues relevant to the NRC's 15 severe accident policy statement. Such as the Three 16 Mile Island items.
17 The NRC agreed in part with the comment, 18 and pointed out that the intent of the recommendations 19 in this area is to compliment what we are recommending 20 for TMI items in the rule making. One commenter 21 stated that the NRC's assertion that future Part 50 22 applicants must address severe accidents is in 23 conflict with the intent of the commission's severe 24 accident policy statement.
25 The staff agrees with this comment, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
155 1 because the policy does not exclude the review of 2 severe accident vulnerabilities. Because they are 3 subject to review, and design certification, standard 4 design approval, and manufacturing license 5 applications on future Part 52 applications that do 6 not reference these items in their COLs, for 7 consistency it should also apply to construction 8 permits, and operating licenses as well.
9 Another commenter asked if future Part 50 10 applicants must also address unresolved safety issues, 11 and medium, and high priority generic issues. The 12 staff agreed yes, they must. Accordingly the proposed 13 rule would ensure that Part 50, and 52 applicants 14 consistently address these issues. Finally one 15 commenter asked if information on severe accidents 16 provided at the construction permit stage should be 17 preliminary only.
18 The staff agreed that is our intent, and 19 no changes to the staff's recommendation in the 20 regulatory basis was needed. The proposed change to 21 require future Part 50 construction permit, and 22 operating license applicants to identify information 23 on severe accidents, and evaluate ex-vessel severe 24 accidents would result in additional cost to the 25 industry to develop these analyses at the construction NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
156 1 permit stage. But it would result in a cost savings 2 for the NRC. Any questions on that?
3 CHAIR REMPE: Sure. If you go to page 4 102.
5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, will do.
6 CHAIR REMPE: There is a footnote, and I 7 believe it's footnote IX, and it talks about the 8 phrase that you should evaluate ex-vessel severe 9 accidents to determine such that a particular ex-10 vessel severe accident previously evaluated, and 11 determined to be not credible become credible. How 12 does one know is there a cutoff frequency? How does 13 one know if it's credible, or not credible?
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, so first off I 15 think you're referring to page 102 of the preliminary 16 draft proposed rule.
17 CHAIR REMPE: What you've got up here, 18 yes.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, good. Okay, so I 20 think if Malcolm Patterson is on the line, I could ask 21 Malcolm to speak up on this one if he's available.
22 There's a hand raised.
23 CHAIR REMPE: And it is Malcolm.
24 MR. PATTERSON: I just wanted to tell you 25 where to reach me, but I'm not clear on what the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
157 1 question is.
2 CHAIR REMPE: Okay, I guess I'm curious 3 about the term credible, and not credible in this 4 footnote. How do you know what credible is? Is it 10 5 to the -7, 10 to the -8? What's credible, and not 6 credible?
7 MR. PATTERSON: This is not something the 8 staff has defined. Whether it was determined to be 9 credible, or not is something that would have been 10 assessed when the license was issued. You're talking 11 in 50.59 here, the question is was this accident 12 considered not credible, was it considered in the 13 license process? And has this modification rendered 14 it credible?
15 We don't have to decide that a new 16 accident has come along, this is a question of has an 17 accident sequence that we have considered, and 18 determined not to be credible, become credible.
19 CHAIR REMPE: Again, how do you decide 20 what's credible, and not credible? Maybe we're 21 talking past each other, but is there a cutoff 22 frequency for when something is credible, or not, is 23 what I'm asking.
24 MR. PATTERSON: We do not use a cutoff 25 frequency. I believe that our position is that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
158 1 credibility is the prerogative of the commission to 2 determine.
3 MEMBER BROWN: Well, what's substantial 4 mean also? The probability, that seems like a vague, 5 that's going to be subject to the eye of the reviewer.
6 Same thing with what's credible.
7 MR. PATTERSON: I have to say I believe 8 that that's intentional.
9 CHAIR REMPE: It's new wording, and as 10 Member Halnon pointed out, this is the same old 11 discussion, and I guess I thought one of the 12 objectives of this rule making effort is to provide 13 more clarity.
14 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, it's also to provide 15 alignment, this wording is taken directly from Part 16 52. This is in the appendices to Part 52 for each 17 design, these questions are presented in Section VIII.
18 We refer to that as the 50.59 like process, and the 19 reason it's not the 50.59 process is these two 20 questions. We're now adding these questions to 50.59.
21 So, the 50.59 like process will become identical to 22 the 50.59 process because we're changing 50.59 to 23 match.
24 CHAIR REMPE: It sounds like we're going 25 to keep the lack of clarity in both places is the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
159 1 answer.
2 MR. PATTERSON: The level of clarity will 3 be consistent.
4 CHAIR REMPE: Okay.
5 MEMBER BROWN: What did you say Greg? I 6 didn't hear you.
7 MEMBER HALNON: Just what he just said, I 8 said you're going to align the ambiguity, and the 9 licensees will go to where Joy's head went, and that 10 is we need a cutoff frequency, we need something.
11 What is that line to cause the crossover? We're 12 having the same discussions in the NuScale EPZ 13 discussion relative to what is a credible accident 14 that we have at design phase. So, the discussion will 15 continue, you'll have to go back to the 50.59 guidance 16 that NEI put out that the NRC endorsed, and it'll be 17 a constant discussion that goes on.
18 MEMBER BROWN: But this is about a change 19 that results in a reevaluation of the quote 20 credibility, and, or the substantial change.
21 MR. PATTERSON: That's exactly right.
22 MEMBER BROWN: If we backtrack to the 23 difficulties with replacing I&C for instance, the 24 whole issue was how can you prove that software is not 25 going to propagate to all the channels, and you will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
160 1 not do a shutdown when you're asked to? Which is now 2 a new circumstance, because you replaced the 3 equipment. And it's just there are people that think 4 that's totally possible, and don't even think having 5 four independent channels with independent 6 instruments, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
7 They still posit that if this stuff locks 8 up, they're all going to lock up. The framework is 9 right, you've got a 99.9999 percent chance that it's 10 not going to happen, nothing's going to happen, 11 probably 100 percent, but I'd be shot if I said that.
12 And I don't have rose colored glasses, I just dealt 13 with it for 22 and a half years. And it just seems to 14 me we're impeding, we've thrown another circumstance 15 now into putting a break on people.
16 And I just use that area as an example.
17 I mean I presume there's probably others where you 18 replace some equipment, and now it's different from 19 the original equipment, and you don't know all of its 20 failure modes necessarily, because it hasn't been in 21 service as long. How do you --
22 MR. PATTERSON: Perhaps I can inject a 23 note of optimism, if the --
24 MEMBER BROWN: I don't have any optimism 25 with this, it's just --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
161 1 MR. PATTERSON: It's not within the scope 2 of this rule making, but there are other parts under 3 consideration that have sharper lines. So, we may get 4 to the point where there's a clearer basis for making 5 this determination. It's just not going to happen in 6 Part 50.
7 MEMBER HALNON: This is Greg Halnon, I 8 think this is the wrong mountain to climb at this 9 point.
10 MEMBER BROWN: I have never had a problem 11 with that, as my colleagues can attest.
12 MEMBER HALNON: Again, I guess my point is 13 it's sort of like EPZ and source term issue, we're not 14 going to resolve the source term issue in the 15 emergency planning rule. We're probably not going to 16 resolve this issue in this rule change, but we have --
17 MEMBER BROWN: If we don't add it.
18 CHAIR BIER: Well, it sounds like we're 19 not adding new ambiguity. And any process that 20 reduces the ambiguity would be in some other 21 rulemaking, not here. Is that --
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well I think, but I also 23 think it's a necessary, this is Jim O'Driscoll, a 24 necessary change because we are making a requirement 25 for new Part 50 applicants to address severe NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
162 1 accidents. So you want to have some kind of control 2 process on that.
3 You need to be able to say, well, okay, 4 now if you are doing a change you have to consider 5 severe accidents.
6 CHAIR REMPE: So, there has been some chat 7 messages about meeting conduct appearing here. If 8 anyone from the Staff talks they need to, as well as 9 others on the phone line, they have to identify 10 themself. But I need some clarity, do Members also 11 need to identify themselves?
12 MEMBER BROWN: Good point. I thought I 13 had the lessons down --
14 CHAIR REMPE: Yes. I just, Quynh, could 15 you or the court reporter please speak up and let us 16 know if Members also need to identify themselves or 17 are you mic tracking in this hybrid?
18 MR. NGUYEN: I'm going to acquiesce to 19 Charles to comment if the Members need to identify 20 themselves. Charles?
21 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 22 reporter. I know the voices of the Committee Members 23 well enough they don't need to identify themselves.
24 (Laughter.)
25 CHAIR REMPE: Thank you very much, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
163 1 think.
2 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you. Thank you.
3 CHAIR REMPE: But everyone else, and I'll 4 try and monitor, and Vicki will too, but I just wanted 5 to make sure we understood. Thank you.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Sorry, we were 7 talking about this. Are we done or do we want to 8 continue the discussion?
9 CHAIR REMPE: So --
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: On this.
11 CHAIR REMPE: -- just so I understand now, 12 does the severe accident and SAMDA analysis, where you 13 look at alternatives, all need to be done, although 14 preliminary, at the construction permit stage and then 15 updated to the operating license stage, correct? With 16 this new rulemaking.
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I can tell you the, I 18 can't speak to SAMDA. Malcolm, can you mention, can 19 you speak --
20 MR. PATTERSON: I think that is exactly 21 right.
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
23 MR. PATTERSON: It's when the 24 environmental impact has to be assessed. So 25 construction permit or COL application.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
164 1 CHAIR REMPE: Okay. And again, I'll bring 2 up my question, comment I brought up earlier. It 3 would be good to, if you're going to put a definition 4 for an essentially complete design, I think you ought 5 to think seriously about having a definition for an 6 essentially complete conceptual design. Which is 7 what's required for the construction permit.
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. All right. Okay, 9 so I'll move on to the next item which is our favorite 10 one, PRA. So let me start that one.
11 I'm Jim O'Driscoll again and, let's see, 12 where are we here. Okay. So PRA is another one of 13 the items that we had that were called alignment items 14 that were specified in the SECY-15-0002.
15 We have three issues that relate to PRA 16 requirements that we're addressing. These are related 17 to, requiring the use of PRA in design, making the 18 risk-informed process for safety related structures, 19 systems and components more accessible, and changing 20 the timing of PRA upgrades.
21 So I'll provide some more detail on each 22 of these. And you can look at slides, references 23 Slides 103 through 106 to show the changes.
24 So, I will move on to slide --
25 CHAIR REMPE: Don't move on.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
165 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. Okay.
2 CHAIR REMPE: I know this is in Part 53 3 today but when we talk about the new reactor designs, 4 a new reactor design doesn't necessarily mean a non-5 LWR, I'm also thinking of small modular LWRs.
6 Maybe we need to think about how the 7 initiating events are selected. And I know that ACRS 8 repeatedly refers to a clean sheet of paper.
9 Is there anything in the rulemaking text 10 or the guidance that you're proposing to be changed 11 that emphasize a systematic process for thinking about 12 what the initiating events are?
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I think I can answer 14 that, but, Malcolm, please correct me if I'm wrong.
15 But we didn't fundamentally change, we're not 16 fundamentally changing any process steps in the 17 development of a recommendation of how to develop a 18 PRA, we're simply aligning the regulatory processes in 19 this rule.
20 Malcolm, do you want to chime in or 21 correct me?
22 MR. PATTERSON: I can't think of any 23 improvement on your answer. Sorry, this is Malcolm 24 Patterson.
25 CHAIR REMPE: I think I see Marty NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
166 1 Stutzke's hand was up. Is that still true?
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: It looks, yes.
3 MR. PATTERSON: He would be more useful.
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Marty? Marty --
5 MR. STUTZKE: Joy, I'm here. As we had 6 discussed with the future plant design subcommittee 7 back in December, we're in the process of developing 8 technology inclusive guidance to do the search for 9 initiating events, the delineation of accident 10 sequences and then the identification of licensing 11 events.
12 And I'll emphasize, that's intended to be 13 technology inclusive, so it would address LWRs as well 14 we non-LWRs. In fact, tomorrow we have an alignment 15 meeting with them and NRR to discuss this further.
16 CHAIR REMPE: Well, I think that's great.
17 And I just wish that we've listened already to the 18 list of guidance documents and technical reports and 19 the SRP changes. And it just seems like that whatever 20 you're developing ought to be considered in this 21 rulemaking effort.
22 And I see Dennis' hand up too.
23 CHAIR BIER: Okay, Dennis.
24 MR. BLEY: If we go to Slide 103.
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
167 1 MR. BLEY: I guess this is kind of a legal 2 interpretation because as I read it I get, I'm not 3 certain. On or after the effective date of the final 4 rule applicants must include.
5 So, if you get your application in before 6 that date you don't have to include these things. If 7 the application is filed on or after that date you do.
8 Is that the correct interpretation?
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
10 MR. BLEY: Okay, thanks.
11 CHAIR BIER: Okay, I also have a question, 12 going back to the original slide, 40 whatever it was.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Oh, okay.
14 CHAIR BIER: 41 I guess. Yes. So I will, 15 so I'm talking, there we go. Okay. Nope, up one.
16 41.
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Oh, I'm sorry. Oops, 18 hold on.
19 CHAIR BIER: I mean, it fits both but 20 that's okay.
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Here we go. Sorry.
22 CHAIR BIER: So my question, and it may be 23 that staff has methods in place to deal with it but I 24 would like to know what they are.
25 So at the construction permit stage I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
168 1 certainly think there is a benefit from requiring PRA.
2 But as we discussed earlier, a lot of the specifics of 3 wiring, et cetera, is not going to be specified at 4 that stage, it's going to be more conceptual, so to 5 speak.
6 And at the time of operating license, 7 obviously all of that will then be known. And the 8 thing that I'm a little worried about is whether 9 vendors, applicants, whoever, will hang their hat on, 10 I already have an approved less detailed PRA from the 11 construction permit stage. NRC signed off and said it 12 was acceptable.
13 And it's not wrong, it's just less 14 detailed. And is there a procedure in place to say, 15 no, you really have to come up to speed with all the 16 details of what gets power from where and et cetera, 17 what the set points are on the equipment, all the 18 details.
19 Does that need to be included or could a 20 plant come in and say, hey, Mike, construction permit 21 PRA is still accurate, modular these minor changes and 22 I'm not going to do any additional detail?
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Malcolm, do you want to 24 take that one? I think that's a reg guide question.
25 CHAIR BIER: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
169 1 MR. PATTERSON: Well, no, it's a 2 regulation question. 10 CFR 50.71(h)(1) requires 3 licensees to ensure that the PRA has been updated to 4 model the plant as-built. It must also be upgraded.
5 For example, if you have used a seismic 6 margins analyses to get your license you now are 7 expected to have a seismic PRA. We've issued, we have 8 approved a consensus standard on seismic PRA. Same 9 thing for fire.
10 So those aspects of PRA that rely on 11 detailed understanding of exact plant configurations 12 must be addressed before you enter the operating 13 phase. That PRA has to be done before you can load 14 fuel.
15 CHAIR BIER: So Staff would be responsible 16 for enforcing that level of accuracy or detail, or 17 whatever in the analysis to say, nope, sorry, your 18 previous construction stage one is no longer adequate, 19 is that correct?
20 MR. PATTERSON: Yes. But let me point out 21 that the PRA is no longer submitted to the staff for 22 review it is simply available to us for inspection.
23 CHAIR BIER: Okay.
24 MR. PATTERSON: And we do so when we find 25 it necessary. We're doing it now when we do risk-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
170 1 informed technical specification changes, for example.
2 The PRA has to be done, but it doesn't get 3 approved by the staff. It won't be approved by the 4 staff to load fuel, but we will look to ensure that 5 that step has been completed.
6 MEMBER BROWN: This is only for the first 7 fuel load, right?
8 I mean, this is not back to, I went back 9 to the previous slide. This is only for plants that 10 are just now being specified, developed and built.
11 MR. PATTERSON: Right. This applies --
12 MEMBER BROWN: Not that --
13 MR. PATTERSON: It's all Part 52 plants 14 and it's only Part 50 plants for which applications 15 are submitted on or after this becomes effective.
16 MEMBER BROWN: Okay, I got it.
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, it goes back to that 18 previous question.
19 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, exactly. I got that 20 now. Thank you.
21 CHAIR REMPE: So --
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
23 CHAIR REMPE: -- I had a question or a 24 comment about the standard review plan and how it's 25 going to be updated. Because I know you, the changes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
171 1 are not yet provided to us.
2 But I was looking at the original 3 document. Or the currently available document. And 4 in there on Page 34 out of 41 of the original 5 documents it's a statement about, the Commission 6 anticipates for the plants operation rule select to 7 rejection and risk compared to existing operating 8 plants.
9 And, I mean, if you keep thinking that the 10 newer ones are going to be safer, and again, they're 11 going to be safer and safer, or safe enough. And 12 maybe it's time, if you are updating the SRPs, to 13 remove that statement. What do you think?
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, Malcolm, what do 15 you think?
16 (Laughter.)
17 MR. PATTERSON: Well, I can offer my 18 personal opinion which is that we shouldn't talk about 19 new plants or old plants or operating plants. We 20 could have been more specific.
21 In some places we said plants in operation 22 as of, I forget the date, but it was when we issued a 23 policy statement. I would say plants for which 24 construction permits were issued in the 20th century, 25 okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
172 1 CHAIR REMPE: But anyway --
2 MR. PATTERSON: -- that limits the --
3 CHAIR REMPE: -- if you're starting to 4 finalize your documents you might think about changing 5 that statement is what I was kind of thinking. But 6 again, it's just one Member's comment.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
8 CHAIR BIER: And I do want to come back to 9 my earlier question where the applicant needs to have 10 a PRA but they don't require that it be submitted to 11 NRC, unless they have something like risk-informed 12 tech spec changes or something.
13 So if the licensee had their PRA and it 14 was not detailed enough to pass NRC muster if they 15 were to review it, could they still load fuel or not?
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So I think, Malcolm, you 17 answered this question before. So we, even with the 18 existing regulatory structure, we know, the staff does 19 not review, as part of the application, the actual 20 applicant's PRA.
21 We review the summary and results of that 22 PRA. And based on that input, we determine whether we 23 need to do an audit or not on the PRA.
24 So what I believe, Malcolm, correct me if 25 I'm wrong, but if there is reason to believe that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
173 1 PRA is not the results of the, updated results and 2 summary is not enough information for us to determine 3 things we can always do an audit at the operating 4 license phase on the PRA. Malcolm, do you want to 5 opine there on that one?
6 MR. PATTERSON: This is Malcolm Patterson.
7 I don't have anything to add to that answer. We don't 8 approve the PRA if there is a deficiency in the PRA 9 when we are evaluating it for technical adequacy. We 10 won't grant whatever it is that relies on that PRA.
11 If we're talking about fuel load, 12 obviously we've already issued an operating license.
13 So if we've looked at the PRA, we have been confident 14 that it was adequate for issuing an operating license.
15 CHAIR BIER: Okay, thank you.
16 MR. BLEY: This is Dennis Bley. Vicki, I 17 know that you've been around for the design certs 18 we've done, what kind of happened 15 years ago, maybe 19 20, PRAs for the large LWRs got really big. And you 20 couldn't print it in a way that you could really 21 review it well.
22 And they're maintained up to date on an 23 almost daily basis. So that's why they have the 24 summary report.
25 When NRC Staff needs to make sure that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
174 1 it's appropriate in some area, when they do an audit, 2 what I've seen happen is they go to the, one of the 3 sites of the vendor and look at the model of the PRA 4 and ask questions, have things, look at pieces of the 5 model within the computer system.
6 And NRC doesn't maintain all the different 7 PRA codes that people use so they don't get the whole 8 PRA. Plus it's changing pretty regularly. So that's 9 kind of why they're at the spot they're at.
10 But --
11 CHAIR BIER: So, yes.
12 MR. BLEY: -- they have, yes, they do go 13 in and have it manipulated so that they can see what's 14 there.
15 CHAIR BIER: So I understand that broader 16 issue, but maybe, Dennis, you and I should just have 17 a quick phone call sometime next week to make sure I'm 18 on the right page or whatever and not take time today.
19 Thank you.
20 MR. BLEY: Sure.
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. So --
22 MR. PATTERSON: I would like to --
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Go ahead. Go ahead, 24 Malcolm.
25 MR. PATTERSON: I'd like to make one other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
175 1 point which is, that we maintain SPAR models. So we 2 have an independent check on the PRA models used by 3 the licensees.
4 They aren't as detailed, but it's another 5 one of the tools that we have in our tool belt to make 6 sure that these PRAs are suitable for the applicants 7 licensees are using them for.
8 CHAIR BIER: Thank you.
9 CHAIR REMPE: Vesna, I see your hand up.
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Somebody's hand up.
11 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes. These, I have 12 a problem raising my hand on this, my computer. Went 13 to sum up this last night and it doesn't really work 14 too well today.
15 So I wanted to add something to the, this 16 is Vesna Dimitrijevic, and I wanted to add something 17 to previous discussion. Also to help to define the 18 issue which is here. And states here. And in some 19 moment we'll have to believe so.
20 Because I went through these process with, 21 you know, Framatome and EPR. When we combine the PRA 22 information that is in Reg Guide 1.206, which we find 23 exactly what information should we provide, and 24 analyze that information and other classes of this 25 information.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
176 1 However, the PRA provides also inputs to 2 other programs in FSAR. Like for example, the human 3 factors.
4 You know, if you're getting the important 5 human actions are for DRAP. You know, the important 6 inputs to DRAP.
7 And this is all based on the PRA on the 8 level of the visual design certification. Or we can 9 call it planning an a PRA or a planning an PRA number 10 one. There is different phases of the PRA.
11 And the more information that's available 12 you know, through construction, through the developing 13 procedures, through the PRA literature, and not just 14 design. I mean, there is so many information coming.
15 Locations, the final PRA and this argument cannot be 16 done without construction and locations being 17 completed.
18 So, the PRA is the end before the full 19 load can, doesn't necessarily have to. It can be 20 significantly different when comes to the evaluating 21 importance of the human factors. Using human factor 22 fusion netting or DRAP inputs.
23 And at this moment, in the current process 24 that NRC doesn't have a really, the regulatory, the 25 input to check other inputs from the previous PRA is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
177 1 still valid. That only the PRA advancement we go for, 2 for licensees, we have some specifically informed 3 applications which would require the peer review of 4 the PRA based on the current approved Reg Guide 1.200 5 in the PRA standards.
6 So, there is a disconnect. It may be 7 significant or maybe not, I'm not sure, between what, 8 how the PRA was used up to the moment where it was 9 approved and how it looks in the moment when the plant 10 goes on the line.
11 And so, and I pointed this a couple of 12 times but I personally am not sure how this disconnect 13 can be addressed. So this is my input on the section.
14 There was always this disconnect, you 15 know. The PRA inputs to the problems and back to PRA.
16 Once when have been reaching the level to satisfy 17 1.200 in PRA standards. All right.
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay. Malcolm or Marty, 19 do you want to respond to that or want anything to add 20 to there?
21 MR. PATTERSON: This is Malcolm Patterson.
22 I think that's a very clear description of the state 23 we are in. But again, this was an alignment effort 24 not so much an attempt to advance the ball.
25 We still have that gap, but I think that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
178 1 as licensees choose to use the PRA for more, even the 2 new licensees will quickly have all the tools 3 available to use the PRA more effectively. I mean, 4 risk-informed surveillance frequencies, risk-informed 5 completion times, risk-informed testing.
6 There are lots of things that make the 7 licensees life better that they will do that make sure 8 that the PRA is adequate to support.
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. Well thanks, 10 Malcolm. Any other questions or comments on the 11 overview slide before I go into the next topic?
12 Next item actually, which is the Slide 42.
13 One second. Okay. Okay, so this is the first item 14 under the PRA. We're on Slide 42. And this 15 described, you can see the changes in slides, 16 reference Slides 103 and 104.
17 The proposed rule would amend 50.34 to 18 require applicants for future Part 50 power reactor 19 construction permits and operating licensees to submit 20 a description of the plant-specific PRA and its 21 results in the construction permit application.
22 In addition, the purposes of the changes 23 to encourage the use of PRA methodology in the design 24 phase of the project. The existence of a PRA also 25 would allow the NRC Staff, and the applicant, a better NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
179 1 basis to risk-inform the review.
2 A risk-informed review is much more 3 efficient than a deterministic review and should 4 result in decreased burden in the licensing phase.
5 So, NRC received ten comments on this item as it was 6 discussed in the reg basis. And I'll go through these 7 comments.
8 One commenter expressed a concern that the 9 addition of a description of a PRA, and its results to 10 the Part 50 licensing process would make that process 11 a less attractive option for future applicants. And 12 the PRA would create finality requirements similar to 13 Part 52.
14 The NRC disagreed with the comment because 15 the construction permit PRA would be preliminary.
16 Just like the rest of the construction permit 17 information.
18 The mere requirement to submit the results 19 of a PRA would in no way reduce the flexibility of the 20 construction permit holder to further develop the 21 design during construction. The issues of use of PRA 22 and finality are unrelated.
23 Another commenter stated that the review 24 of the summary of the PRA and its results are not 25 necessary for the NRC to come to a safety finding for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
180 1 the construction permit. The commenter stated that 2 instead of a PRA the NRC should require a "preliminary 3 risk assessment."
4 The commenter also recommended the 5 development of guidance that explains the expectations 6 for the PRA in the construction permit phase for an 7 advance plant. The commenter further recommended that 8 non-power reactors should not be subject to the 9 proposed requirement.
10 The NRC agreed in part with the comments.
11 The NRC agrees that non-power reactors should not be 12 subject to the requirement. And the staff further 13 developed the proposed rule language in consideration 14 of this comment.
15 The NRC disagrees with the argument that 16 because a PRA is not necessary for its safety finding 17 in the construction permit phase, a construction 18 permit application should not include a summary and 19 results of a PRA. One purpose of the proposed changes 20 to encourage the use of PRA in the design phase in 21 accordance with the Commission's policy statement on 22 PRA.
23 Another purpose of the proposed change is 24 to eliminate differences in the licensing processes 25 that would result in different design basis NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
181 1 information for equivalent designs. Not addressing 2 that issue would result in differing future regulatory 3 outcomes and would not fulfill the Commission's 4 direction for this rulemaking.
5 The NRC also disagrees with the comments 6 that state that new or revised regulatory guidance is 7 needed for advance plants because the existing 8 guidance wouldn't cover the development of a PRA for 9 an advance plant license under Part 50, as well as it 10 currently does for one developed under Part 52.
11 Another commenter stated that the needed 12 information to complete a PRA may not be available at 13 the construction permit stage and requested that the 14 NRC clarify what information the application needs 15 with respect to PRA that would address the TMI related 16 requirements in 10 CFR 50.34.
17 The commenter recommended that the NRC 18 should only require the applicant to submit a summary 19 and results of a PRA at the operating license phase.
20 The NRC agreed in part with that comment.
21 If the construction permit and the 22 operating license applicant submitted a summary and 23 results of a PRA that the applicant developed in 24 accordance with NRC's guidance on PRA, which is Reg 25 Guide 1.200, then yes, many of the TMI items would be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
182 1 met and that would obviate some of the specific 2 analyses requirements in Section 10 CFR 50.34.
3 For that reason, and as discussed later 4 and earlier, the NRC is also proposing to eliminate 5 many TMI requirements with the understanding that 6 instead the applicant would have developed a PRA in 7 its results.
8 One commenter recommended that the use of 9 PRA should complement the deterministic approach 10 quoting language from the NRC's PRA policy statement.
11 Commenter recommended that a construction permit 12 applicant supply a preliminary risk analysis only and 13 use deterministic analysis to demonstrate that the 14 design meets regulatory requirements.
15 The NRC agrees in part with that comment.
16 As previously stated, the NRC disagrees that the 17 submittal of a summary and results of a PRA at a 18 construction permit stage should be voluntary.
19 The NRC agrees that it's up to the 20 applicant to determine the degree to which its uses 21 PRA to demonstrate conformance with regulations. As 22 before, future Part 50 applicants are free to use 23 deterministic methods for this purpose.
24 Two comments requested that the NRC 25 clarify how the new requirements for a Part 50 PRA NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
183 1 would work with existing requirements in Part 51 for 2 applicants to develop severe accident mitigation 3 alternatives, SAMDAs.
4 And if applicants should use such PRAs to 5 support these alternatives. The NRC agrees in part 6 with the comment. The NRC agrees that if the PRA was 7 sufficient, of sufficient quality, an applicant could 8 use it for that purpose.
9 However, the NRC disagrees that PRA should 10 be the only methods to do so. And if appropriate, an 11 applicant can use other methods to develop their 12 SAMDAs.
13 One commenter asked the NRC to confirm 14 that the PRA submitted at the construction permit 15 stage would be based on preliminary design information 16 and need not be complete as one submitted at DOL 17 stage. As previously discussed, the NRC agrees with 18 that comment.
19 One commenter disagreed with the NRC 20 assessment of the cost and benefit of developing the 21 PRA. They stated that the development of a 22 preliminary PRA, at the construction permit stage, 23 would cost the same as one done at the final stage.
24 The NRC agreed with that, with the 25 comment, because the NRC expects that an applicant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
184 1 would upgrade the PRA at the operating license stage, 2 as Malcolm mentioned, prior to loading of fuel. The 3 NRC added additional industry costs to the cost 4 benefit calculation to account for this.
5 The proposed change would result in 6 additional cost to industry to develop the PRA at the 7 construction permit stage, but it would result in some 8 cost savings for the NRC. So, I'm done. Any 9 questions on that?
10 MR. BLEY: Yes. This is Dennis Bley.
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
12 MR. BLEY: This is probably more a 13 question for Marty Stutzke. The more generalized 14 approach to risk assessment that's being developed by 15 the staff to support Part 53, essentially allows 16 probabilistic risk assessment to be considered a range 17 of analyses from some more detailed to some less 18 detailed and more bounding.
19 And would that work apply now to Part 50 20 and 52 or does the language requiring a PRA kind of 21 cut that off?
22 MR. STUTZKE: This is Marty Stutzke from 23 NRR/DANU. The current plan to put in this alternative 24 approach that you referred to, Dennis, would be to 25 insert it into Part 53 as standalone language. In NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
185 1 other words, not referencing Parts 50 to 52.
2 MR. BLEY: Too bad, but that's okay.
3 That's what I was afraid of.
4 CHAIR REMPE: So, this is Joy. Along 5 those lines, I think at the very beginning of the day 6 we talked about the objective, one of the objectives 7 for Part 50, 52 alignment is to make sure that an 8 equivalent level of safety would exist for the various 9 options.
10 And it seems like that there should be a 11 connect to 53 in this particular application. Again, 12 I think disconnecting it may have some unattended 13 adverse, or reduce sufficiency of the whole process.
14 MR. STUTZKE: Yes, I hear you talking.
15 That decision was made yesterday afternoon by the Part 16 53 advisory committee. And we are still in the 17 process of trying to figure out how we will revise 18 Part 53 to incorporate the deterministic approach and 19 the non-PRA approach as well.
20 MR. BLEY: These are in a, they're all 21 approximations to, or complete PRA approaches. And 22 where I think it would be helpful to everyone if staff 23 could rethink this and see if there is a way to 24 incorporate the same kind of ideas in Part 50 and Part 25 52 as are being developed for Part 53. I know they're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
186 1 not there yet.
2 But if we miss this opportunity, then 3 there is a, I guess just exceptions to go on or some 4 new licensing processes sometime in the future, which 5 would be a same to have to do.
6 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Dennis, this is Walt.
7 The other thing, you just figured something along the 8 lines, going back to our discussions about this for 9 53.
10 52, if I remember correctly, requires that 11 you postulate a maximum hypothetical accident for 12 purposes of generating the source term. Is that part 13 of 52 language going to be changed or does the PRA 14 then provide an alternate means for specifying what 15 the MHA is that is called out for in 52?
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: This is Jim O'Driscoll.
17 We haven't changed any language outside of the PRA 18 requirements, so the answer, I strongly believe, is 19 no. Is there any others questions on that?
20 There's a hand up. Dennis, you have your 21 hand? Oh, Dennis, your hand is up still.
22 MR. BLEY: Left over, sorry.
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
24 CHAIR BIER: I think we can move on.
25 Thanks.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
187 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. Moving on to 2 Slide 43. So this is the risk-informed categorization 3 of structure, systems and components item. We're on 4 Slide 43.
5 The proposed rule would amend the 6 regulations to allow applicants for a design 7 certification, holders of a construction permit and 8 holders of a combined license to make use of the 9 regulation that allows for the voluntary risk 10 categorization of structures, systems and components 11 and to adopt alternatives to certain treatment 12 requirements.
13 The purpose of this change is to implement 14 the Commission's PRA policy which calls for the 15 increased use of PRA and all regulatory matters. And 16 you can look at the change on Reference Slide 105.
17 So we received five comments on this item.
18 One commenter stated that a construction PRA would 19 necessarily not have the quality for use in risk-20 informing licensing actions. The staff disagreed 21 stating that it was entirely possible for an applicant 22 to develop a detailed enough PRA at the construction 23 permit stage to support those actions.
24 The staff acknowledges that such a PRA 25 would require a significant amount of detail, above NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
188 1 what the staff expects to satisfy the proposed 2 requirement to submit a PRA at the construction permit 3 stage.
4 One commenter asked if NRC's past efforts 5 to risk-informed applicant reviews has resulted in 6 material benefits. The staff responded that, yes, the 7 quality and safety focus of the NRC has improved.
8 One commenter stated that the NRC's PRA 9 guidance is not sufficient to support use of a PRA for 10 risk-informing structure, systems and components. The 11 NRC staff disagreed and reiterated that the purpose of 12 this change is to expand the use of the regulation to 13 other entities and the current guidance is sufficient.
14 One commenter stated that the 15 implementation of the existing regulation, which is 16 50.69, is an undue burden on certain categories of 17 applicants, like those who do not reference a design 18 certification that use the regulation. The staff 19 disagreed saying the entire regulation remains 20 voluntary so the NRC is not imposing any burden.
21 One commenter supported the proposed 22 change stating that the ability of the use, 50.69, 23 would result in some savings for them. The proposed 24 change would result in no quantitative cost or benefit 25 to the industry because it's voluntary.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
189 1 And the NRC is unaware of any applications 2 that would likely use the regulation in the near term.
3 There is some cost to the NRC for work associated with 4 the rulemaking.
5 And that is that. Does folks have any 6 questions about 50.69?
7 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes. This is Vesna 8 Dimitrijevic. I am thrilled with this. I am big 9 supporter of using the 50.69 in the different spaces.
10 And I always thought that was like a 11 diamond in the rough, you know, which was totally 12 forgotten in that even, industry is just, you know, in 13 the last couple of years are wakening to this 14 opportunity.
15 And so, I am thrilled that this is on the 16 discussion. However, when you listed the purposes of 17 this, you know, the rulemaking effort, that this is 18 not part of alignment on the clarity of something. I 19 assume that this is part of the cost benefit study, 20 right?
21 Something which we will have time to see 22 reviews about, review costs, because it can have them 23 concentrate on the important structure systems and 24 components, right?
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. That's a good NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
190 1 point. So in addition, one of the things we asked, 2 and if you look back on SECY-19-0084, we also asked 3 the public to, if there was any kind of, what we call 4 transformative changes, they would like us to consider 5 in the rulemaking.
6 So, I mean, another example would be the 7 DC durations issue. I mean, I can say that's a 8 lessons learned because we didn't get a lot of value 9 out of those, that activity.
10 But it's also an innovation. It's a 11 better way to focus our energy to those items that are 12 important to safety.
13 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay. But there is, 14 I have, know that, you know, we were just discussing 15 this recently that, like you haven't adopted the PRA, 16 we also have a silence on the credible accident, you 17 know, efforts to be, you know, ten to minus five or 18 the highest accidents.
19 We also have a have a silence of the, you 20 know, so this is related to severe accident. We have 21 silence on these source terms to use, to be EPZ 22 because also nobody wants to make decision about 23 numbers.
24 Well, when it comes to the 50.69, if you 25 are, you know, if we are putting these in the, we are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
191 1 giving opportunity for voluntary use, which I fully 2 support, this my personal opinion, we will have to 3 address this relativity of the, you know, importance.
4 And because we have already seen the price 5 coming is very low. Core damage frequency or large 6 release frequencies are changing the, whatever is in 7 the 1.201 reg guide. I think is the one which relies 8 on the how to rank the referenced NEI guides, how to 9 rank the system structures and components.
10 And that rank has to decide is it relative 11 or absolute. And if it's relative then it has to be 12 changed when we are talking about very low core damage 13 frequency.
14 So eventually we will not be able to 15 escape addressing what's happening when we are talking 16 about very low risk numbers. And this will have also 17 to be addressed here. I just want to point this out.
18 So my other question is that, is this 19 going to be considered risk-informed application or 20 would that rules, which call for risk-informed 21 application, which we were just discussing, going to 22 be applicable to here?
23 Because this can apply to everything.
24 Procurement and, I mean, in coolant operating plants 25 it applies to many, many points of the life. If it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
192 1 applies to procurement, and it can be used after the 2 construction permits, remember, that's very 3 evolutionary specs.
4 So my question is, would these be 5 considered in risk-informed application and it will, 6 other than providing the input for NRC reviewers, 7 would the applicant be able to use these for other 8 benefits, that this is sort of graded QA approach?
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Malcolm, do you want to 10 answer that question?
11 MR. PATTERSON: Yes. This is Malcolm 12 Patterson. And the answer is, yes, this is considered 13 a risk-informed application and we see that the 14 greatest benefit to the licensee would be to do it 15 early enough to effect the procurement process as soon 16 as possible.
17 So that's an incentive to them to develop 18 a PRA of sufficient quality to support the safety 19 classification.
20 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: You know that then 21 we are bringing the question again of the permanent 22 PRA, which was the final PRA.
23 MR. PATTERSON: Well --
24 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: You say, many of 25 those questions are so interactive. You know that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
193 1 sometimes, in some moments, somebody will have to 2 start making some decisions of how those things should 3 be addressed to the reg guides or something.
4 Because if you have a permanent PRA you're 5 going to make important decisions, then there should 6 be rules how is that addressed later. Okay.
7 MR. PATTERSON: The issue --
8 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: -- want to, you 9 know, I don't want to damage anything, I think this is 10 a wonderful issue to serve. That's all.
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right, well thank 12 you. We'll move on to the next item unless there is 13 other questions.
14 So this one is the final PRA topic. This 15 is the, maintaining and upgrading the plant specific 16 PRA.
17 So the proposed rule would make the 18 current regulation that is applicable to those 19 licensees that are required to have a PRA to apply to 20 those licensed holders under Part 50 that are required 21 to have a PRA. Basically it works with the new 22 requirement to develop a PRA that I previously 23 discussed.
24 The proposed changes would establish a 25 more flexible schedule for planning and implementing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
194 1 PRA upgrades for new reactors that are required to 2 have a PRA. And you can see the changes on reference 3 Slide 106. And then I'll go on.
4 We received four comments on this item.
5 One commenter agreed that the regulation should 6 require future construction permits and combined 7 licensed holders to upgrade the plant specific PRA to 8 cover all initiating events and modes where endorsed 9 standards exist.
10 The commenter requested that the NRC 11 clarify when a licensee or applicant should conduct 12 as-built walkdowns. The staff responded that these 13 walkdowns must be complete such that any significant 14 changes to the PRA were identified through the 15 walkdowns or incorporated into the PRA before fuel 16 load.
17 The staff pointed out that the PRA need 18 not meet NRC endorsed standards at the point of fuel 19 load, but that the PRA covers all modes of operation 20 where those standards exists. So in other words, 21 completing peer reviews, benchmarking or other quality 22 checks are not required prior to fuel load.
23 One comment requested an error, related to 24 an error in nomenclature that the staff used in the 25 regulatory basis, which the staff corrected in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
195 1 proposed rule.
2 And one commenter recommended that the NRC 3 revise its regulation to conform to statements the 4 staff made in the regulatory basis and in interim 5 staff guidance DC/COL-ISG3. According to the 6 commenter, those statements limit the modes and 7 initiating events that the PRA must cover at operating 8 licensing renewal stage to only those where endorsed 9 consensus standards on PRA exist.
10 The staff disagrees with this comment.
11 The staff maintains that the current regulation is 12 correct. That is, that a licensed, that at license 13 renewal the PRA models must address all initiating 14 events in operating modes.
15 The staff expects that by the time 16 licenses are renewed, the PRA technology will be 17 sufficiently mature to adequately address all modes 18 and initiating events, whether or not those modes and 19 events have NRC endorsed standards or not.
20 One commenter asked if this proposed item 21 maintaining and upgrading the PRA is predicated on 22 another proposed item requiring the use of the PRA and 23 design. And the answer to that is yes.
24 Other than rulemaking costs to the NRC, 25 the sum of the three changes, on the PRA topic, is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
196 1 that it is slightly cost beneficial to the NRC but 2 would incur a cost to industry. The cost for future 3 Part 50 applicants to develop PRA, which is B1, the 4 first item we talked about, does not offset the 5 savings realized from pure exemption requests 6 associated with PRA upgrade scheduling.
7 So to summarize the PRA topic, the staff 8 is recommending rulemaking with guidance changes to 9 address these items. The regulatory changes include 10 Sections 50.34, 50.71 and 50.69. And we're going to 11 also revise several regs related to the PRA.
12 I had mentioned these before but I'll just 13 reiterate. Reg Guide 1.174 we're going to change.
14 Reg Guide 1.187, Reg Guide 1.200. And then we're also 15 going to effect and change the SRP Section 19.0 and 16 19.1.
17 Does anybody have any questions on PRA 18 upgrades?
19 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Can you just repeat, 20 you said something which was strange to me about the, 21 some of the question was related, was this maintenance 22 related to using PRA design or something? What was 23 that?
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, I think it's more 25 of, it's not a, it's just a straightforward question NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
197 1 whether the items are linked in any way. And yes.
2 I mean, if we are going to go with B1, 3 which is requiring all licensees to have a, you know, 4 future part licensees to have a PRA then, yes, we also 5 expect it to be maintained and upgraded. So in other 6 words, we're not just, it works together.
7 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Well, you have to 8 maintenance the PRAs, the design is already completed 9 so, I mean, that's what I find is a little strange.
10 Because maintaining PRA doesn't have anything to do 11 with using PRA, it has something to do with the need 12 for PRA.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Malcolm, do you want to 14 comment on that?
15 MR. PATTERSON: Okay.
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Go ahead.
17 MR. PATTERSON: This is Malcolm Patterson.
18 Well, the need to maintain the PRA is simply the need 19 to make sure that the PRA continues to reflect the as-20 built plant. And as changes to the plant are made, 21 modifications occur over plant life, there will be 22 slight changes.
23 There will also be updates to failure 24 rates of components. New data will be collected. And 25 that kind of updating is part of maintaining the PRA.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
198 1 But upgrading would be required if the 2 licensee decides to change the method of performing 3 the PRA or if the NRC endorses a consensus standard 4 that covers a new mode or initiating event.
5 So there is this ongoing activity 6 throughout plant life. That's all this regulation is 7 intended to address. It's to make sure that plants 8 that have a PRA keep it effective.
9 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: All right. Okay.
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right. Is there any 11 other questions on PRA? All right.
12 CHAIR REMPE: It's not really on PRA, I've 13 just been thinking about what we talked about earlier 14 this morning with the updates to the reg guide for, it 15 will be like three or four sets possibly for an 16 individual reg guide with changes for this effort, the 17 EPZ and the Part 53.
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
19 CHAIR REMPE: Okay. So theoretically, it 20 goes up to the Commissioners, and have you thought 21 about how you're going to avoid a situation where they 22 might approve changes that are 180 degrees apart on an 23 individual reg guide?
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So that's why we exist in 25 rulemaking. This is, all, these rulemakings go NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
199 1 through our group rulemaking center of expertise.
2 We have project managers. And it's our 3 job, obviously, to assist the staff in keeping these, 4 making sure there is some harmony here. I mean, it's 5 obviously, it's also the responsibility of the program 6 offices too, but we back each other up. And what 7 happens is you get SRMs, and SRMs require, which are 8 the direction from the Commission.
9 The Commission, like you said, Joy, they 10 may say something new or different than what we plan 11 and then somehow we have to implement that and 12 understand what the ripple effect is on other 13 activities. It's not --
14 CHAIR REMPE: Okay.
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: -- I think it's a, is it 16 a set? It's not like a set rigid type process, it 17 requires a lot of coordination.
18 CHAIR REMPE: So, if you send up something 19 that, hopefully that won't happen, but if you had a 20 particular reg guide where the changes were different 21 from two different rulemaking efforts and the 22 Commission came back and didn't hypothetically approve 23 both of these changes, your office would just iterate 24 with the Commissioners and point out you hadn't 25 excepted this to occur and --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
200 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
2 CHAIR REMPE: -- you'll have to respond 3 then.
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
5 CHAIR REMPE: Okay.
6 CHAIR BIER: Also, Joy, I'm guessing that 7 this would usually happen sequentially. So that if 8 they approve one then any other ones that would be 9 inconsistent might be iterated before they go up for 10 Commission approval?
11 CHAIR REMPE: You would hope so, but I 12 think the Part 53 and Part 52 is going to be going up 13 at the same time, from what I heard on the schedule.
14 Isn't that true, Jim?
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, we're going to 16 final in the year 2024. And I understand that Part 53 17 is being accelerated. So I believe it's not exactly 18 the same but it's getting, they're getting close 19 together in schedule.
20 CHAIR REMPE: Anyway, it's just something 21 that I was thinking about. But anyway, let's go on to 22 the next topic I guess --
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
24 CHAIR REMPE: -- unless there is another 25 question.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
201 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.
2 CHAIR REMPE: I apologize.
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: And the thing is, is too, 4 just to add is, this happens, there is a number of 5 activities going on but it is, really the pace of 6 these changes and things coming down, this is such 7 that, at least so far we have not been able to address 8 forthrightly. Put it that way.
9 So I'm going to move on. Next slide.
10 Three Mile Island. Okay, so we're on Slide 45.
11 Proposed rule would revise 10 CFR 50.34 to 12 require new Part 50 applicants to address TMI items as 13 they relate to their design. Also, the proposed rule 14 would revise the requirements to eliminate those that 15 are now redundant with more recently issued 16 regulations and those that do not apply any more due 17 to changes in technology.
18 Along with these changes, the rule amends 19 the remaining requirements to make them more 20 technology neutral. And these changes you can see on 21 Slides 107 through 113.
22 The staff proposes to revise regulations 23 in 50.34, along with the standard review plan. In 24 addition, the FR, in the federal register notice, 25 we've asked for comments about impacts of the Three NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
202 1 Mile Island requirements on non-light water reactor 2 applicants, but the NRC should consider in the scope 3 of this rule.
4 The response to this comment resulted in 5 changes to the remaining requirements to make them 6 more technology neutral. The NRC received three 7 comments on this item, and they were generally 8 supportive.
9 One comment provided specifics on what the 10 staff should propose to be changed in 50.34. Many of 11 the suggestions in that comment are reflected in the 12 proposed rule language.
13 The proposed changes are cost beneficial 14 to the NRC and industry because the regulations would 15 be easier to understand and would eliminate the need 16 to address and review redundant and obsolete 17 requirements. Any questions?
18 CHAIR REMPE: Sure. I'd thought I'd ask.
19 I'm sorry.
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Go ahead.
21 CHAIR REMPE: One of them is just my 22 understanding on this safety parameter display system.
23 And you made a change that is doesn't have to be an 24 independent consult.
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
203 1 CHAIR REMPE: Isn't there also still a 2 separate location away from the control room that has 3 to show similar types of information, and has that 4 changed at all?
5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I'm not sure if we have 6 Molly Keefe-Forsyth online, but basically, I believe 7 the answer is no. The issue was, as I recall, the 8 term console was causing us to generate, was causing 9 to generate unnecessary regulatory steps because 10 applicants did not plan to have a standalone console.
11 If you can imagine a piece of equipment.
12 And in other words, they were proposing a system where 13 you have multifunction displays and so long as, that 14 essentially still satisfies the intent of the 15 regulation so we just simply removed the term console 16 so that folks wouldn't have to request an exemption 17 simply because they don't plan to put, build a 18 physical console for this item. Does that help?
19 CHAIR REMPE: Yes, that was my 20 understanding. It's just I was curious, I know they 21 have this other independent location and I just was 22 curious if there were any effects on it. But kind of 23 a side question.
24 The bigger question I had on this was the 25 fact that you've moved some BWR and PWR specific NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
204 1 requirements because you said, hey, they're duplicated 2 in another location. And that's great.
3 But it seems like rather than assuming 4 that simplification this would have been a good 5 opportunity to try and make things more performance-6 based. It's another location in the regulation is why 7 you removed the duplication information.
8 But it just seemed like, and I actually 9 saw that was a comment, I believe from NEI and 10 NuScale. And I guess I'm curious why the staff didn't 11 try and take that opportunity.
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, I guess the answer 13 to that is, well, there is, we did a check to make 14 sure each one was or was not covered by another 15 regulation. And if it was, we took it out.
16 But we also, again, made the assumption, 17 or made the understanding, that this whole rule would 18 be approved and we, and these changes to the TMI items 19 also assume that the other item, which is requiring a 20 PRA to be developed at the design phase, would also be 21 done. And that took out a lot of very specific 22 analyses requirements. Deterministic analyses.
23 So in that way I would submit that we are 24 risk-informing this whole licensing process because 25 we're requiring the tools by which applicants and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
205 1 licensees can based their safety findings on risk-2 based information. So they don't have to give us a 3 whole bunch of separate analyses anymore.
4 They have this PRA and it covers a whole 5 bunch of stuff. And if the frequency is low it's a 6 very strong indicator that, hey, let's focus on this, 7 on this group of SSCs because that's what the PRA 8 says. And if the PRA doesn't say that then maybe 9 there is a good question of why we're focusing on 10 that.
11 So I think in some way, in a large way, 12 because we are going to require the changes in the B 13 Section, the PRA section, we can, we are fixing this 14 TMI stuff to the degree which we can. I mean, there 15 is a couple of things.
16 One example is the human performance item 17 where we kept, because we don't have many other, it's 18 not very big regulatory footprint on human performance 19 to begin with, and when, we were very careful to keep 20 certain items in there because they still serve as the 21 only, or the, basically the regulatory hook, excuse 22 the term, for certain regulatory areas that we have.
23 Does that help?
24 CHAIR REMPE: Yes. Thank you.
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure. Okay, any other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
206 1 questions on TMI? All right. This is lunch time, 2 which is not.
3 CHAIR BIER: Yes. We probably need a 4 break even if it's not a lunch break.
5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right. Okay.
6 CHAIR BIER: Yes. So again, ten minutes, 7 15 minutes? Does anybody have anything they need to 8 do?
9 Always 15 anyways. Okay.
10 All right. So, 15 minute break and see 11 everybody back then. Thanks.
12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 13 off the record at 2:54 p.m. and resumed at 3:10 p.m.)
14 CHAIR BIER: We are missing one or two 15 people but I think we may as well charge ahead. Thank 16 you, Jim.
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right, thank you, 18 Chairman Bier. We're on Slide 48, emergency planning.
19 The Staff is proposing a variety of rulemaking and 20 guidance changes to address several issues related to 21 emergency planning.
22 These are the emergency plan change 23 process, emergency preparedness exercises, significant 24 impediments to the development of emergency plans, 25 requirements for off-site contacts arrangements and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
207 1 certification.
2 The Staff is recommending guidance changes 3 only for the emergency plan change process issue, 4 rulemaking only for off-site contacts, and rulemaking 5 with guidance changes for the other two items.
6 In addition, we had a specific request for 7 comment and question in the regulatory basis Federal 8 Register notice asking what is the appropriate 9 distance within which to perform the siting analysis?
10 We did not get any responses to this 11 question from the public. So, I'll provide some more 12 detail about each of these. And you can see these 13 changes in Reference Slide 114 through 118.
14 Next slide, we're in Slide 49. The 15 proposed rule would amend the regulations to clarify 16 that one provision in its regulation, the provision to 17 follow and maintain the effectiveness of its emergency 18 plan is not applicable until the Commission's 51203G 19 finding.
20 The NRC did not receive any comment on 21 this item as it was described in the regulatory basis.
22 Other than rulemaking costs to the NRC, the Staff 23 assessed the cost benefit of this item qualitatively.
24 There is no overall cost benefit for the 25 sum of the emergency planning items for both the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
208 1 and the industry.
2 Any questions on this?
3 CHAIR REMPE: I'm not sure, maybe I should 4 have mentioned this in the prior slide or maybe it 5 goes in the next slide, but there's a change about if 6 you bring up another module on the side.
7 And they delay doing an emergency planning 8 exercise, and I was wondering, for example, the two 9 new modules at Vogtle or quite different than the 10 existing plants.
11 If you have a 12-module plant and you 12 bring up 2 of them and then you bring up a 3rd, 13 there's more modules that are going to be there. The 14 source term is higher.
15 I'm just wondering if you're considering 16 differences in this change of the added complexity of 17 another module? Does that make sense?
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I think it does. We have 19 an item on emergency plan preparedness exercises where 20 we go into that, that's in Slide 51. And I see that 21 we have got some folks from emergency planning group 22 online here that would be able to answer questions.
23 So, I think we'll just, if you don't mind, 24 proceed?
25 CHAIR REMPE: Sure, I wasn't sure where to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
209 1 bring it up.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: It's going to be right 3 now.
4 Emergency preparedness exercises, we're in 5 Slide 50, the proposed rule would revise Part 50 6 Appendix E, emergency planning, to clarify and revise 7 the requirements for subsequent exercises at similar 8 facilities and exercise planning.
9 The changes align the requirements of 10 Parts 50 and 52 in this area. Specifically, the 11 proposed changes for this item would eliminate the 12 need for subsequent exercises at a multi-unit site 13 when the Applicant meets certain criteria.
14 The proposed rule would align the start of 15 the eight-year emergency preparedness exercise cycle 16 to establish a common starting point both for Part 50 17 and Parts 52 sites.
18 The changes would also remove some 19 provisions that are now obsolete. The NRC did not 20 receive any comments on this item as it was described 21 in the regulatory basis and this item was estimated to 22 be cost beneficial for both the industry and the NRC.
23 So, with that, I will ask if there's 24 anybody on the line from Staff who would like to 25 explain a little bit more about what that criteria is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
210 1 that must be met in order to not have multiple 2 subsequent exercises.
3 Do we have a hand up?
4 MR. FISKE: This is Jonathan Fiske.
5 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Hey, John, go ahead.
6 MR. FISKE: I can address that I believe.
7 To your question, I think that's actually a good way 8 to consider it.
9 If a small modular reactor site had two 10 reactors up and running and they were to add an 11 additional third or fourth or fifth reactor, in doing 12 so they would consider in their application whether or 13 not there are any emergency preparedness impacts.
14 And they provide us an analysis on which 15 we'd make an ultimate judgment.
16 But say they were going from two to six 17 and that changed their licensing basis such that they 18 went from a no EPZ to an EPZ, or I'm sorry, a site 19 boundary EPZ to something larger, in that case they 20 wouldn't be able to show the emergency preparedness 21 hasn't been impacted and they would have to run the 22 additional exercise for the new reactor.
23 MEMBER HALNON: This is Greg. There's 24 also provisions about using the same facilities, the 25 same emergency Staff, those types of things too.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
211 1 So, the regulation looks at whether or not 2 you're substantially using the same emergency 3 plan/organization and facility as well.
4 But if you had to go to another EOF or had 5 to expand out to a different facility, that would take 6 you away from that.
7 CHAIR REMPE: So, they will carefully 8 assess additional equipment or --
9 MEMBER HALNON: It looks like it. It 10 looked like it to me that they had covered those 11 bases.
12 CHAIR REMPE: Okay.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Any other questions on 14 this item before I move on to the next emergency 15 planning topic?
16 There's more on Slide 51, significant 17 impediments to development of emergency plans.
18 The proposed rule would clarify the 19 purpose of the NRC's consultation with the Federal 20 Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and distinguish the 21 siting requirements for emergency planning 22 considerations.
23 The NRC received one comment on this item, 24 the comment made several recommendations about 25 significant impediments to emergency plans. The Staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
212 1 agreed with this comment and is proposing changes in 2 Regulatory Guide 4.7 to address the comment.
3 As previously discussed, this item is cost 4 beneficial to both the NRC and the industry. Does 5 anybody have questions on that?
6 MEMBER HALNON: This is Greg. I don't 7 know how cost beneficial it is.
8 To me, it looked like you were just taking 9 the ambiguity out of the FEMA review during the siting 10 process versus during the emergency plan review 11 process.
12 Is that accurate?
13 MR. FISKE: That's an accurate statement.
14 MEMBER HALNON: Is there ever a time when 15 the siting review would be done in concert with the 16 50.47 review by FEMA at the same time?
17 MR. FISKE: If the licensee identified 18 significant impediments and as part of their ESP 19 application were to propose emergency plans that 20 mitigated those or means to mitigate those significant 21 impediments, then the NRC would consult FEMA to 22 determine if their emergency plans in that case 23 adequately mitigate that impediment.
24 MEMBER HALNON: So, it's not just a one 25 and done? They would be going back and forth a little NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
213 1 bit, is that right?
2 MR. FISKE: Correct.
3 MEMBER HALNON: The other question is with 4 50.160 coming out and if the rule language stays the 5 way it is, they're eliminating the FEMA review for 6 emergency plans when the EPZ is within the site 7 boundary.
8 Is there any effect with what you're doing 9 here that could cause a conflict there or change in 10 guidance or anything else in the 50.160 space?
11 MR. FISKE: I can't speak with 100 12 certainty but I strongly believe there's no conflicts 13 there.
14 MEMBER HALNON: We'll be monitoring it 15 since it's a new rule and we're working through it but 16 I just want to make sure those two efforts are 17 connected in some respects, and it sounds like you are 18 so that's good.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Any further questions on 20 this slide? We'll move on to Slide 52. So, this one 21 is on off-site contacts, arrangements, and 22 certifications.
23 The proposed rule which makes changes to 24 Part 52, that's to clarify, under what circumstances 25 the information is required in the site-specific NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
214 1 safety analysis report regarding contacts, 2 arrangements, and certifications with federal state 3 and local governments.
4 The NRC received one comment on this item 5 from the public that was related to an editorial 6 matter in the regulatory basis. Other than the 7 rulemaking cost to the NRC, the cost benefit of this 8 item is qualitative.
9 Any questions on this?
10 MEMBER HALNON: This is Greg. why 11 wouldn't you have these contacts and arrangements in 12 the emergency plan rather than the safety analysis 13 report? Or is it the same thing?
14 MR. FISKE: This is Jonathan Fiske again.
15 It's similar, it comes down to when you come in for 16 your early site protecting you can come in for various 17 levels of finality that your EFP grants you going into 18 the COL.
19 So, in cases where a licensee may come in 20 with an ESP seeking finality on portions of their 21 emergency plan, we have to know they have those 22 contacts and arrangements in place with agreements or 23 potentially compensatory measures that the utility 24 takes in lieu of agreements with off sites.
25 But the basis of the change is where in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
215 1 the past, the current regulations, they tied some of 2 the various ESPs together with the requirements.
3 And at different levels of finality being 4 sought in ESP, we don't need the same amount of 5 arrangements and contacts to be made at that stage.
6 For example, if someone's coming in for 7 just an ESP only and not looking for any finality on 8 emergency plans as part of the ESP, then we're...not 9 eliminating but we're changing the requirement that 10 stated they had to have all of their contacts and 11 arrangements in place at that time.
12 So, we're separating it out by the level 13 of finality they're seeking to the appropriate level 14 of contacts and arrangements.
15 MEMBER HALNON: So, down the road it's 16 going to be in duplicity with the emergency plan that 17 causes two different documents to be kept up to date 18 with the same information?
19 MR. FISKE: No. I guess to answer your 20 original question, it would become part of the site 21 safety analysis report.
22 MEMBER HALNON: I just wanted to make sure 23 you weren't saying it was cost beneficial but are we 24 duplicating a requirement in one place that's already 25 someplace else?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
216 1 But I'll take your word for it that it's 2 all part of the safety analysis report.
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Any other questions on 4 emergency planning? I'll move on to the next topic 5 which is operators licensing, we're at Slide 53.
6 The Staff is proposing a variety of 7 rulemaking and guidance changes to address several 8 issues related to operators, licensing, and Part 55 of 9 the corresponding NUREG.
10 And you can look at the back up or the 11 reference Slides 119 to 122 to see those changes.
12 These items address an inadequacy in the regulations 13 with respect to operator training for operators at 14 plants undergoing construction, that is the coal 15 plants.
16 Criteria for simulation facilities 17 requirements, for plant walk through and continuing 18 training and I'll provide some more detail about 19 these. Next slide, we're on Slide 54, criteria for 20 simulation facilities.
21 The NRC is proposing to amend Section 22 5546C2(I), which you can look at in Reference Slide 23 120 to allow Applicants operator licenses to do the 24 control manipulations required by Section 5531A5 on a 25 simulation facility that replicates the intended NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
217 1 initial core load for the nuclear power reference 2 plant for which an operator's license is being sought 3 when the license is sought before initial fuel load 4 into the reactor.
5 The NRC is also proposing to amend a 6 definition of reference plant in Section 55.4 and you 7 can see that on Reference Slide 119 to state that the 8 reference plant may or may not be actually 9 constructed.
10 The definition of, quote, plant reference 11 simulator, unquote, also would be amended to state 12 that for a nuclear power-plant that is being 13 constructed, plant reference simulator means a 14 simulator modeling the systems of the reference plant 15 with which the operator will interface in the control 16 room.
17 These changes would eliminate the need for 18 licensees to ask for Commission approval of a 19 simulation facility at a reactor under construction 20 when that simulation facility meets the criteria of 21 Section 5546(c) to be used for the administration of 22 the operating test and to meet experience requirements 23 in Section 5531(a)5.
24 The NRC proposes to revise Reg Guide 25 1.149, which is nuclear power-plant simulation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
218 1 facilities for using operator training, license 2 examinations, and Applicant experience requirements to 3 include the revised definitions of criteria.
4 The NRC did not receive any public 5 comments on this item as it was discussed in the 6 regulatory basis associated with the proposed rule.
7 This rule change is cost beneficial 8 because it would reduce the administrative burden on 9 the licensees and the NRC associated with the 10 processing of requests for Commission approval of the 11 simulation facility.
12 Any questions on that?
13 I'm going to move on. We're on Slide 55, 14 plant walkthrough.
15 The NRC is proposing to amend plant 16 walkthrough requirements in Section 5545 operating 17 tests to give facility licensees of new reactors under 18 construction the option of using suitable alternatives 19 to the in-plant testing while the plant is under 20 construction.
21 You can see these changes in Reference 22 Slide 120.
23 The plant walkthrough was the subject of 24 exemption requests for Vogtle Unit 3 and D.C. Summer 25 Unit 2 and the NRC approved the use of discussion and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
219 1 performance validation methods in combination with 2 plant layout diagrams, maps, equipment diagrams, 3 pictures, and mock-ups while the plant was under 4 construction.
5 The licensee must construct a substantial 6 number of plant systems before doing a plant 7 walkthrough during the NRC initial licensing 8 examinations so that the scheduling of the plant 9 walkthrough portion of the operating test is not 10 predictable.
11 Administration of the NRC initial 12 licensing exams would need to occur relatively close 13 to the time of the scheduled day for fuel loading at 14 a coal plant.
15 Delaying the administration of the NRC 16 operating tests, which includes an in-plant job 17 performance measures until plant construction is 18 complete presents unnecessary challenges for licensees 19 and the NRC.
20 The rule change would eliminate the need 21 to request exemptions and promote a more efficient 22 regulatory process.
23 NUREG 1021 Section ES-3.7, which is titled 24 alternatives for in-plant job performance measures at 25 plants under construction currently provides guidance NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
220 1 that would be applicable to the proposed rule.
2 And the NRC anticipates only minor edits 3 for this rule change. The NRC did not receive any 4 public comments on this item as it was discussed in 5 the regulatory basis associated with the proposed 6 rule.
7 And this rule change is also cost 8 beneficial. Any questions on plant walkthrough?
9 MEMBER HALNON: This is Greg.
10 When I went through my first plant 11 walkthrough for my SRO, we stood in one spot, which 12 was a control room and I got grilled for four hours.
13 Why are we giving the licensees the ability to just 14 not do that?
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Not do what?
16 MEMBER HALNON: Not to just do a graded 17 approach as opposed to eliminating it. In other 18 words, there's always something, even if you go to 19 another plant that's similar or you go to the 20 simulator that we talked about earlier.
21 There's always something you can take 22 somebody out to test their level of knowledge and how 23 deeply they've studied.
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I don't have the answer 25 to that. I'm seeing if there's anybody on the phone NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
221 1 or on the line from the Staff that can take that 2 question.
3 MEMBER HALNON: It's probably a question 4 that's unanswerable. The first question should be 5 answerable, it's who determines the suitability of the 6 alternative?
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: You're asking is it the 8 NRC versus the Applicant?
9 MEMBER HALNON: Yes.
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I will get back to you on 11 that. I highly believe it's the NRC however I'd 12 rather than have the technical staff answer that 13 question.
14 MEMBER HALNON: I can see if it's a waiver 15 or exemption request of some type. But if you're 16 giving them the option in the regulation to go one way 17 or the other, what entity actually decides that?
18 That's one question. And of course the 19 second question, the unanswerable one is why wouldn't 20 you do a graded approach to it to do one that is 21 substantially part of the SAP process with whatever is 22 there?
23 What can you do? Even if it's just 24 standing in the middle of the simulator for four 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br />.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
222 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Lauren Nist, it looks 2 like she's on the line and she is the tech staff 3 member who can speak to this. Lauren, can you answer 4 these questions? Or we can repeat them for you.
5 MS. NIST: This is Lauren Nist. Jim, I 6 just popped in. Stacy asked me to come into this 7 meeting, I apologize I have a conflict today as well 8 with another activity.
9 Could you repeat the question, please?
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: The question has to do 11 with the plant 12 walkthrough item and to just paraphrase, the question 13 is we're allowing alternatives to doing a physical 14 walkthrough.
15 And one of the ACRS Members mentioned when 16 he was an SRO, they didn't go on a walkthrough, they 17 just sat in the control room and got grilled.
18 And the question is why aren't we allowing 19 the licensees to make that call, to say if they want 20 to go out in the plant and go walk around or if they 21 want to just stay there.
22 And who makes the call of whether that is 23 appropriate to do or not? I think that's the question 24 but please jump in there.
25 MEMBER HALNON: This is Greg Halnon. Two NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
223 1 questions, one is who determines the suitability of 2 the alternative?
3 And the second question is, is it 4 considered a graded approach to the walkthrough with 5 whatever substantial pieces of the plan are there with 6 the purpose of testing the level of knowledge and the 7 level of depth of study that the person has?
8 MS. NIST: I heard level of study?
9 MEMBER HALNON: The depth of study. The 10 walkthrough, one of the purposes is to put the person 11 under stress and see how well they've studied and see 12 how deep they go.
13 MS. NIST: So, let me clarify if I may.
14 What you're referring to is a literally walkthrough of 15 the plant, is that right?
16 MEMBER HALNON: Not necessarily. Some 17 people may call them oral boards, some people may call 18 them -- I called mine a grilling. I stood in one spot 19 for four hours --
20 MS. NIST: That doesn't happen anymore 21 because there was a lot more structure that was added 22 to the plant walkthrough portion of the operating test 23 and the way it is tested now is as discussed in 24 current vision of NUREG 1021, operating licensing exam 25 standards, the current version in place being Rev 11.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
224 1 It's three in-plant job performance 2 measures and they're part of a set of total job 3 performance measures that test systems, knowledge and 4 abilities as well as administrative-related knowledge 5 and abilities.
6 The plant walkthrough has to test 7 knowledge of tasks that are safety-significant.
8 So, what that means is they have to be 9 related to a knowledge and ability statement from the 10 knowledge and ability catalog for that technology that 11 has a certain threshold of importance rating 12 associated with it.
13 And they have to demonstrate the ability 14 to perform that task.
15 So, it happens in the plant but it is a 16 discreet set of tasks and there is a script that every 17 examiner has to ensure that one person doesn't have 18 four-hour grilling and another person has a one-hour 19 tell me about how you're doing today and let's go talk 20 about the feedwater.
21 MEMBER HALNON: I got that because the 22 second time I got an SRO I went for the job on those 23 measures and that was difficult too.
24 But so I understand that piece of it but 25 there's always something in the plan, there's always NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
225 1 some task you can do and if you can't do it 2 physically, you can simulate it.
3 And especially when you're just talking 4 about closing a valve in clockwise versus 5 counterclockwise and whatever you want to do there.
6 But you're testing the physical knowledge 7 ability of the person. So, there's always something, 8 even if it's, like I said, on a non-mock-up.
9 MS. NIST: But the key here being, per 10 these words in 5545 that we are proposing to amend, 11 you would not be allowed to do, say, a job performance 12 measure related to demonstrating your ability to 13 operate components from the remote safe shutdown panel 14 at a mock-up of that same panel.
15 Because it's not in the plant. That's why 16 we want to do the amendment to allow, as we put in the 17 proposed rule language, suitable alternatives, which 18 would have and currently do have guidance in the NUREG 19 for what a suitable alternative would be.
20 And that would include what you just said, 21 using a mock-up of a valve, using a mock-up of a 22 panel, something to that effect that tests that same 23 skill.
24 Do they have the skill and you can test 25 that through something other than physically being in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
226 1 the plant?
2 MEMBER HALNON: That helps. The 1021 does 3 have criteria for what's suitable versus not so it's 4 not just up to the licensee to determine what's 5 suitable.
6 MS. NIST: That's correct, we have 7 proposed guidance for that. A lot of this was based 8 on how this part of the operating test was given at 9 Vogtle 3 and 4 while they were under construction and 10 there was nothing except concrete.
11 So, there's nothing except the training 12 facility.
13 So, they worked with the examiners in the 14 region there to figure out when they did their random 15 systematic selection of tasks for the exam, how they 16 would test these knowledge and abilities that included 17 use of mock-ups, that included other things like 18 procedure talk-throughs and use of maps and other 19 diagrams to be able to demonstrate those tasks.
20 MEMBER HALNON: That's helpful and 21 answered the question, I appreciate it.
22 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron Ballinger.
23 I may be a little bit out of my league 24 here but when I took an operator exam it was a lot of 25 different, it was in the Navy.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
227 1 But does this rule language allow, in 2 effect, a little bit of watering down of the process?
3 MS. NIST: Can you explain to me what you 4 would consider is being watered down?
5 MEMBER BALLINGER: Make it, for lack of a 6 better word, easier for an operator or an Applicant to 7 qualify somebody with lower levels of standards, not 8 being in the real plant.
9 CHAIR BIER: And even just greater 10 predictability of what they're going to be asked.
11 MS. NIST: These were all things that we 12 considered and part of granting the exemption, because 13 we had the same questions. Well, let's say they had 14 had something in the plant.
15 At the state that we started from, there 16 wasn't anything in the plant, there wasn't a plant, 17 like I said, it was concrete. So, what could be done?
18 Yes, was there some amount of limit, just practical 19 limits, on what could be done?
20 Maybe, but I'll tell you that my 21 recollection and I did that review and wrote a large 22 part of the input of those approvals for those 23 exemptions was you have to show us licensees that you 24 can have a sufficient scope of tasks that can 25 reasonably be done using these methods.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
228 1 I'm just going to use that example here, 2 it's probably not very realistic but I think it will 3 get the message across that if, say, you constructed 4 the plant and it only had one room so far, and that 5 room had important plant components in it, it would 6 probably be obvious that you could probably expect to 7 have that task on as part of your plant walkthrough.
8 So, that was not obviously a situation 9 that we wanted to facilitate.
10 So, they had demonstrate that they had 11 enough tasks to be able to select from that you could 12 reasonably have reasonable assurance that they 13 wouldn't have necessarily been able to predict what 14 was coming their way and have some kind of advantage 15 on that in the testing process.
16 As far as watering it down and making it 17 easier, one of the things we did in our group when we 18 were thinking about this for these exemptions, was we 19 tried ourselves to walk through, okay, if I was going 20 to give myself or prepare a set of implant JPMs and I 21 don't have the plant for that, I think that's actually 22 more difficult.
23 So, some of our focus on evaluating that 24 was is it too difficult? Because ultimately, per 25 statute we have to provide uniform conditions for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
229 1 licensing of operators.
2 I want to have a fair and equitable 3 examination process, so we don't want to allow 4 something to happen. We can't legally allow something 5 to happen that's going to result in an inequitable, 6 unfair process.
7 So, you can't make something too 8 impossible or too difficult.
9 So, it had to be something you would 10 reasonably expect them to be able to demonstrate the 11 knowledge they needed to demonstrate that they would 12 successfully be able to do that task in the plant if 13 they could using the tools they had.
14 And it is a challenge, there was no plant 15 to walk through. There's no queues around you. You 16 have paper.
17 If you're going to explain to an examiner, 18 well, how would I get from the control room to where 19 the feedwater pumps are or where some other plant 20 component is.
21 If you've been able to go through the 22 plant and walk around, you know that plant, you know 23 how to get from Point A to Point B. Being able to 24 orient yourself on some diagrams and explain how you 25 would get there, that's a little bit different, maybe NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
230 1 not as straightforward.
2 Also, trying to explain to someone walking 3 through a procedure, say the procedure is part of this 4 job performance measure on your test has five steps.
5 If you're in the plant, you can look at the component, 6 you can see all the valves that are there.
7 If it has a twin component next to it and 8 this JPM is telling you make sure you align this valve 9 in this position, maybe you've forgotten if it's some 10 kind of special valve what that position needs to be.
11 Maybe you just look over to the corner 12 where its twin is and say, oh, that's the one that's 13 running or open right now and needs to look like this.
14 And you say, well, I put the handle, I twist it 90 15 degrees and it would be open or whatever that is.
16 So, there is differences but at the end of 17 the day it has to be something that you can reasonably 18 expect them to do without too much difficulty and it 19 has to still meet the level of difficulty requirements 20 for the task itself that we would maintain for these 21 alternatives.
22 MR. BLEY: Lauren, this is Dennis Bley.
23 Back in the 1960s and 1970s, which you might not 24 remember, every plant that was built --
25 MEMBER BROWN: What do you mean might?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
231 1 MS. NIST: I definitely don't remember 2 that.
3 MR. BLEY: Every plant that was built had 4 a physical model built. They all had modeling staff 5 before you built it and you made sure everything would 6 fit. We've improved now, we have all that on 7 computers.
8 But isn't there the equivalent of a whole 9 system mock-up on the computer for every design where 10 people could walk you through where they're going to 11 go in the plant?
12 (Simultaneous speaking.)
13 MS. NIST: That's a good question, and I 14 can only speak to my own -- obviously, I don't know if 15 this is true for the industry as a whole but that 16 could potentially be something a vendor might have or 17 a tool that someone in the design or design 18 architecture program might have.
19 I think what you're talking about I kind 20 of am envisioning a virtual reality kind of diagram.
21 MR. BLEY: Essentially, but, it was the 22 licensee's, it was the utility company who built these 23 physical models and the ones I remember were probably 24 20 to 30 feet tall.
25 It was an all glued together mock-up of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
232 1 the thing and I can't imagine you can't access 2 something similar to that for the design on the 3 current --
4 MS. NIST: I have never seen a full-scale 5 mock-up of plant corridors, plant rooms. I've 6 certainly seen mock-ups, for training purposes, 7 certain plants or components or panels but I can't say 8 I've seen what you're describing.
9 MR. BLEY: Those physical models were very 10 useful for doing that sort of thing before the plant 11 was built.
12 They built them essentially to make sure 13 they could build the plant and I know now you do that 14 on the computer, but that you can't see essentially a 15 mock-up of the whole thing.
16 It's disappointing, I just assumed you 17 could do that.
18 MS. NIST: Some alternatives that have 19 been proposed would include a virtual reality type of 20 tool for doing just that but I haven't seen anyone 21 actually implement that yet.
22 MEMBER BROWN: Can I ask a question? I 23 finally understood what you all were talking about.
24 How do you train in a new plant when it's being built?
25 And the PWR is kind of a PWR.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
233 1 Arrangements are different in different 2 facilities, the same thing with oil and water reactor.
3 There's never been any thought to a cooperation 4 amongst the plants or sending new people around for 5 familiarity at least with basic operations?
6 The Navy did that, we sent guys to 7 prototypes and they went out to submarines that were 8 totally different in terms of their arrangement in 9 many, probably most, circumstances.
10 If you look at the various classes where 11 valve pumps and stuff, they were in different places 12 that you had to go to operate them, they're obviously 13 more compact than the commercial plants are.
14 And I know two other section heads and 15 myself, it was like sucking blood out of rocks at the 16 Navy to actually build simulators. I don't know how 17 many times I was thrown out of an Admiral's office.
18 Rickover was not happy when we walked in 19 and suggested this. This was the early 1980s and the 20 cost of running nine prototypes on getting work done.
21 We then combined the prototype simulators with 22 submarines.
23 We took out a service as a training 24 platform, which I think some of the members here have 25 seen that. And they're different from the ships they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
234 1 go to.
2 We'd send guys that had submarine training 3 that went to the enterprise or the Nimitz class or a 4 cruiser.
5 And they did requalifications when they 6 got it.
7 MEMBER HALNON: Those things do happen but 8 it's usually individual initiatives between plant 9 managers or training managers or something like that.
10 There's no design program to do that.
11 Recognize the walkthrough that Lauren 12 explained, there's an examiner that gives you a 13 scenario.
14 And your job is to locate the procedure, 15 understand the procedure, perform it to the standards 16 you have in your conduct of operation, find the 17 components, and then simulate typically how you would 18 rotate the valve, how you would start the pump, how 19 you would -- whatever completion you needed to do that 20 within the standards of, again, your conduct of 21 operation.
22 There's only one of those things that I 23 just mentioned that you can't do if the plant is not 24 constructed and that's locate the equipment. The 25 other stuff is still able to be done.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
235 1 So, I have to go back and look at 1021 to 2 see what are the suitable alternatives, if it includes 3 standing there and saying, okay, go locate the right 4 procedure and bring it back to me, tell me how you're 5 going to do these steps.
6 Are you going to read, are you going to 7 sign, are you going to turn it counterclockwise or 8 clockwise, are you going to push this button versus 9 that button, are you going to energize it first, how 10 are you going to do all this stuff?
11 Again, the other thing you can't do is 12 physically walk out to the plant. I'll look at 1021 13 and look at the --
14 MS. NIST: When you look at it, you'll 15 need to look at the draft guidance that goes with this 16 proposed rulemaking because --
17 MEMBER HALNON: We had that in our folder.
18 There's a couple versions of it but I'll take a look 19 and see.
20 CHAIR REMPE: Actually, that may be 21 something we want to request to see because the draft 22 guidance markup has not been provided.
23 MEMBER HALNON: It's in the December 24 Subcommittee.
25 CHAIR REMPE: So, it's not changing for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
236 1 this draft guidance or rulemaking now?
2 CHAIR BIER: Joy, I think it may have been 3 provided unofficially.
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Lauren, I don't believe 5 it has changed. Correct? Are you still there from 6 the last time?
7 Yes, sorry, the excerpts for NUREG 1021, 8 upon request we can get that to the ACRS but what I 9 heard was that there was a previous ACRS engagement on 10 that NUREG that basically covers most of what we're 11 talking about here as far as regulatory changes.
12 MEMBER HALNON: I'm sorry, let me correct 13 what I said, it's not in the Subcommittee, it's in the 14 reference material in Part 50 and 52.
15 CHAIR REMPE: What I need to know is since 16 the previous engagement have any significant changes 17 been made to the guidance and if so, perhaps we should 18 be given them for the 18th meeting?
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
20 CHAIR REMPE: Is that clear? I'm not 21 getting a clear answer I think from the Staff where 22 significant change is made.
23 MS. NIST: I don't know what you 24 previously had, I'm sorry I just don't know that.
25 CHAIR REMPE: So, maybe find out and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
237 1 follow up with us later, Jim.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Will do.
3 CHAIR REMPE: Thank you.
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Any more questions on 5 plant walkthrough before I go to continuing training?
6 I'll go to this next topic. This is the issue of 7 continuing training for operator license Applicants.
8 So, we're on Slide 56. The NRC is 9 proposing to establish a new requirement facility 10 licenses at coal plants to maintain the knowledge, 11 skills, and abilities of operator license Applicants 12 who have successfully completed the NRC initial 13 licensing examination.
14 It's possible that months or years may 15 pass after an Applicant for an operator's license 16 passes the NRC examination before they can complete 17 all of the experience requirements for an operator's 18 license due to, for example, construction schedule.
19 The current regulatory framework would 20 foster a decline in Applicant's level of knowledge, 21 skills, and ability to safely operate the plant. The 22 Staff is proposing to amend Section 5531A4, which you 23 can see the change in Reference Slide 122 to add a new 24 paragraph that would apply.
25 When an operator license application is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
238 1 submitted before the facility licensee is required to 2 have the requalification program described in Section 3 5559. In effect, as described under Section 5054(i)-
4 1.
5 In these cases, the application must 6 describe how the Applicant's knowledge, skills, and 7 abilities will be maintained after the Applicant 8 passes the written examination and operating tests but 9 before participation as a licensed operator in the 10 requalification program described in Section 5559.
11 The NRC also intends to add a new 12 subsection to NUREG 1021 Section ES-2.2 to include 13 guidance for acceptance ways to maintain the 14 Applicant's knowledge, skills, and abilities to comply 15 with the new rule.
16 The proposed amendments to Section 5531A4 17 would apply also to non-power facilities that are 18 under construction because similar circumstances may 19 exist for non-power facilities when they are under 20 construction.
21 The Staff received one public comment on 22 this issue.
23 The comments express concern about how 24 licensees would comply with the planned amendment to 25 Section 5531A4 and recommended the NRC provide more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
239 1 specific guidance about what is needed to ensure the 2 knowledge, skills, and abilities be maintained.
3 To address this comment, the proposed rule 4 includes a provision explaining that the NRC will 5 accept a statement that the Applicant will participate 6 in a Commission-approved continuing training program 7 developed using a systems approach to training in lieu 8 of a description of how the Applicant's skills, 9 knowledge, and abilities will be maintained.
10 Additionally, the Staff prepared a draft 11 guidance for acceptance ways of ensuring knowledge, 12 skills, and abilities but Applicants will be 13 maintained.
14 There will be costs associated with the 15 development of additional tests and examinations and 16 rulemaking but codifying in the regulations that 17 licensees must maintain in continuing training program 18 for operator license applicants will provide clarity 19 and efficiency.
20 And is there any questions on that item 21 while we have Lauren? I'm going to move on to the 22 next item, which is the last item on operator's 23 licensing. That is waiver examination test 24 requirements.
25 We're in Slide 57.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
240 1 Under the current regulatory framework, 2 when the differences between subsequent units do not 3 impact the ability of the operator to operate any of 4 the units safely, the facility licensee may ask for an 5 exemption from the operating test and written 6 examination requirement of Section 5531A3.
7 The NRC would grant exemptions if the 8 criteria of Section 5511 specific exemptions are 9 satisfied and the differences between the units are 10 not so significant that they could affect the 11 operator's ability to operate each unit safely and 12 competently.
13 And the Applicant has been sufficiently 14 trained on the differences between the units. The 15 Staff is proposing to add a new set of criteria to 16 Section 5547. You can see those in Reference Slide 17 121.
18 That, if met, would justify a waiver of 19 portions or all of the written examination and 20 operating tests requirement necessary for applicants 21 to be licensed on subsequent units under construction 22 at a multi-unit site.
23 This change would eliminate the need for 24 exemptions when the application is found to have met 25 these criteria.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
241 1 In addition to the regulation change, the 2 Staff is proposing revisions to NUREG 1021 to provide 3 guidance for facility licensees about requesting these 4 waivers and guidance for the NRC to evaluate such 5 requests.
6 The proposed amendments to Section t5547 7 also would apply to non-power facilities that are 8 under construction because the proposed waiver 9 criteria also could be used by Applicants at these 10 facilities to justify waiver of examinations.
11 Since this was not discussed in the 12 regulatory basis, the NRC has not previously received 13 any public comments on this item.
14 The change is cost beneficial as the new 15 rule would eliminate the need to submit and process 16 exemption requests and would allow for administrating 17 licensing examinations for subsequent units at multi-18 unit sites when the Applicant meets relevant criteria.
19 Any questions on this one?
20 MEMBER HALNON: Greg Halnon. This is a 21 great change, I think it's going to really be good but 22 I would just have one suggestion. In B1 you use the 23 term essentially identical, I think those are 24 conflicting terms.
25 I would suggest you try to use a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
242 1 combination of the words you just gave us, which were 2 excellent.
3 We're really trying to say that they're 4 physically and operationally almost equivalent, 5 essentially equivalent, if you want to use the word 6 essentially, but identical just doesn't go with the 7 word essentially very well.
8 You'll probably have the same conversation 9 we'll have about essentially complete.
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I'm sorry, just to make 11 sure I actually understand the comment, when you say 12 B1, are you referring to the PRA item?
13 MEMBER HALNON: I'm sorry, 55.47B1. You 14 used the term essentially identical.
15 How you just described the two units being 16 close physically and operationally was really good but 17 essentially identical doesn't do it for me.
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you for that, we 19 will definitely address that. Any other comments on 20 anything at all about operator licensing before I move 21 on to miscellaneous topics?
22 I think, Lauren, you're off the hook and 23 I appreciate your attendance. I know it was short 24 notice.
25 MS. NIST: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
243 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right, miscellaneous 2 topics. We're on Slide 58. There are a number of 3 other changes made to Part 50 and Part 52 that do not 4 fall into one of the previously discussed categories.
5 The Staff grouped together these things in 6 a section called miscellaneous topics.
7 Some areas of the rulemaking that the 8 Staff felt might be of interest to the ACRS 9 Subcommittee are an item on status of ITAC completion, 10 item reporting requirements for two items.
11 One is on reporting of ECCS errors and 12 another one on reporting completion of construction.
13 And then the topic of conditions of licenses, and then 14 the last one is discontinuing the priority-ranking 15 model for generic safety issues.
16 So, I'll talk about each of these in turn, 17 is that okay? I'll move on. Let's talk about status 18 of ITAC completion. We're on Slide 59 and this is 19 covered, you can see the change in Slide 123.
20 So, the Staff is proposing to change the 21 language in Section 5297A2 regarding ITAC acceptance 22 criteria from, quote, have been met to, quote, are 23 met.
24 The change to the regulations is needed to 25 be consistent with the requirements in Section 185B of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
244 1 the Atomic Energy Act, and Section 52103G, which state 2 that the acceptance criteria in the COL are, quote, 3 met, unquote.
4 This change would eliminate ambiguity in 5 the context of when an Applicant met the acceptance 6 criteria at some earlier time during the construction 7 phase, but where the criteria may not have been 8 maintained, such that the criteria are no longer met 9 at the time the Section 5297A2 finding was made.
10 So, the NRC did not receive any public 11 comments on this item as it was discussed in the 12 regulatory basis and we believe the cost to this item 13 is negligible.
14 And is there any questions on this item?
15 I'll move on to the next one. This one is on 16 reporting requirements for emergency ECCS core cooling 17 system errors. We're on Slide 60.
18 You can see these changes in Reference 19 Slide 72.
20 So, under Section 5046A33, Roman numeral 21 3, Applicants 4 or holders of standard design 22 approvals and Applicants for design certifications are 23 required to report changes in errors to the emergency 24 core cooling system evaluation model before an 25 Applicant for the construction or operation of a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
245 1 reactor has submitted to the NRC an application that 2 references the standard design approval or design 3 certification.
4 Reporting such changes and errors to the 5 NRC before the time when an Applicant references the 6 design in an application for construction permit, an 7 operating license or a combined license or a 8 manufacturing license does not produce a tangible 9 public health and safety benefit provided the change 10 or errors do not create the potential for standard 11 design approval or design certification to become non-12 compliant with the NRC requirements.
13 The Staff proposes to eliminate reporting 14 requirements for changes or errors that do not result 15 in an inability to ensure compliance with Section 5046 16 until an standard design approval or a design 17 certification is referenced in an application for a 18 construction permit, operating license, or a combined 19 license, or a manufacturing license.
20 You can see these changes on Reference 21 Slide 72. Changes to 10 CFR 5046 under this 22 alternative would defer the annual reporting until the 23 standard design is referenced in a license 24 application.
25 The NRC did not receive any public NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
246 1 comments on this item as it was discussed in the 2 regulatory basis associated with the proposed rule.
3 This change is cost beneficial because the 4 proposed changed eliminate the need for the annual 5 reports entirely in some cases, and would defer those 6 reports in others.
7 The cost savings would be those associated 8 with reporting rather than the identification and 9 evaluation of the ECCS evaluation model changes and 10 errors. Does anybody have any questions on that one?
11 CHAIR REMPE: Yes, I have several questions 12 and comments on that one. And, so I guess I'll start 13 off with the very first one.
14 In the Regulatory Analysis, the staff 15 stated that many perspective, I guess, many 16 perspective new applicants for DCs or SCAs are not 17 using are not using LWR designs, and therefore, are 18 not subjected to the provisions of 1546, whatever.
19 And, based on these insights, the NRC 20 estimates the holders of, or applicants for an SDA, or 21 applicants for a DC, would very rarely experience ECCS 22 EM changes, or errors, that result in an inability to 23 share compliance with the acceptance criteria in 10 24 CFR 5046d.
25 I'm just curious. What data do you have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
247 1 to support that statement, is one question.
2 Before going, do you want to talk about 3 why you believe that's a true statement?
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, I think we have some 5 staff on the line that may be able to answer that, if 6 possible, from the Division of Safety Systems in NRR.
7 MR. LEHNING: Jim, this is John Lehning, 8 from --
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Hi, John.
10 MR. LEHNING: -- Division of Safety 11 Systems NRR.
12 So, the wording there is based on 13 experience. So, in particular, the statement about 14 applicants rarely experiencing evaluation model 15 changes that would result in an inability to 16 demonstrate for instance, if the peak cladding 17 temperature is below 2,200. Or the oxidation is less 18 than 17 percent.
19 So, that's based on the experience that we 20 have with doing the reviews of new light water 21 reactors, and seeing that in some cases, that the 22 margins are very high for these plants that have been 23 designed with this hypothetical LOCA from the very 24 beginning.
25 Unlike the current plants that have been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
248 1 operating that you know, some of these changes 2 occurred during the design.
3 So, some of the new reactors, for 4 instance, do not necessarily even uncover the core for 5 a lot of the events. And, so that's partly what is 6 qualitatively behind the statement.
7 Obviously, the future is unpredictable and 8 could, could there be some things that we seriously 9 don't expect to happen? Those possibilities are 10 there, but we don't foresee that.
11 We don't reasonably foresee ways that this 12 is likely going to happen, for these plants to have so 13 much margin.
14 CHAIR REMPE: So, you're talking then 15 solely about light water reactors with core systems 16 that b46 is supposed to apply to?
17 MR. LEHNING: Correct.
18 CHAIR REMPE: But there is a lack of data 19 right now, for some of the new plants.
20 The other I guess thing, I mean right now, 21 but I mean recently in China, the EPR is having some 22 issues with fuel failures, and they're trying to 23 figure that out.
24 And so again, there's not a lot of data to 25 support new reactors.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
249 1 The other thing I'm thinking about is 2 maybe I'm extrapolating too much, and correct my 3 thinking process if it's incorrect, but it seems like 4 we've seen with the DCs that, ones that are certified, 5 there was on example of a certified design that 6 another vendor came in and picked it up.
7 And, I'm wondering if there's not 8 continuity in reporting required, what happens in 9 those type of situations?
10 And, then I'm thinking about the earlier 11 remark we made at the beginning of the meeting today, 12 about the, the vendors today, or the design developers 13 of today, are not the established vendors of the past.
14 And, again, if some of this has tried to 15 be applied to the non-LWRs, some of them are relying 16 on for example, the DOE codes.
17 And, those codes and how they find errors, 18 and then it gets propagated to a person that's holding 19 a certified design, may not be as straightforward as 20 half of the past, for Westinghouse, or GE, or whoever, 21 had their own tools.
22 And, when they had errors, they kept track 23 of it, and they went forward with it.
24 And, so I'm just kind of kicking the tires 25 to see if maybe we ought to be thinking about what's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
250 1 coming down the pike here, instead of what our 2 experience was in the past.
3 MR. LEHNING: I understand that question, 4 and this is John Lehning, from the staff again.
5 I just before answering the new questions 6 you had, I just wanted to make one more statement 7 regarding the first question.
8 And, so that was in the cost benefit, even 9 if that, some of those statements are, you know, 10 certainly expect them to be the way that we said.
11 But even if they were to happen 12 differently, that would affect the cost benefit. But 13 not necessarily in the staff side for the safety.
14 Because these reporting requirements and what they 15 are, whether they were wrong about how often they have 16 to report, that, that really doesn't change the 17 safety.
18 We think that the Regulation still ensures 19 safety adequately, in the way that it's being proposed 20 there.
21 But I think to just go to the question on 22 the certified design when another vendor picks it up, 23 or transfers back. Because as you say, we've seen 24 that happen.
25 What I see for that is that even though NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
251 1 this change here that's being proposed, speaks to 2 reporting requirements to the NRC and relaxing those, 3 it does not relieve the vendor of the responsibility 4 to document those changes, and maintain their own 5 internal records.
6 And, so if a design were to change hands 7 from one vendor to another, then at that time, all the 8 records associated with that design, which would 9 include these error and change reports, would be part 10 and parcel in the staff side, to what gets transferred 11 over.
12 And, so there should, it's not as if by 13 not reporting it to the NRC, somehow they're relieved 14 of other requirements for quality assurance and 15 completeness of records, and so forth, with, with 16 that.
17 CHAIR REMPE: So again, this might be my 18 lack of knowledge. I thought when you had a certified 19 design, what's in the public record, is what's in the 20 public record.
21 Is there any requirement that they have to 22 transfer all their proprietary documents over to 23 whoever picks up the design?
24 MR. LEHNING: So, John Lehning, I mean, 25 speaking again.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
252 1 So, I don't know the exact details of what 2 is required in that case, just to be honest, and some 3 other NRC staff may want to jump in and help with 4 that.
5 But I would say this. That when a design 6 is transferred, there is a whole lot more information 7 associated with that design in order to be able to 8 construct it, and operate it, than what is actually in 9 the, in the DCD and so forth.
10 And, so if there is a commercial agreement 11 that covers you know, all the details about how to, of 12 tolerances, and all the things of how to do this 13 construction of this, and operation, so much of that's 14 below the level of detail.
15 So, the you know, the exact details of 16 this and how that gets handled, I couldn't say. But 17 I know that it would be similar to license transfers 18 and things like that I believe, for operating plants 19 and so forth.
20 But maybe someone else can speak to that.
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: And, yes, maybe is there 22 someone from DNRL that want to, that wants to speak to 23 this? Because we did experience this as, as was said 24 before with another applicant.
25 So, we know you know, ultimately, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
253 1 know, I can say is that we reserve the right to get 2 whatever information that's needed to make our safety 3 finding.
4 So, whether that stuff is proprietary or 5 not, and they have to make commercial deals, whatever, 6 you know, we need to get you know, what we need to 7 make our safety finding.
8 But I think that's really a licensing 9 question.
10 CHAIR REMPE: Dennis, you had your hand up 11 briefly. Do you have another thought on this topic?
12 I mean, you were around when we used to talk about 13 Joe's reactor, and things like that, on the committee, 14 and how we had to make sure things worked.
15 MR. BLEY: That was another guy, but you 16 know, I was --
17 CHAIR REMPE: Yes, it was.
18 MR. BLEY: -- thinking before, before I 19 was paying close attention, it was 5046.
20 But the SDAs that were in part 52, we know 21 from example that if there's a certified design, the 22 only thing another vendor gets unless they buy it, is 23 what's in the rule.
24 We saw examples of that where a second 25 organization took, took a certified design, but they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
254 1 had to go back and redo all the calculations for 2 everything, if that's where you were headed, Joy.
3 CHAIR REMPE: That's where I'm headed.
4 And, I mean I appreciate, again, I don't know the 5 answer to this. I appreciate what you're saying, John 6 Lehning, but when you said you know, they have to turn 7 in their error reports, I'm not sure if that is true.
8 And, that's why I'm asking the question.
9 MR. LEHNING: I think it sounds like we may 10 need to take a note of that, and maybe come back and 11 get a more complete answer.
12 I mean I would say in the case that, of 13 redoing all the calculations, that's a scenario where 14 it's possible that by using different methods, or that 15 some of the errors in changes, they may not 16 necessarily apply to the new calculation.
17 But still, there are some items that 18 possibly could come up again in that case, too.
19 So, let me not say a whole lot more, other 20 than I think we may want to get back to that question 21 in the next discussion.
22 CHAIR REMPE: That sounds great.
23 Again, a lot of times in some of the DCAs 24 we've seen a design developer that will say oh, don't 25 worry, we're going to be around when the COL comes in.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
255 1 And, I constantly am reminding them well, 2 that's not necessarily true. It's a certified design, 3 it's out there, and then it's up to whoever picks up 4 on it to interact with this initial developer.
5 And, so I, I don't know how well the 6 connections are in place.
7 And, then I guess my last question is 8 we've got a lot of design developers that are coming 9 in now, that are less, they're not the legacy ones 10 that Dave mentioned earlier.
11 And, I just am thinking about that some of 12 them rely on the DOE for their, their codes. And, you 13 know, DOE gets their money from The Hill, and it may 14 not be authorized to do that in the future. And, I'm 15 just kind of wondering how that all gets transferred.
16 But anyway, I think he gets the gist of my 17 question.
18 MR. LEHNING: Thank you.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right, is there any 20 other questions on this topic?
21 All right, I'll move on to slide 61, and 22 we're getting, we're getting close to the end. But 23 I'm relying on Quynh to keep, keep us all on track 24 here.
25 So, this one is reporting requirements for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
256 1 completion of construction. The staff is proposing a 2 change that would require all future part 50 power 3 reactor licensees, and part 52 combined licenses 4 holders, to promptly notify the NRC of the successful 5 completion of power ascension testing.
6 So, just some history. On June 19, 2020, 7 that's just last year or two years ago rather, the NRC 8 published a final rule that modified the timing of the 9 start of assessment of annual fees, for holders of 10 operating licenses issued under part 50, and holders 11 of combined licenses issued under part 52, to begin on 12 the date when the license, licensee, or the COL holder 13 provides notification to the NRC, that the power 14 ascension testing is complete.
15 So, part 171 does not contain any 16 notification of reporting requirements. Also, parts 17 50 and 52 do not contain any provision requiring 18 licensees to notify the NRC of the completion of power 19 ascension testing.
20 Only current part 52 combined licenses 21 contain a standard license condition, that requires 22 the licensee to submit written notification to the NRC 23 upon successful completion of power ascension testing.
24 So, take a look at for this language, 25 reference slide 124. The staff is proposing to add NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
257 1 section 5071i, to require all future part 50 power 2 reactor licensees, and power 52 COL holders, to notify 3 the NRC of the completion of power ascension testing.
4 This would ensure that the licensee 5 promptly submits a notification of successful 6 completion of power ascension testing, so the NRC can 7 begin assessing part 171 fees.
8 The NRC did not receive any public 9 comments on this item, as it was discussed in the 10 regulatory basis associated with the proposed rule.
11 The proposed change would be cost 12 beneficial because the improved clarity of Regulation 13 requirements would provide more regulatory certainty, 14 and improve efficiency.
15 This would result in resourcings for the 16 applicant, because the NRC would not have to develop 17 license conditions to require notification of 18 completion of power ascension testing.
19 Any questions on that?
20 All right, I'll move on. 62, conditions of 21 licenses. We're on slide 62.
22 The staff is proposing to amend section 23 5054, condition, conditions of licenses, to clarify 24 the applicability of conditions of operating licenses, 25 for non-power production and utilization facilities.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
258 1 So, you can see these changes in reference 2 slides 125, 126, 127, and 128.
3 As part of the 2007 part 52 final rule, 4 the NRC revised the introductory text of 5054, to only 5 refer to nuclear power reactor licensees, which 6 introduced uncertainty in the applicability of certain 7 paragraphs of 5054, to production and utilization 8 facilities, other than nuclear power plants.
9 This proposed rule would amend the NRC's 10 Regulations to ensure applicants and licensees clearly 11 understand which provisions of 5054, apply to non-12 power production and utilization facilities.
13 The NRC did not discuss these proposed 14 changes in the regulatory basis, so the NRC has not 15 previously received any public comments on this item.
16 These changes are cost beneficial for 17 applicants, because the production and utilization 18 facility licensees and applicants would understand the 19 applicability of these provisions, and the NRC would 20 not have to explain it to them on a case-by-case 21 basis.
22 Is there any questions on that one?
23 All right, I'll move on to this final one 24 here, where hooray, we're almost done.
25 So, this is, this continuing priority NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
259 1 ranking model for generic issues.
2 So, the staff is proposing to amend four 3 provisions in part 52, to reflect discontinuance of 4 the priority ranking model, to identify significant 5 generic issues.
6 This change aligns the Regulation with the 7 current practice that the staff uses, where the staff 8 uses a risk informed method, to identify significant 9 generic issues that an applicant should address in its 10 submittal to the NRC.
11 So, these changes would affect sections 12 52.47a21, 52.79a20, 52.137a21, and 52.157f28. And, 13 you can see these on references slides 129 and 130.
14 Under the proposed changes, the applicants 15 would need to propose technical resolutions of all 16 generic issues identified since July 21, 1999.
17 And, unresolved safety issues and medium, 18 and high-priority generic issues, identified before 19 July 21, 1999, that are relevant to the design.
20 The staff received one public comment on 21 this issue. The commenter claimed that part 52 22 applicants and licensees, would need new guidance to 23 implement this change.
24 The commenter said that part 52 applicants 25 cannot risk inform the resolution of generic safety NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
260 1 issues under, using Reg Guide 1.174, because the NRC 2 would deem the applicant's PRA technically inadequate, 3 or the process would require the applicant to justify 4 significant departures from Reg Guide 1.174.
5 The commenter also stated that part 52 6 applicants should not need to satisfy the requirements 7 of Reg Guide 1.174, because the NRC uses the risk 8 information in a part 52 application, to allow the NRC 9 to conclude that there is reasonable assurance of 10 adequate protection, not to make changes to a 11 previously approved design, or licensing basis.
12 The NRC disagrees with the recommendation 13 to issue further guidance. The change to the 14 Regulation is needed to align the description of the 15 generic issue process with the current practice, as 16 described in our Management Directive 6.4.
17 The change that drops, basically this 18 change drops the practice that the staff uses, of 19 assigning a generic issue of priority of high, medium, 20 and low.
21 And, that does not affect what the 22 applicants must do to review and address a generic 23 issue in their application.
24 The staff is not proposing further changes 25 to the Regulation as a result of this comment.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
261 1 So, these changes would clarify the 2 Regulations, and be cost beneficial for applicants 3 because they would need to commit fewer resources to 4 engage with the NRC in pre-application phase, to 5 understand the requirement.
6 This is because the Regulations would more 7 closely match the description of the information that 8 is needed for the NRC's review.
9 Any questions on that?
10 All right. So, let's talk about cost and 11 savings.
12 So, we're on slide 64, and it's 4:20.
13 As part of the development of the proposed 14 rule, the staff considered the potential cost and 15 savings for both the industry, and the NRC.
16 The estimates are preliminary, and subject 17 to change as we further develop the regulatory 18 solutions to the final rule.
19 In the proposed rule, we intend to make 20 available a separate draft cost estimate document, 21 that will have more details.
22 We evaluated the proposed changes against 23 the regulatory baseline, that is what we are currently 24 doing. We analyzed savings for the next 10 years 25 where it was applicable.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
262 1 The total net savings could be anywhere 2 from $16 million to about $26 million, depending on 3 the discount rate used in the estimate.
4 The corresponding sensitivity analysis 5 conducted, concluded a very, very high chance of 6 obtaining a cost savings from the preceding, from 7 proceeding with this activity.
8 Of course, the rule making also achieves 9 non-quantifiable benefits such as regulatory 10 efficiency of public confidence.
11 The biggest items that avert costs are:
12 the items related to security requirements for the 13 storage of unirradiated fuel; the elimination of the 14 need for DC renewals; the clarification of the scope 15 of tier 1 information; the elimination of information 16 requirements related to conformance with the standard 17 review plan; and, enabling construction permit 18 applicant to reference a reviewed environmental 19 assessment, which we didn't talk about, but that's in 20 the environmental topic.
21 There were several areas where the changes 22 increased costs. These major ones are: the evaluation 23 of severe accidents earlier in the part 50 process; 24 the items related to the PRA changes; the application 25 of TMI requirements for future part 50 applicants; NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
263 1 and, operator license continuing training requirements 2 for cold plants.
3 Any questions on that? All right.
4 MEMBER BALLINGER: I suppose that it's 5 theoretically possible for the two first bullets to be 6 both true.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sir, I'm not sure I 8 understand the question?
9 MEMBER BALLINGER: Well, if you'd say that 10 the net averted cost is between $16 and $25 million, 11 and then you say that there's a 99 percent probability 12 that --
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes. So, let me explain 14 a little bit about this.
15 I'm not a cost analyst, but I don't know 16 if folks are familiar with the concept of Monte Carlo 17 analysis.
18 So, what we do is you know, first you 19 know, we make two point estimates in our cost 20 analysis.
21 So, we basically say okay, what does it 22 look like if we use a discount rate of 3 percent? And 23 what if we used a discount rate of 7 percent?
24 So, we basically get two fixed numbers.
25 Hey, if we use a higher discount rate, you know, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
264 1 basically assuming that whatever money you save, you 2 know, you invest as opposed to use, let's say a three 3 point percent, you get a different number, of course.
4 Because you're looking at the time value of money.
5 But a lot of things are variable. You 6 have the interest rates, and so what we do is we, we 7 conduct this what we call a Monte Carlo analysis, that 8 runs these scenarios like 10,000 times, and varies 9 using a normal distributions on certain parameters, 10 like interest rates.
11 And, you get what at the end, at the 12 distribution curve, some you know, very, very, very 13 few are failures we're saying.
14 And, 99 percent of those 10,000 runs 15 result in a cost savings.
16 So, it would be very, very, very, very 17 unlikely that that things could align such that you 18 don't save money on this rule. That somehow the --
19 CHAIR BIER: Jim?
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Go ahead.
21 CHAIR BIER: I think this was kind of 22 nitpick. I think the basic point was that the first 23 bullet should have been estimated to be between, 24 rather than is between.
25 So, I don't think we need all the detail NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
265 1 on that, but thank you.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, all right. I'll 3 stop.
4 CHAIR BIER: Any other questions or 5 comments on this slide?
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right.
7 CHAIR BIER: Okay. So, Jim, given the 8 timing, what I am proposing to do is go to public 9 comments now, and then reserve another 20 to 30 if 10 people are able to stay, to discuss not your slides 11 for next steps, but kind of what comments people want 12 to reemphasize, or come back to on February 18, et 13 cetera.
14 Is that agreeable?
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Fine by me.
16 CHAIR BIER: Okay. So, you're able to 17 stay?
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.
19 CHAIR BIER: So, I guess there's first any 20 questions or comments from the audience. I don't 21 think we have a lot of physical audience here, but if 22 there are any?
23 CHAIR REMPE: Okay, a lot of people.
24 CHAIR BIER: Yes.
25 CHAIR REMPE: There are a lot of people on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
266 1 the line, and this is the time for public comments.
2 And, I believe you're supposed to unmute yourself and 3 do *6, or something like that.
4 And, it might be good for someone to just 5 try it to make sure things are working.
6 CHAIR BIER: So, I think, and that includes 7 anybody who's on Teams, or on the phone lines.
8 CHAIR REMPE: Right.
9 CHAIR BIER: Can make comments at this 10 time.
11 MR. BLEY: Hey Quynh, isn't it *8, or is it 12 *6?
13 MR. NGUYEN: *6.
14 CHAIR BIER: I think *6. But I haven't 15 tried it. Could someone on the line just do it to 16 make sure?
17 Even if you have no questions, just 18 volunteer to be a guinea pig.
19 MR. NGUYEN: I guess, could the court 20 reporter just say something so we know the line's 21 working?
22 COURT REPORTER: Court reporter is 23 speaking.
24 CHAIR BIER: Okay.
25 MR. NGUYEN: Thanks.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
267 1 CHAIR BIER: So, I will wait another 30 2 seconds or so, to see if there is any other comments 3 or questions from Teams, or from the phone line.
4 Okay. So, first of all, Jim, thank you 5 very much for a very thorough presentation. And, I 6 especially appreciated having all the reference slides 7 at the back, so we didn't have to go digging around.
8 Plus, it kind of super human to be 9 briefing, you know, you obviously had some staff help 10 here and there. But you basically briefed close to 11 eight hours of it.
12 But, huge accomplishment by itself. I 13 know it's very tiring.
14 So, rather than go through the last few 15 slides that you have that we all have available to us 16 anyway, we can review on our own, I wanted to take 17 some time to go over which topics people on the 18 committee really would like to revisit in some form.
19 Whether it's through discussion now, 20 through staff followup on the 18th, or through you 21 know, just making a different document available to 22 us, whatever.
23 So, I think one of the first ones in that 24 category is Walt, you wanted to make some comments 25 about this whole idea of essentially complete.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
268 1 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Thank you, Chairman.
2 Yes, this is one area that always, this is 3 just an opinion, I'll start with an opinion, of 52.41, 4 scope of the sub-part, and that is the requirements 5 for granting standard design certifications.
6 It has two sub-parts. Part b1, any person 7 may seek a standard design certification for an 8 essentially complete nuclear power plant, which is an 9 evolutionary change from light water reactor designs 10 of plants, which have been licensed and in commercial 11 operation, before April 18, 1989.
12 That, and I'll come back to essentially 13 complete.
14 The second part of the scope goes on to 15 say, any person may also seek a standard design 16 certification for a nuclear power plant, which differs 17 significantly from the light water reactor designs 18 described in the above paragraph that I just read, of 19 this section, or uses simplified, inherent, passive, 20 or other innovative means to accomplish its safety 21 functions.
22 What it doesn't explicitly call out there, 23 Jim, is that the requirement for essentially complete 24 design.
25 So, it suggests at the preamble level NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
269 1 going into this sub-part, that there's a lower 2 threshold perhaps, for new designs because they might 3 use simplified, or passive, or innovative means to 4 accomplish their safety functions.
5 So, where going with this is the b1 6 provision suggests a level of maturity that's well, an 7 evolutionary change from an existing plant, which 8 suggests that a fairly mature design.
9 The second part doesn't really request 10 that level of maturity. For example, as demonstrated 11 by prototypical testing or something.
12 If you go down further into 52.47, 13 contents of applications for the SDAs, there is a c1 14 and a c, Charlie 1 and 2, reference to these two items 15 in 52.41, that does call out for an essentially 16 complete design.
17 So, my sense is there is, is that in 52.41 18 in that d2, there should be a requirement for an 19 essentially complete design.
20 That, I think, may avert misunderstandings 21 by new advocates of new designs, that aren't how 22 should I say, fully mature.
23 And, then I would just add that in 52.47, 24 the preamble to that section on content of 25 applications. They actually infer almost, what a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
270 1 complete, essentially complete design would be.
2 And, so if you bear with me, I'll just 3 read a couple of sentences out of that preamble.
4 Performance requirements for the design, and 5 sufficient detail to permit the preparation of 6 acceptance and inspection requirements by the NRC; 7 and, procurement specifications and installation 8 specifications by the applicant.
9 So, that's a fairly mature design when you 10 can go that far and actually start writing procurement 11 specs.
12 So, I just direct your attention to those 13 points, and thank you, Chairmen.
14 CHAIR BIER: Okay. Thank you, Walt.
15 Jim, do you want to comment now, or just 16 take that as an item to come back in some form at a 17 later time?
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: We'll certainly take that 19 one back and look at it. I mean what I was thinking 20 of, this is kind of goes back to the discussion of the 21 preamble and what it's for.
22 And, we're trying to get into the head of 23 what we were thinking when we wrote this stuff. And, 24 I think Eric Oesterle, he also provided some good 25 information earlier about a SECY that we want to dig NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
271 1 into.
2 But yes, we will, I think this is 3 something we want to read a little bit more, and be 4 prepared a little bit more, you know, and think about 5 it.
6 CHAIR BIER: Okay.
7 Anybody else want to comment on this topic 8 of essentially complete in different forms? Okay.
9 Charlie, you had raised this issue about 10 digital INC upgrades, and I'm wondering if you want to 11 say a little bit more briefly, about that, or?
12 MEMBER BROWN: All I want to do is make 13 sure that this was the effort we made on --
14 CHAIR BIER: Your mic's dead.
15 MEMBER BROWN: Oh, you mean you can't hear 16 me?
17 We went, the committee and the staff went 18 through a lot of effort to get some clarity added back 19 into Reg Guide 1.187, and the use of 96.07 appendix D, 20 to facilitate INC upgrades.
21 And, the comment here was made that that 22 did not carry over into the part 52, when they 50.59 23 stuff for applicability.
24 I don't understand why that's not the 25 case, even though there's no new plants yet but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
272 1 they're asking for upgrades.
2 There's no sense in letting this baby lay 3 around and then get lost somewhere in the future.
4 CHAIR BIER: And, cause more problems.
5 MEMBER BROWN: So, I just, for me, they 6 ought to come and address this at our full committee 7 meeting, if that's, that's suitable.
8 CHAIR BIER: Okay.
9 MEMBER BROWN: I don't think we need 10 another sub-committee meeting on it. We just ought to 11 have a discussion of that and say why in the world 12 can't you do something that simple.
13 CHAIR BIER: So, I think that's another 14 item that Jim wanted to kind of get the right people 15 looped in on.
16 MEMBER BROWN: Exactly right.
17 Now, I, for all I know, Reg Guide 1.187 18 and 96.07 will apply to the other plants. I just 19 don't know where, or how that gets executed.
20 They may not need to do anything. I don't 21 remember a discussion that this only applied to 22 operating plants today, when we went through that. I 23 just don't remember that.
24 And, I, so that's just the thoughts that 25 I had.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
273 1 CHAIR BIER: Okay.
2 MEMBER BROWN: That was it for me.
3 CHAIR BIER: Thanks.
4 Dennis, I know at some point you had some 5 comments during the day about how some of the changes 6 here, might be incorporated into Part 53, and/or vice 7 versa. Do you want to reiterate, or summarize?
8 MR. BLEY: Well, yes, I'll be glad to. I 9 was going to send you and Joy a memo, a short one.
10 We had a discussion about how changes to 11 an STA by an applicant isn't specified currently, and 12 they added words to, to do that.
13 There was another example where they gave 14 the same flexibility to a manufacturing license, as 15 for a design cert.
16 My concern was there are going to be other 17 areas like this. And, instead of having to come in 18 and fight through exceptions, if there could be 19 language added somewhere in part 52.
20 And, it can't just be in sub-part b for 21 SCAs because it would apply to the other areas as 22 well, that said if the, well, manufacturing license or 23 an SCA runs into a place where it's not defined 24 currently, that one could revert to the processes in 25 part, in the design cert to cover those.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
274 1 So, that was the thing I talked about.
2 Definition of essentially complete design 3 52.1 is pretty good, but the staff made a nice 4 discussion about the importance of showing that this 5 potentially complete design changes with the phase of 6 design, and licensing.
7 And, I think a couple words added to the 8 first sentence of that definition would clarify that 9 for everyone, and would be helpful.
10 And, then yes, the one you talked about, 11 Part 53, they're developing, staff is developing an 12 approach to risk informing that, that essentially 13 allows you to take a deterministic, or a I'll call it 14 a full PRA, but I don't like that language because I 15 see PRA as a continuum.
16 But allows you to take different 17 approaches to accomplishing that. And, I think we're 18 missing the boat a bit, if we don't try to include 19 that same process as part of 50 and 52.
20 So, I'll send you a note on those because 21 I think those are worthy.
22 But I would say today was extraordinarily 23 useful, and a lot of the things I was concerned about, 24 Jim really gave us a pretty, and the other staff 25 members, gave us a pretty clear explanation of why NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
275 1 things are as they are, that I think was really good, 2 and clarified things for me.
3 So, most of the other areas I'm pretty 4 comfortable on. That one Joy is really interested in 5 and I am, too, about mobile reactors, probably we 6 ought to think about that, too.
7 We might want to say something about that, 8 and maybe the staff could tell us something about that 9 at the full committee meeting.
10 I don't see a need for another 11 subcommittee meeting, but maybe some of the members 12 do.
13 That's all.
14 CHAIR BIER: Thanks, Dennis.
15 So, Dennis does mention the topic of 16 physical security for mobile reactors. Do you want to 17 say anything more about it while it's on the table?
18 CHAIR REMPE: No. I think I mentioned it, 19 and the transcript --
20 CHAIR BIER: Yes.
21 CHAIR REMPE: -- ought to be available in 22 a few days.
23 There is several comments I made in the 24 transcript, and I still think there may be a need for 25 us to look at some of the associated guidance, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
276 1 what the proposed changes are, at least before our 2 full committee meeting, so that we can, and I, I'm not 3 sure yet that we don't need a half day meeting --
4 CHAIR BIER: Yes.
5 CHAIR REMPE: -- to address some of these 6 things, and during the 18th of this month.
7 But I guess I'd kind of like to see the 8 transcript, and go through those items.
9 CHAIR BIER: Yes.
10 CHAIR REMPE: Before I would make that 11 call. But that's my opinion.
12 CHAIR BIER: I think the --
13 MR. BLEY: This is a --
14 CHAIR REMPE: Yes, sorry. Go ahead.
15 MR. BLEY: I'm just going to jump back in 16 on that one.
17 This is an opportunity to comment on, on 18 the guidance. I didn't realize it was as complete as 19 it is. I mean, as far along in the approval process 20 as it is.
21 So, if we want to make, if the committee 22 wants to make comments on any of that guidance, this 23 would be the appropriate time to do it since it's 24 sitting there for us.
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: The only thing I'd like to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
277 1 add, if I could respectfully ask, you know, of course 2 it's always respectfully.
3 But, if we could pick, if you know, what 4 guidance you would like to really drill in on.
5 Because you know, there is a certain bit of 6 administrative work to, to make sure management is 7 comfortable with making that guidance publicly 8 available.
9 And, we need to get, make that happen in 10 sufficient time such that the ACRS gets that 11 information in advance of the meeting in order for 12 them to formulate good questions.
13 So, I'm hoping that you know, I'll work 14 with Quynh, and I'm sure, and we'll you know, we'll 15 make whatever you need, happen.
16 MR. BLEY: Maybe it's more appropriate to 17 do later than. I don't know, Joy, what do you think?
18 CHAIR REMPE: Well, I think I need to 19 rethink which guidance I want, I think is important.
20 Because I learned a lot about of life to have, or how 21 you're dealing with multiple rulemakings at the same 22 time.
23 And, so I would like to take another look 24 at it and of course, this week's very busy with rule 25 committee week.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
278 1 So, if we could have till like Wednesday 2 of next week to kind of get our ducks in a row, I 3 think I could make a more intelligent assessment.
4 And, I think other members also, will have 5 the same problem, that it's hard to do outside work 6 with our full committee week.
7 Is that okay with your schedule, Jim?
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, we'll make it happen.
9 CHAIR REMPE: Thank you.
10 CHAIR BIER: Okay.
11 That sounds like kind of what I had in 12 mind, is that we would review the list of guidance 13 documents to figure out what our highest priorities 14 were, and get a kind of consensus list to you sometime 15 hopefully early or mid next week.
16 So, any other comments or topics that 17 people want to make? It looks like both Charlie and 18 Jose, so.
19 MEMBER BROWN: Go ahead.
20 CHAIR BIER: Jose first. You've been 21 quiet all day.
22 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes, I've been trying 23 to stay off.
24 It's on a really different topic, but 25 related. It has to do with topical reports.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
279 1 We had a presentation last month, a couple 2 of weeks ago, on the design center new licensing 3 process, in which what I got out of it is that the 4 staff is encouraging pre-submittal topical reports, to 5 kind of clear a special features of minute design.
6 Like, I have a novel containment, or a 7 novel this or that. I can send a topical report and 8 have it reviewed ahead of time, and get an opinion 9 from the staff.
10 Typically, topical reports are used almost 11 exclusively for methodologies. So, using a 12 pharmaceutical terminology, we're using topical 13 reports either with with off-label, if we using for 14 this.
15 So, I encourage it. I mean I like it; I 16 love it. We should do it more. I'd like to think if 17 the staff can figure out a way to, I mean the rule is 18 completely silent on this.
19 And, indeed, one would expect that you 20 will not touch a topical report on a design unless the 21 design is written like a design.
22 It'll be nice if that was properly 23 codified that it is a good thing to do, which I 24 encourage.
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, so this is sort of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
280 1 a question for John Segala's group. But I would 2 submit that you know, when a topical report is 3 reviewed, you can reference that report in your 4 subsequent application.
5 That has been done before, and we 6 continuing to do that.
7 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: What I'm saying is, if 8 I am an applicant and I'm following this approach of 9 sending a topical report, it's a couple of years 10 before the application, I'm doing it at risk. You may 11 not even accept it.
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Uh huh.
13 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: There might be a way, 14 it doesn't need to be part of the rule, it might be a 15 way to say yes, this is an acceptable thing for, for 16 new reactors to do. And, we will accept it for you.
17 I don't know. Think of this a way to make 18 it, to reduce the regulatory uncertainty for me as an 19 applicant.
20 CHAIR BIER: Jose, are you suggesting that 21 this should maybe be explicitly addressed somewhere in 22 parts 50 and 52, or just that it's kind of an 23 orthogonal topic?
24 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: If that is what we 25 mean that that's the way we would like for new NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
281 1 reactors to be, have an option, which I do, I think it 2 should be included. Maybe in the preamble, you know?
3 CHAIR BIER: Okay, thank you.
4 So, coming back to Charlie, whatever the 5 other topic was now.
6 MEMBER BROWN: Yes, this is just a general 7 thought process; sorry about that. I was going to 8 make the same comment Greg did a few minutes ago.
9 The inclusion of the stuff covered in the 10 slide where you could directly reference off to what 11 they were talking about, and see what they were doing.
12 I don't remember seeing that in any other 13 meetings before. Maybe somebody could correct me, or 14 I slept through it if that was the case.
15 But that was very, very useful. I don't 16 know how on complex subjects like this, even with the 17 redline version they gave us, and you could go back 18 and it was hard to dig out the connection between what 19 they're presenting in the slide, and what you read in 20 that document.
21 And, they had those paragraphed out with 22 you know, just little sections. Very, very useful.
23 They were all back in the back, and you could rapidly 24 go to it.
25 We got a lot of questions answered by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
282 1 being able to go back and forth.
2 We can't make people do anything, okay?
3 I recognize that. But on a complex issues like that, 4 I'll have to admit on the Part 53 presentations, I 5 lost the bubble I don't know how many meetings ago.
6 It's just everything's so scattered 7 around, that I don't know what it's even required 8 anymore, okay?
9 So, I'm not, I'm just somehow we ought to 10 try to communicate. I don't know what the right way 11 to do that is. We obviously can't demand anything.
12 But Greg was right on the money, and I had 13 the same thought when I was reviewing this. It was 14 much easier when we got to the slides, and then you 15 could review them and say oh, that's easy now, instead 16 of wasting a lot of time finding the stuff.
17 And, it answered a lot of questions that 18 we didn't have to ask during the meeting. It was a 19 very productive meeting.
20 CHAIR BIER: Yes, I agree with that.
21 Any other topics that people want to 22 raise? And, if not, I'll talk very briefly about next 23 session.
24 MEMBER HALNON: Vicki, this is Greg.
25 CHAIR BIER: Oh, sorry, yes?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
283 1 MEMBER HALNON: Just two things that I'm 2 going to carry forward --
3 CHAIR BIER: Okay, great.
4 MEMBER HALNON: Nothing has to be done. I 5 mean obviously we talked about the New Reg 1021, and 6 I'll review that when we get it uploaded to where 7 we're sure we have the right version.
8 And, then the connection with 50.160, and 9 how that issues comes out with EPZ and FEMA, and all 10 that stuff, and make sure that that carries through as 11 well to the final.
12 CHAIR BIER: Great.
13 MEMBER HALNON: So, nothing that I need.
14 CHAIR BIER: Nothing that requires --
15 MEMBER HALNON: Just open items on my list.
16 CHAIR BIER: Yes, just double check that.
17 MEMBER HALNON: Correct.
18 CHAIR BIER: Okay.
19 Any other points people want to raise?
20 CHAIR REMPE: So, I talked several times 21 about you know, it was great that you're trying, even 22 though we have changes we want on designing and 23 essential complete designs.
24 But I still think some thought ought to be 25 included about an essentially completely conceptual NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
284 1 design, for a construction permit. Because I think 2 that's just as hairy of a SECY.
3 But I also wanted to thank the staff for 4 the earlier briefings. Their willingness to try and 5 provide us information to support this meeting, and it 6 was a very great presentation. And, the staff should 7 be commended for it.
8 And, I mean we always talk about poor 9 Bucile Bereckly (phonetic) and all his Part 53 ratings 10 he's had to give us, and has patience for all our 11 questions, and I think Jim deserves similar 12 commendations.
13 So, thanks.
14 CHAIR BIER: Absolutely. And, my sense 15 from here first of all, if we do decide that we want 16 to come back on February 18, I do not envision that it 17 will be another mammoth all day briefing like this.
18 We've already had the overview, and there 19 may be a few topics that justify coming back for you 20 know, a part-day briefing. A few hours would be 21 appropriate; technical staff available for each topic.
22 Or, we may decide that those can just be 23 handled at full committee, or offline by sharing of 24 documents, et cetera.
25 CHAIR REMPE: I still lobby for as much as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
285 1 we can in a morning briefing, because it's harder --
2 CHAIR BIER: Yes, for sure.
3 CHAIR REMPE: -- to accommodate, even with 4 the reduction in some of the scope for March full 5 committee.
6 It's just hard to have more than an hour 7 and a half meeting.
8 CHAIR BIER: Well --
9 MEMBER PETTI: So I'm a little worried that 10 we're asking the staff, that it's too hard a lift.
11 If they don't get our comments back till 12 next Wednesday, they're supposed to get stuff to us in 13 advance of the meeting. And, it's almost like they 14 got two days to turn it around.
15 CHAIR REMPE: Well, some topics they heard 16 today. I agree with you.
17 And, then the other issue is well, can we 18 get guide? And, I just I don't know if we can get our 19 act together quicker than Wednesday.
20 MEMBER PETTI: I understand that but --
21 CHAIR REMPE: How do you feel, Jim? Is 22 that not enough time?
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I guess it depends on the 24 number of guidance documents, and the willingness of 25 folks to, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
286 1 CHAIR REMPE: If you can't get them, that's 2 fine, but.
3 CHAIR BIER: Well, and you know one 4 solution to that might be that we request the guidance 5 documents that we want, but they may not be available 6 prior to the 18th.
7 They may just be available for us to 8 review with enough lead time before full committee.
9 Because I agree with Joy, that especially 10 if we're going to try and write a letter in March, 11 getting new input or new answers to our questions in 12 March, is going to be difficult on our side.
13 But I also appreciate that you know, we 14 don't want to make things unreasonably difficult on 15 your side either.
16 So, I think we will come back with a 17 recommendation about what we would like to do, if 18 anything, on the 18th. But also with some list of 19 hopefully not an enormous number of document requests, 20 that might be uncoupled from the February 18th 21 meeting.
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
23 CHAIR BIER: Any last --
24 CHAIR REMPE: Go ahead.
25 CHAIR BIER: Quynh, okay?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
287 1 MR. NGUYEN: Yes. So I think that the game 2 plan is for February 18, I will notice a meeting for 3 the morning.
4 CHAIR BIER: Excellent.
5 MR. NGUYEN: So, inputs to collect and 6 summarize these thoughts. I'll try to, hope to the 7 deadline's Tuesday or Wednesday next week. We'll try 8 to make the requests for any guidance documents for 9 public discussion.
10 I'll continue to work with Jim to see you 11 know, what's possible in that time. And, obviously 12 we've got to weigh our requests versus time remaining.
13 But it's very important that you know, 14 we'll probably spend a half an hour to discuss what 15 should be on the agenda, or points of emphasis for the 16 March full committee, unless you want the whole thing 17 and Jim talks really, really fast to accomplish it in 18 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />.
19 CHAIR BIER: No, that doesn't sound like a 20 great plan for him, or us probably, so.
21 MR. NGUYEN: Yes, so I think it's important 22 to at least have that discussion of what you know, 23 should be summarized, or brought up for the full 24 committee.
25 So, there's value there.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
288 1 CHAIR BIER: Excellent.
2 CHAIR REMPE: I personally, would think the 3 full committee meeting would be something more similar 4 to what we've had in prior briefings, where it's just 5 these are the major topics that the rulemaking covers.
6 And, then if members have specific issues, 7 they can deal with it. But I would consider a high 8 level overview.
9 CHAIR BIER: Yes.
10 CHAIR REMPE: That's just, yes.
11 MR. NGUYEN: Right, right.
12 CHAIR REMPE: Because then.
13 CHAIR BIER: If we have the option of a 14 meeting February 18, which we could also I assume, 15 cancel if everything is answered magically before 16 then.
17 CHAIR REMPE: Sure.
18 CHAIR BIER: But that we would have that 19 option, and then hopefully by the time we go to March 20 full committee, most of these issues would be 21 addressed at a level where we could at least write up 22 our comments. Write a letter.
23 MR. NGUYEN: Correct. We can always cancel 24 the subcommittee, but any major developments we should 25 summarize at the full committee.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
289 1 CHAIR BIER: Sure. That sounds great.
2 So, I think with that, we are ready to 3 adjourn for the day.
4 Thank you all very much.
5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 6 off the record at 4:53 p.m.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
ADAMS Accession No. ML22020A001 ACRS Subcommittee Briefing:
Content of Proposed Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Incorporate Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing February 1, 2022 1
Todays Meeting
- Provide an update on the effort since the last ACRS meeting on this rulemaking (meeting transcript and slides: ADAMS Accession No. ML21075A211)
- Walk through the content of the proposed rule, including proposed rule language
- Discuss the estimates of costs and savings
- Provide an update on next steps and the rulemaking schedule
- Receive ACRS members perspectives 2
OPENING REMARKS Vicki Bier - Subcommittee Chairman Rob Taylor - Deputy Office Director for New Reactors in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 3
NRC STAFF PRESENTATION 4
NRC Staff Presenters Jim ODriscoll, NMSS Rulemaking Project Manager Omid Tabatabai, NRR Senior Project Manager 5
Purpose of the Rulemaking
- Implement Commission direction in SRM-SECY-15-0002, Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies, Rules, and Guidance for Future New Reactor Applications, to:
- Align Parts 50 and 52 reactor licensing processes
- Improve clarity
- Incorporate lessons learned in recent licensing proceedings
- Reduce unnecessary burden on applicants and staff 6
Rulemaking Process Identify Regulatory Proposed Final Rule need for Basis Rule rulemaking
- Described in
- Analyze
- Proposed rule *Final rule text SECY-15-0002 alternatives for text resolution
- Commissions
- Public meeting direction in
- Public meeting
- 75-day public SRM-SECY
- 75-day public comment period 0002 comment period Opportunities for public participation 7
Staffs Milestones of Rulemaking Activities October 1, 2018 Started scoping and outreach January 15, 2019 Held public meeting July 11, 2019 Internal alignment on scope of RB Issuance of Commission Information August 27, 2019 Paper SECY-19-0084 September 20, 2019 Held ACRS meeting 8
Staffs Milestones of Rulemaking Activities (contd)
November 21, 2019 Held public meeting February 2020 First draft of RB inputs completed April 29, 2020 Held public meeting January 2021 Published RB and FRN March 2021 Held public meetings 9
Staffs Milestones of Rulemaking Activities (contd)
May 2021 End of public comment period May 2021 First drafts of proposed rule technical inputs completed Final drafts of proposed rule technical November 2021 inputs completed December 2021 Commenced management review 10
Next Steps May 2022 Complete management concurrence May 2022 Forward the proposed rule to the Commission for approval March 2024 Forward the final rule to the Commission for approval 11
Federal Register Notice
- A proposed rule FRN supports public participation in the rulemaking process
- NRCs proposed rules also contain a preliminary cost/benefit analysis of the proposed changes
- Organization of the proposed rule:
- Preamble (explanation of proposed changes)
- Proposed rule language 12
Preamble TABLE OF CONTENTS:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information B. Submitting Comments II. Background III. Discussion A. Applying the Severe Accident Policy Statement to New Part 50 License Applications B. Probabilistic Risk Assessment Requirements C. Three Mile Island Requirements D. Description of Fire Protection Design Features and Fire Protection Plans E. Operator Licensing F. Physical Security and Fitness-for-Duty Requirements G. Emergency Planning H. The Part 52 Licensing Process I. Environmental J. Applicability of Other Processes to the Part 52 Licensing Process K. Miscellaneous Topics IV. Specific Requests for Comments V. Section-by-Section Analysis VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification VII. Regulatory Analysis VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality A. Current and Future Applicants B. Existing Design Certifications C. Existing Licenses D. Draft Regulatory Guidance IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation X. Plain Writing XI. National Environmental Policy Act XII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement XIII. Criminal Penalties XIV. Voluntary Consensus Standards XV. Availability of Guidance XVI. Public Meeting XVII. Availability of Documents 13
Scope of the Proposed Rule
- Number of technical areas: 11
- Number of items in scope: 61
- Items with rulemaking recommendation: 60
- Number of items with rulemaking and guidance development or revision: 18
- Number of guidance documents with rule: 14
- Number of 10 CFR Parts affected by rulemaking: 9 14
Alignment of Parts 50 and 52
- The proposed rule addresses four areas where the NRCs policies and direction for new reactors have resulted it requirements and guidance for Part 52 applicants only:
- Application of Severe Accident Policy Statement (1)
- Probabilistic Risk Assessment Requirements (3)
- Three Mile Island Requirements (1)
- Fire Protection Design Features and Plans (1) 15
Lessons Learned from Recent Experience
- The proposed rule covers topics for which the NRCs recent experience with new light water reactor licensing has resulted in lessons learned Operator Physical Fitness Emergency Licensing Security For Duty Planning (5) (2) (4) (7)
Part 52 Applicability of Environmental Other Processes Miscellaneous Licensing Topic to the 10 CFR Topics Process Part 52 Process (1) (9)
(21) (5) 16
Relationship to Non-LWRs
- Cross-cutting item
- The item was added in response to public comments on the regulatory basis
- The goal of the discussion and proposed changes is to explain how this rulemaking activity fits with other licensing process efforts and rulemakings that relate to non-light water technology 17
Topics of Interest
- Part 52 Licensing Process (slides 19-39)
- Severe Accidents (slide 40)
- Probabilistic Risk Assessment Requirements (slide 41-44)
- Three Mile Island Requirements (slide 45)
- Emergency Planning (slide 48-52)
- Operators Licenses (slide 53-57)
- Miscellaneous Topics (slide 58-61) 18
Part 52 Licensing Process
- The NRC plans on providing changes and/or guidance to the following areas for Part 52 licensing:
- DC Renewal (III.H.1)
- Change Process (III.H.2)
- Design Scope and Standardization (III.H.3)
- References to SDAs (III.H.4)
- Content of Applications (III.H.5) 19
DC Renewal
- Changes: Remove 15-year duration of DCs and renewal requirements
- Affected regulations:
- §52.55, Duration of certification
- §52.57, Application for renewal
- §52.59, Criteria for renewal
- §52.61, Duration of renewal
- Part 52 Appendices A, D, and E
- Reduces unnecessary burden on NRC and industry
- Public comments:
- Supportive; resulted in applying the changes to SDAs and MLs
- Expired DCs removed from the regulations
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial 20
Change Process
- Changes:
- Process for Making Changes to the Plant-Specific Design Control Document Organization and Section Numbering
- Include§50.59(c) Provisions in the Part 52 Change Process
- Approval Process for Changes While the Plant Is Being Constructed
- Standard Design Approval Variance Process
- Generic Standard Design Approval Change Process
- Referencing Manufacturing Licenses and Standard Design Approvals While They Are Under Review
- No change recommended:
- Move the§50.59-Like Change Process from Part 52 Appendices to Part 52, Subpart B 21
PS-DCD Organization and Numbering
- Change: Allow COL applicants to reorganize their PS-DCD without an exemption
- Affected regulations:
- §IV.A.2 of each DC Rule
- Reduces unnecessary burden on NRC and industry
- Public comments:
- Supportive; requested more permission to change Tier 1 information without prior staff approval
- No further changes to the regulations are proposed to address comments
- Cost/benefit: Rulemaking; qualitative 22
Include §50.59(c) Provisions in the Part 52 Change Process
- Change: Add provisions similar to§50.59(c)(4) to the change processes in each DC Rule
- Affected regulations:
- §VIII.B.5.a of each DC Rule
- Improves the alignment of the change processes in Part 50 and Part 52
- Public comments:
- Supportive; requested more permission to change Tier 1 information without prior staff approval
- No further changes to the regulations are proposed to address comments
- Cost/benefit: Rulemaking; qualitative 23
Approval Process for Changes While the Plant Is Being Constructed
- Change: Add provisions to allow licensees to continue construction while an LAR for a change is under review by the NRC
- Affected regulations:
- §VIII.B.5 of each DC Rule
- Eliminates construction delays related to NRC staff review of LARs
- Public comments:
- Requested removal of 45-day requirement to submit an LAR
- No further changes to the regulations are proposed to address comments
- Cost/benefit: Rulemaking; qualitative 24
Standard Design Approval Variance Process
- Change: Establish a new process to govern the request, review, and approval of changes to SDAs in an application
- Affected regulations:
- §52.93, Exemptions and variances
- §52.145, Finality of standard design approvals; information requests
- Establishes a clear regulatory process to make changes to a referenced SDA
- Public comments:
- New item; added in response to public comments on the regulatory basis
- Cost/benefit: Rulemaking; qualitative 25
Generic Standard Design Approval Change Process
- Affected regulations:
- §2.100, Scope of subpart
- §2.101, Filing of application
- §2.110, Filing and administrative action on submittals for standard design approval or early review of site suitability issues
- §52.3, Written communications
- §52.145, Finality of standard design approvals; information requests
- Establishes a clear regulatory process to make generic SDA changes
- Public comments:
- New item; added in response to public comments on the regulatory basis
- Cost/benefit: Rulemaking; qualitative 26
Referencing Manufacturing Licenses and Standard Design Approvals While They Are Under Review
- Affected regulations:
- §52.173, Referencing a manufacturing license application
- Regulatory Guide 1.206, Applications for Nuclear Power Plants
- Afford the same flexibility for MLs and SDAs as that currently afforded DCs and ESPs in the same situation
- Public comments:
- None; not in the regulatory basis (new item)
- Cost/benefit: Rulemaking; qualitative 27
Move the § 50.59-Like Change Process from Part 52 Appendices to Part 52, Subpart B
- Change: None
- Affected regulations: None
- Reduce the size and complexity of NRCs regulations
- Public comments:
- There were no public comments on this item
- Cost/benefit: N/A 28
Design Scope and Standardization
- Changes:
- Add Definitions of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2*
- Added Definition of Essentially Complete Design
- Restrictions on Changes to a DC or COL Referencing a DC for Reasons of Standardization
- Design Certification Rule Section IX 29
Add Definitions of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2*
- Change: Add standardized definitions of tiered information to Part 52
- Affected regulations:
- §52.1, Definitions
- Add clarity and efficiency; reduce scope of information designated as Tier 1
- Public comments:
- Requested the item apply only to DC applications
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial 30
Clarify the Phrase Essentially Complete Design
- Change: Add standardized definition of essentially complete design to Part 52
- Affected regulations:
- §52.1, Definitions
- Add clarity and efficiency; reduce scope of information needed for review
- Public comments:
- Review September 24, 2021 NEI letter to NRC
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial 31
Restrictions on Changes to a DC or COL Referencing a DC for Reasons of Standardization
- Change: Remove requirements to justify proposed exemptions on the basis of standardization
- Affected regulations:
- §52.63(b)(1), Finality of standard design certifications
- §52.93(c),
- §52.171(b)(2), Finality of manufacturing licenses; information requests
- Reduce unnecessary burden; simplify requirements to justify changes
- Public comments:
- None
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial 32
Design Certification Rule Section IX
- Affected regulations:
- §52.99, Inspection during construction
- Part 52 Appendix D,Section IX
- Eliminates redundant regulations
- Public comments:
- ITAAC closure reporting during construction; the staff agrees and proposes an additional change as a result of the comment
- Cost/benefit: Rulemaking; qualitative 33
References to Standard Design Approvals
- Change: Revise to clarify that more than one SDA can be referenced in a license application
- Affected regulations:
- §52.73(a), Relationship to other subparts
- §52.79(c), Contents of applications; technical information in final safety analysis report
- §52.133(a), Relationship to other subparts
- §52.153(b), Relationship to other subparts
- Clarifies regulations
- Public comments:
- None
- Cost/benefit: Rulemaking; qualitative 34
Content of Applications
- Changes:
- Modify Requirements to Evaluate Conformance with the Standard Review Plan
- Align Requirements for Timely Completion of Construction
- Clarify Applicable Regulatory Parts for Certified Designs
- Clarify the Requirements for Environmental Qualification Program for Manufacturing Licenses 35
Modify Requirements to Evaluate Conformance with the Standard Review Plan
- Affected regulations:
- §50.34(h), Contents of applications; technical information
- §52.17(a)(1)(xii), Contents of applications; technical information
- §52.47(a)(9), Contents of applications; technical information
- §52.79(a)(41), Contents of applications; technical information in final safety analysis report
- §52.137(a)(9), Contents of applications; technical information
- §52.157(f)(30), Contents of applications; technical information in final safety analysis report
- Reduces unnecessary burden on license applicants
- Public comments:
- None
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial to industry 36
Align Requirements for Timely Completion of Construction
- Change: Amend § 50.100 to resolve an inconsistency with respect to § 50.55 on timely completion of construction
- Affected regulations:
- §50.100, Revocation, suspension, modification of licenses, permits, and approvals for cause
- Clarifies the regulations
- Public comments:
- None
- Cost/benefit: Rulemaking; qualitative 37
Clarify Applicable Regulatory Parts for Certified Designs
- Change: Add a reference to part 52 as one of the applicable regulatory parts for appendices D and E
- Affected regulations:
- Part 52 Appendices D and E,Section V
- Clarifies the regulations
- Public comments:
- None
- Cost/benefit: Rulemaking; qualitative 38
Clarify the Requirements for Environmental Qualification Program for Manufacturing Licenses
- Change: Add a conforming change to the regulations
- Affected regulations:
- §52.157, Contents of applications; technical information in final safety analysis report
- Clarifies the regulations
- Public comments:
- None; new item
- Cost/benefit: Rulemaking; qualitative 39
Severe Accident Treatment Requirements
- Section III.A of the FRN
- Change: Add requirements for future Part 50 applicants to address severe accidents; require an evaluation on how a proposed change could affect ex-vessel severe accidents
- Affected regulations:
- §50.34, Contents of applications; technical information
- §50.59, Changes, tests, and experiments
- Aligns severe accident requirements in Part 50 and Part 52; aligns change process in Part 50 and Part 52 for this issue
- Public comments:
- Five comments; comments resulted in changes to staffs recommendation
- Cost/benefit: Quantitative; increased cost for industry, decreased cost for NRC 40
Probabilistic Risk Assessment Requirements
- Changes:
- Require PRA in the design and operating phases for Part 50 plants (III.B.1)
- Allow greater use of risk-informed categorization of structures, systems, and components (III.B.2)
- Require maintaining and simplify the schedule for upgrading the plant-specific PRA (III.B.3) 41
Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Design
- Change: Extend the current PRA requirements in Part 52 to apply to Part 50 power reactor license applicants
- Affected regulations:
- §50.34(a), Preliminary safety analysis report
- §50.34(b), Final safety analysis report
- Aligns Parts 50 and 52 on the use of PRA in the design of the facility and ensures that similar risk information is supplied in applications for new power reactor CPs or OLs under Part 50
- Public comments:
- Ten comments; expressed concern over changes and need for clarification on how to meet requirements
- In response to comments, NRC changed the cost model to reflect the significant effort required to complete an upgrade prior to loading fuel
- Cost/benefit: Development of PRA, rulemaking; qualitative 42
Risk-Informed Categorization of Structures, Systems and Components
- Change: Allow DC applicants, power reactor CP holders, and COL holders to risk-inform the categorization of structures, systems, and components
- Affected regulations:
- §50.69, Risk-informed categorization and treatment of structures, systems and components for nuclear power reactors
- Public comments:
- Five comments; questioned the benefit of the rulemaking and expressed concern of undue burden
- No change to recommendations in response to comments
- Cost/benefit: Rulemaking; qualitative 43
Maintaining and Upgrading the Plant-Specific PRA
- Changes:
- Make regulation applicable to those license holders under Part 50 that are required to develop a PRA
- Simplify the schedule for upgrading the PRA
- Affected regulations:
- §50.71, Maintenance of records, making of reports
- Promote a more stable and equitable regulatory environment
- Public comments:
- Four comments; generally supportive of the changes and recommended some clarifications in regulatory basis
- No change to recommendations in response to comments
- Cost/benefit: Cost for Maintenance of PRA for part 50 plants, rulemaking; some reduced cost from fewer part 52 exemption requests 44
Three Mile Island Requirements
- Section III.C of the FRN
- Changes:
- Apply TMI requirements to new power reactor applications submitted under Part 50
- Delete requirements that are included in other regulations or are no longer needed or applicable
- Affected regulations:
- §50.34(f), Additional TMI related requirements
- Aligns Parts 50 and 52 on requirements related to the TMI accident and ensures consistency in new reactor licensing reviews
- Public comments:
- Three comments; generally supportive, additional revisions recommended
- Staff recommended several changes based on comments
- Cost/benefit: Reduced application requirements, rulemaking; quantitative 45
Questions 46
Lunch Break 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM 47
Emergency Planning
- Changes:
- Emergency Plan Change Process (III.G.1)
- Emergency Preparedness Exercises (III.G.2)
- Significant Impediments to Development of Emergency Plans (III.G.3)
- Offsite Contacts, Arrangements, and Certifications (III.G.4) 48
Emergency Plan Change Process
- Change: Align the introductory text of
§50.54 with the text in §50.54(q)(2)
- Affected regulations:
- §50.54, Conditions of licenses
- Eliminates uncertainty and clarifies intent of regulations
- No public comments
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial; assessed qualitatively 49
Emergency Preparedness Exercises
- Changes: Revise paragraphs IV.F.2.a.(i) through (iii) and j of Part 50 Appendix E to provide clarifications and revisions for subsequent exercises and exercise planning
- Affected regulations:
- Part 50 Appendix E, Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities
- Aligns the requirements for Part 52 licensees and Part 50 licensees
- No public comments
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial 50
Significant Impediments to Development of Emergency Plans
- Changes: Distinguish the siting requirements from EP considerations in §52.17 and clarify that NRC consultation with FEMA is for the purpose of evaluating whether significant impediments identified by the applicant can be mitigated or eliminated by the measures proposed by the applicant
- Affected regulations:
- §52.18, Standards for review of applications
- Eliminate uncertainty and clarify intent of regulations
- Public comments:
- Supportive and recommended a flexible approach
- Further changes to RG 4.7 in response to the comment
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial 51
Offsite Contacts, Arrangements, and Certifications
- Change: Clarify what information is required regarding contacts, arrangements, and certifications with Federal, State, and local governmental authorities in the SSAR
- Affected regulations:
- § 52.17, Contents of applications; technical information
- Clearly defines the differing requirements for ESP applications
- Public comments:
- Editorial correction to regulatory basis
- No change to recommendations in response to this comment
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial 52
Operators Licensing
- Changes:
- Criteria for Simulation Facilities (III.E.1)
- Plant Walkthrough (III.E.2)
- Continuing Training for Operator License Applicants (III.E.3)
- Waiver of Examination and Test Requirements (III.E.4) 53
Operators Licenses - Criteria for Simulation Facilities
- Changes:
- Amend criteria that a plant-referenced simulator must meet when it will be used to complete the control manipulations required by
§ 55.31(a)(5) by operator license applicants at nuclear power plants that are under construction
- Amend the definitions of plant-referenced simulator and reference plant in § 55.4, Definitions, to clarify that these terms are also applicable to simulators that model nuclear power plants that are under construction
- Affected regulations:
- § 55.46(c), Plant-referenced simulators
- § 55.4, Definitions
- Reduces administrative burden
- No public comments
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial 54
Plant Walkthrough
- Change: Amend the plant walkthrough requirement to give facility licensees of new reactors under construction the option of using suitable alternatives to in-plant testing while the plant is under construction
- Affected regulations:
- §55.45, Operating tests
- Promotes a more efficient and effective operator licensing process at cold plants
- No public comments
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial 55
Continuing Training for Operator License Applicants
- Change: Establish a new requirement for facility licensees at cold plants to maintain the knowledge, skills, and abilities of operator license applicants who have successfully completed the NRC initial licensing examination
- Affected regulations:
- §55.31, How to apply
- Promotes a more efficient and effective operator licensing process at cold plants
- Public comments:
- Recommended more specific guidance
- NRC thus is proposing a new Section H, Continuing Training for Applicants at New Reactors under Construction, in NUREG-1021
- Cost/benefit: Rulemaking; qualitative 56
Waiver of Examination and Test Requirements
- Change: Include provisions for licensing of operators at subsequent new units at multiunit sites
- Affected regulations:
- §55.47, Waiver of examination and test requirements
- Promotes a more efficient and effective operator licensing process at cold plants
- No public comments (not in regulatory basis)
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial 57
Miscellaneous Topics
- The NRC is also proposing changes in several other areas of the proposed rulemaking as follows:
- Status of ITAAC Completion (III.K.7)
- Reporting Requirements for:
- ECCS Errors (III.K.4)
- Completion of Construction (III.K.8)
- Conditions of Licenses (III.K.9)
- Discontinuing Priority Ranking Model for GIs (III.K.6) 58
Status of ITAAC Completion
- Change: Revise the language regarding acceptance criteria from have been met to are met
- Affected regulations:
- §52.97(a)(2)
- Consistency with the requirements in the AEA and
§52.103(g), which state that the acceptance criteria in the COL are met
- No public comments
- Cost/benefit: Negligible cost impact 59
Reporting Requirements for ECCS Errors
- Change: Amend §50.46(a)(3)(i) and (iii) to relax certain reporting requirements related to those SDAs and DCs that are not referenced in any application for the construction or operation of a reactor
- Affected regulations:
- §50.46, Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors
- Defer the annual reporting until the standard design is referenced in a license or license application
- No public comments
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial 60
Reporting Requirements for Completion of Construction
- Change: Require that all future Part 50 power reactor licensees and Part 52 COL holders promptly notify the NRC of the successful completion of power ascension testing
- Affected regulations:
- §50.71(i)
- Enables NRC to begin assessing Part 171 annual fees without issuance of license conditions
- No public comments
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial 61
Conditions of License
- Change: Clarify the applicability of conditions of operating licenses for non-power production and utilization facilities
- Affected regulations:
- §50.54, Conditions of licenses
- Clarify the requirements of applicability
- No public comments; not discussed in regulatory basis
- Cost-beneficial 62
Discontinuing Priority Ranking Model for GIs
- Change: Amend regulations to reflect discontinuance of the priority ranking model to identify significant generic issues (GIs) in favor of a risk-informed method to identify significant GIs that an applicant should address in its submittal
- Affected regulations:
- §§ 52.47(a)(21), 52.79(a)(20), 52.137(a)(21), and 52.157(f)(28)
- Must propose technical resolutions of all GIs identified since July 21, 1999; unresolved safety issues; and medium- and high-priority generic safety issues identified before July 21, 1999, that are relevant to design
- Public comments:
- New guidance (beyond RG 1.174) needed for applicants/licensees to implement
- No change to recommendations in response to this comment
- Cost/benefit: Cost-beneficial; assessed qualitatively 63
Estimates of Costs and Savings
- Total net averted costs to industry and the NRC between $16.1 million and $25.5 million
- To account for sensitivity to plant-specific conditions, the NRC staff performed an uncertainty analysis, which found that the chance of net averted costs is greater than 99%
- Rulemaking would yield nonquantifiable benefits as well (regulatory efficiency, public confidence) 64
Questions 65
Recap and Next Steps
- Complete concurrence on draft proposed rule
- Submit the proposed rule to the Commission
- Plan for additional public meeting(s) during the proposed rule phase 66
Rulemaking Schedule Submit proposed Issue final rule to the rule Commission May 2022 October 2024 67
Contact Information Jim ODriscoll, Project Manager Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, & Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Email: James.ODriscoll@nrc.gov Phone: 301-415-1325 Omid Tabatabai, Senior Project Manager Division of New Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Email: Omid.Tabatabai@nrc.gov Phone: 301-415-6616 68
How to Stay Informed and Involved
- The meeting summary will be posted soon
- Search regulations.gov on the docket ID NRC-2009-0196
- Press the Subscribe button to receive alerts about updates to the docket 69
SUPPORTING INFORMATION 70
Abbreviations ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor LWR Light-Water Reactor Safeguards ML Manufacturing License ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and NEI Nuclear Energy Institute Management System NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended Safeguards CFR Code of Federal Regulations NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission COL Combined License NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CP Construction Permit OL Operating License DC Design Certification PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System PS-DCD Plant-Specific Design Certification EP Emergency Planning Document ESP Early Site Permit RB Regulatory Basis FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency RG Regulatory Guide FFD Fitness For Duty SDA Standard Design Approval FRN Federal Register Notice SECY Office of the Secretary FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report SRM Staff Requirements Memorandum GI Generic Issue SRP Standard Review Plan ITAAC Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and SSAR Site Safety Analysis Report Acceptance Criteria SSC Structure, System, and Component LAR License Amendment Request TMI Three Mile Island 71
ECCS Acceptance Criteria-Rule Language 72
DC Renewal- Rule Language
§ 52.55 Duration of certification. Referencing a design certification application.
(a) [Reserved]Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a standard design certification issued under this subpart is valid for 15 years from the date of issuance.
(b) [Reserved]A standard design certification continues to be valid beyond the date of expiration in any proceeding on an application for a combined license or an operating license that references the standard design certification and is docketed either before the date of expiration of the certification, or, if a timely application for renewal of the certification has been filed, before the Commission has determined whether to renew the certification. A design certification also continues to be valid beyond the date of expiration in any hearing held under
§52.103 before operation begins under a combined license that references the design certification.
(c) An applicant for a construction permit or a combined license may, at its own risk, reference in its application a design for which a design certification application has been docketed but not granted
§ 52.57 [Reserved]Application for renewal.
§ 52.59 [Reserved]Criteria for renewal.
§ 52.61 [Reserved]Duration of renewal.
Each renewal of certification for a standard design will be for not less than 10, nor more than 15 years.
73
DC Renewal- Rule Language (contd)
- Part 52 DC appendices A, D and E (example is Appendix A):
VII. [Reserved]Duration of This Appendix This appendix may be referenced for a period of 15 years from June 11, 1997, except as provided for in 10 CFR 52.55(b) and 52.57(b). This appendix remains valid for an applicant or licensee who references this appendix until the application is withdrawn or the license expires, including any period of extended operation under a renewed license.
VIII. Processes for Changes and Departures A. * *
- B. Tier 2 information.
- 1. Generic changes to Tier 2 information are governed by the requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1).
- 2. Generic changes to Tier 2 information are applicable to all applicants or licensees who reference this appendix, except those for which the change has been rendered technically irrelevant by action taken under paragraphs B.3, B.4, B.5, or B.6 of this section.
- 3. The Commission may not require new requirements on Tier 2 information by plant-specific order while this appendix is in effect under §§ 52.55 or 52.61, unless:
- a. * *
- 74
SDA and ML Renewal- Rule Language Subpart E Standard Design Approvals
§52.147 [Reserved]Duration of design approval Subpart F Manufacturing Licenses
§52.173 Duration of manufacturing license. Referencing a manufacturing license application.
A manufacturing license issued under this subpart may be valid for not less than 5, nor more than 15 years from the date of issuance. A holder of a manufacturing license may not initiate the manufacture of a reactor less than 3 years before the expiration of the license even though a timely application for renewal has been docketed with the NRC. Upon expiration of the manufacturing license, the manufacture of any uncompleted reactors must cease unless a timely application for renewal has been docketed with the NRC. An applicant for a construction permit or a combined license may, at its own risk, reference in its application a design for which a manufacturing license application has been docketed but not granted.
§52.177 [Reserved]Application for renewal.
§52.179 [Reserved]Criteria for renewal.
§52.181 [Reserved]Duration of renewal.
75
Removal of Expired DCs-Rule Language Appendix B to Part 52[Reserved]Design Certification Rule for the System 80 + Design Appendix C to Part 52[Reserved]Design Certification Rule for the AP600 Design 76
PS-DCD Organization and Numbering
/Relocate Requirements IV. Additional Requirements and Restrictions A. An applicant for a combined license that wishes to reference this appendix shall, in addition to complying with the requirements of 10 CFR 52.77, 52.79, and 52.80, comply with the following requirements:
- 1. Incorporate by reference, as part of its application, this appendix;
- 2. Include, as part of its application:
- a. A plant-specific DCD containing the same type of information and using the same organization and numbering as the generic DCD for the U.S. ABWR design, as modified and supplemented by the applicant's exemptions and departures;
- b. The reports on departures from and updates to the plant-specific DCD required by paragraph X.B of this appendix;
- c. Plant-specific technical specifications, consisting of the generic and site-specific technical specifications, that are required by 10 CFR 50.36 and 50.36a;
- d. Information demonstrating that the site characteristics fall within the site parameters and that the compliance with the site parameters and interface requirements have been met;
- e. Information that addresses the COL action items; and
- f. Information required by 10 CFR 52.47 that is not within the scope of this appendix.
77
Include § 50.59(c) Provisions in the Part 52 Change Process VIII. Processes for Changes and Departures B. Tier 2 information.
5
- a. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix may depart from Tier 2 information, without prior NRC approval, unless the proposed departure involves a change to or departure from Tier 1 information, Tier 2* information, or the TS, or requires a license amendment under paragraph B.5.b or B.5.c of this section. When evaluating the proposed departure, an applicant or licensee shall consider all matters described in the plant-specific DCD. The provisions in B.5.b of this section do not apply to proposed departures when applicable regulations establish more specific criteria for accomplishing such departures.
78
Approval Process for Changes While the Plant Is Being Constructed VIII. Processes for Changes and Departures B. Tier 2 information.
5* *
- h.
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of B.5.a of this section, during the period when the plant is being constructed prior to a Commission finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g), a licensee may construct an SSC in accordance with a proposed departure from Tier 2 or Tier 2* information, excluding the Tier 2* departures covered under B.6.b of this section, of the plant-specific DCD for a COL covered by 10 CFR 52.98(c)(1), without first obtaining a license amendment provided:
- i. A licensee must submit the request for a license amendment required to authorize the departure from Tier 2 or Tier 2* of the plant-specific DCD within 45 days after the licensee approves the design of an SSC as changed and begins construction of the SSC; ii. A licensee is not permitted to begin construction in accordance with a design that departs from Tier 2 or Tier 2* unless the SSC under construction is located within the restricted area defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and described in the FSAR, as updated; and iii. If the NRC does not approve a request for a license amendment as submitted, the licensee is obligated to construct the facility in accord in the FSAR, as updated, including the plant-specific DCD.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of B.5.a of this section regarding the license amendment required under B.5.b of this section, after 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding by the Commission, a prior approval from NRC is required before implementing a proposed departure from Tier 2 information under B.5.b of this section. A prior approval is required for departures from Tier 2* in accordance with B.5.a and B.6.b of this section.
- * *
- 79
Standard Design Approval Variance Process Subpart C Combined Licenses
§ 52.93 Exemptions and variances.
(c) An applicant for a construction permit, combined license, or manufacturing license who has filed an application referencing a standard design approval issued under subpart E of this part may include in the application a request for a variance from one or more design characteristics, site parameters, terms and conditions, or approved design of the reactor or major portions thereof. In determining whether to grant the variance, the NRC staff shall apply the same technically relevant criteria as were applicable to the application for the original or amended standard design approval. Once a construction permit, combined license, or manufacturing license is issued, a referenced standard design approval is subsumed, to the extent referenced, into the construction permit, combined license, or manufacturing license 80
Standard Design Approval Variance Process (contd)
Subpart E Standard Design Approvals
§ 52.145 Finality of standard design approvals; information requests.
(c) Upon issuance of a construction permit, operating license, combined license, or manufacturing license, any referenced standard design approval is subsumed, to the extent referenced, into the construction permit, operating license, combined license, or manufacturing license.
(d) An applicant for a construction permit, operating license, combined license, or manufacturing license referencing one or more standard design approvals may include in its application a request for a variance from one or more from one or more provisions of the standard design approval, or from the associated final safety analysis report. In determining whether to grant the variance, the NRC staff shall apply the same technically relevant criteria applicable to the application for the original standard design approval.
81
Generic Standard Design Approval Change Process Subpart A - Procedure for Issuance, Amendment, Transfer, or Renewal of a License, and Standard Design Approval
§ 2.100 Scope of subpart.
This subpart prescribes the procedure for issuance of a license; amendment of a license at the request of the licensee; transfer and renewal of a license; and issuance of a standard design approval, and amendment of a standard design approval at the request of the standard design approval holder under subpart E of part 52 of this chapter.
§ 2.101 Filing of application.
(a)
(1) An application for a permit, a license, a license transfer, a license amendment, a license renewal, or a standard design approval, or a standard design approval amendment mustshall be filed with the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as prescribed by the applicable provisions of this chapter. A prospective applicant may confer informally with the NRC staff before filing an application.
82
Generic Standard Design Approval Change Process (contd)
§ 2.110 Filing and administrative action on submittals for standard design approval or early review of site suitability issues.
(a)
(1) A submittal for a standard design approval or standard design approval amendment under subpart E of part 52 of this chapter shall be subject to §§ 2.101(a) and 2.390 to the same extent as if it were an application for a permit or license.
(2) Except as specifically provided otherwise by the provisions of appendix Q to parts 50 of this chapter, a submittal for early review of site suitability issues under appendix Q to parts 50 of this chapter shall be subject to §§ 2.101(a)(2) through (4) to the same extent as if it were an application for a permit or license.
(b) Upon initiation of review by the NRC staff of a submittal for an early review of site suitability issues under Appendix Q of part 50 of this chapter, or for a standard design approval or standard design approval amendment under subpart E of part 52 of this chapter, the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of the submittal, inviting comments from interested persons within 60 days of publication or other time as may be specified, for consideration by the NRC staff and ACRS in their review.
(c)
(1) Upon completion of review by the NRC staff and the ACRS of a submittal for a standard design approval or standard design approval amendment, the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, shall publish in the Federal Register a determination as to whether or not the design is acceptable, subject to terms and conditions as may be appropriate, and shall make available at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov, a report that analyzes the design.
83
Generic Standard Design Approval Change Process (contd)
General Provisions
§ 52.3 Written communications.
(b) * * *
(1) Applications for amendment of permits, approvals, and licenses; reports; and other communications. All written communications (including responses to: generic letters, bulletins, information notices, regulatory information summaries, inspection reports, and miscellaneous requests for additional information) that are required of holders of early site permits, standard design approvals, combined licenses, or manufacturing licenses issued under this part must be submitted as follows, except as otherwise specified in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7) of this section: to the NRC's Document Control Desk (if on paper, the signed original), with a copy to the appropriate Regional Office, and a copy to the appropriate NRC Resident Inspector, if one has been assigned to the site of the facility or the place of manufacture of a reactor licensed under subpart F of this part 84
Generic Standard Design Approval Change Process (contd)
Subpart E Standard Design Approvals
§ 52.145 Finality of standard design approvals; information requests.
(e) The holder of a standard design approval may not make changes to the design of the nuclear power reactor or major portions thereof without prior NRC staff approval. The request for a change to the design must be in the form of an amendment application as specified in § 52.3 of this chapter. The application shall fully describe the changes desired, following the form prescribed for original applications insofar as it applies. The NRC staffs review of the amendment application will be guided by the applicable considerations governing the issuance of the initial approval. Upon completion of its review of the application for the amendment the NRC staff shall publish a determination in accordance with § 52.143.
85
Referencing Manufacturing Licenses and Standard Design Approvals While They Are Under Review Subpart F Manufacturing Licenses
§52.173 Duration of manufacturing license. Referencing a manufacturing license application.
A manufacturing license issued under this subpart may be valid for not less than 5, nor more than 15 years from the date of issuance. A holder of a manufacturing license may not initiate the manufacture of a reactor less than 3 years before the expiration of the license even though a timely application for renewal has been docketed with the NRC. Upon expiration of the manufacturing license, the manufacture of any uncompleted reactors must cease unless a timely application for renewal has been docketed with the NRC. An applicant for a construction permit or a combined license may, at its own risk, reference in its application a design for which a manufacturing license application has been docketed but not granted.
86
Definitions of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2*
Part 52 - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants General Provisions
§ 52.1 Definitions.
Tier 1 means, for design certifications issued after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the qualitative and functional-level portion of the design-related information contained in the generic design control document that is approved and certified by a standard design certification. The design descriptions, interface requirements, and site parameters are derived from Tier 2 information. For design certifications issued prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], see the definition of this term in the applicable appendix to this part.
Tier 2* means for design certifications issued after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the portion of the Tier 2 information, designated as such in the generic design control document, that is subject to the change process in section VIII.B.6 of the appendices to this Part. This designation expires for some Tier 2* information under section VIII.B.6. For design certifications issued prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], see the definition of this term in the applicable appendix to this part.
Tier 2 means, for design certifications issued after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the portion of the design-related information contained in the generic design control document that is approved, but not certified, by a standard design certification. Compliance with Tier 2 is required, but generic changes to, and plant-specific departures from, Tier 2 are governed by section VIII of the applicable appendix to this part. Compliance with Tier 2 provides a sufficient, but not the only acceptable, method for complying with Tier 1. Compliance methods differing from Tier 2 must satisfy the change process in section VIII of the applicable appendix to this part. Regardless of these differences, an applicant or licensee must meet the requirement in section III.B of the applicable appendix to this part to reference Tier 2 when referencing Tier 1.
For design certifications issued prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], see the definition of this term in the applicable appendix to this part.
87
Clarify the Phrase Essentially Complete Design Part 52 - Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants General Provisions
§ 52.1 Definitions.
Essentially complete design means a nuclear power plant design of adequate scope and detail to enable the Commission to reach a conclusion that the applicant has satisfied all applicable regulations associated with the design. The scope of an essentially complete design describes all structures, systems, and components required for safe operation of the plant in all modes.
Interface requirements are specified for features that are not included within the scope of the design. The level of detail is sufficient to allow resolution of all technical issues using an approach informed by the safety significance of the plants structures, systems, and components.
88
Restrictions on Changes to a DC or COL Referencing a DC for Reasons of Standardization
§ 52.63 Finality of standard design certifications.
(b)
(1) An applicant or licensee who references a design certification rule may request an exemption from one or more elements of the certification information. The Commission may grant such a request only if it determines that the exemption will comply with the requirements of § 52.7. In addition to the factors listed in § 52.7, the Commission shall consider whether the special circumstances that § 52.7 requires to be present outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption. The granting of an exemption on request of an applicant is subject to litigation in the same manner as other issues in the operating license or combined license hearing.
89
Restrictions on Changes to a DC or COL Referencing a DC for Reasons of Standardization (contd)
§ 52.93 Exemptions and variances.
(cd) An applicant for a combined license who has filed an application referencing a nuclear power reactor manufactured under a manufacturing license issued under subpart F of this part may include in the application a request for a departure from one or more design characteristics, site parameters, terms and conditions, or approved design of the manufactured reactor. The Commission may grant a request only if it determines that the departure will comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 52.7, and that the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the departure.
§ 52.171
- manufacturing Finality of
- licenses; information requests.
(b) * * *
(2) An applicant or licensee who references or uses a nuclear power reactor manufactured under a manufacturing license under this subpart may request a departure from the design characteristics, site parameters, terms and conditions, or approved design of the manufactured reactor. The Commission may grant a request only if it determines that the departure will comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 52.7, and that the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the departure. The granting of a departure on request of an applicant is subject to litigation in the same manner as other issues in the construction permit or combined license hearing.
90
Design Certification Rule Section IX Appendix D to Part 52Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design IX. [Reserved]Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)
§ 52.99 Inspection during construction.
(a) Licensee schedule for completing inspections, tests, or analyses. The licensee shall submit to the NRC, no later than 1 year after issuance of the combined license or at the start of construction as defined at 10 CFR 50.10(a), whichever is later, its schedule for completing the inspections, tests, or analyses in the ITAAC. The licensee shall submit updates to the ITAAC schedules every 6 months thereafter and, within 1 year6 months of its scheduled date for initial loading of fuel, the licensee shall submit updates to the ITAAC schedule every 3060 days until the final notification is provided to the NRC under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
91
References to Standard Design Approvals Subpart C Combined Licenses
§ 52.73 Relationship to other subparts.
(a) An application for a combined license under this subpart may, but need not, reference a standard design certification, standard design approval, or more than one standard design approval, provided each referenced standard design approval is for different portions of the same reactor design, or manufacturing license issued under subparts B, E, or F of this part, respectively, or an early site permit issued under subpart A of this part. * *
- 92
References to Standard Design Approvals (contd)
§ 52.79 Contents of applications; technical information in final safety analysis report.
(c) If the combined license application references a one or more standard design approvals, then the following requirements apply:
(1) The final safety analysis report need not contain information or analyses submitted to the Commission in connection with theeach design approval referenced, provided, however, that the final safety analysis report must either include or incorporate by reference theeach standard design approval final safety analysis report and must contain, in addition to the information and analyses otherwise required, information sufficient to demonstrate that the characteristics of the site fall within the site parameters specified in theeach design approval. In addition, the plant-specific PRA information must use the PRA information for theeach design approval and must be updated to account for site-specific design information and any design changes or departures.
(2) The final safety analysis report must demonstrate that all terms and conditions that have been included in the each design approval will be satisfied by the date of issuance of the combined license.
(3) The final safety analysis report must demonstrate that the interfaces between a referenced standard design approval and the balance of the nuclear power plant not described in a referenced standard design approval conform to the descriptions, analyses, and evaluations stated in the referenced standard final safety analysis report.
(4) If the combined license application references more than one standard design approval, the final safety analysis report must demonstrate that the interfaces between each of the referenced standard design approvals conform to the descriptions, analyses, and evaluations stated in each referenced standard final safety analysis report.
93
References to Standard Design Approvals (contd)
Subpart E Standard Design Approvals
§ 52.133 Relationship to other subparts.
(a) This subpart applies to a person that requests a standard design approval from the NRC staff separately from an application for a construction permit filed under 10 CFR part 50 or a combined license filed under subpart C of this part. An applicant for a construction permit, operating license, or combined license, or manufacturing license may reference a standard design approval, or more than one standard design approval, provided each referenced standard design approval is for different portions of the same reactor design Subpart F Manufacturing Licenses
§ 52.153 Relationship to other subparts.
(b) Subpart B of this part governs the certification by rulemaking of the design of standard nuclear power facilities. Subpart E of this part governs the NRC staff review and approval of standard designs for a nuclear power facility. A manufacturing license applicant may reference a standard design certification or a standard design approval, or more than one standard design approval, provided each referenced standard design approval is for different portions of the same reactor design. These subparts may also be used independently of the provisions in this subpart 94
Modify Requirements to Evaluate Conformance with the Standard Review Plan Part 50 - Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities
§ 50.34 Contents of applications; technical information.
(h) [RESERVED]
95
Modify Requirements to Evaluate Conformance with the Standard Review Plan (contd)
Subpart A Early Site Permits
§ 52.17 Contents of applications; technical information.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(xii) [Reserved]
Subpart B Standard Design Certifications
§ 52.47 Contents of applications; technical information.
(a) * * *
(9) [RESERVED]
§ 52.79 Contents of applications; technical information in final safety analysis report.
(a) * * *
(41) [Reserved]
96
Modify Requirements to Evaluate Conformance with the Standard Review Plan (contd)
Subpart E Standard Design Approvals
§ 52.137 Contents of applications; technical information.
(a) * * *
(9) [RESERVED]
Subpart F Manufacturing Licenses
§ 52.157 Contents of applications; technical information in final safety analysis report.
(f) * * * *
(30) [RESERVED]
97
Align Requirements for Timely Completion of Construction
§ 50.100 Revocation, suspension, modification of licenses, permits, and approvals for cause.
A license, permit, or standard design approval under parts 50 or 52 of this chapter may be revoked, suspended, or modified, in whole or in part, for any material false statement in the application or in the supplemental or other statement of fact required of the applicant; or because of conditions revealed by the application or statement of fact of any report, record, inspection, or other means which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license, permit, or approval on an original application (other than those relating to §§50.51, 50.42(a),
and 50.43(b)); or for failure to manufacture a reactor, or construct or operate a facility in accordance with the terms of the permit or license, provided, however, that failure to make timely completion of the proposed construction or alteration of a facility under a construction permit under part 50 of this chapter or a combined license under part 52 of this chapter shall be governed by the provisions of §50.55(b); or for violation of, or failure to observe, any of the terms and provisions of the act, regulations, license, permit, approval, or order of the Commission.
98
Clarify Applicable Regulatory Parts for Certified Designs Appendix D to Part 52Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design V. Applicable Regulations A.1. Except as indicated in paragraph B of this section, the regulations that apply to the AP1000 design are in 10 CFR parts 20, 50, 52, 73, and 100, codified as of January 23, 2006, that are applicable and technically relevant, as described in the FSER (NUREG-1793) and Supplement No. 1 Appendix E to Part 52Design Certification Rule for the ESBWR Design V. Applicable Regulations A. Except as indicated in paragraph B of this section, the regulations that apply to the ESBWR design are in 10 CFR parts 20, 50, 52, 73, and 100, codified as of October 6, 2014, that are applicable and technically relevant, as described in the FSER (NUREG-1966) and Supplement No. 1.
99
Clarify the Requirements for Environmental Qualification Program for Manufacturing Licenses
§ 52.157 Contents of applications; technical information in final safety analysis report.
(f) * * * *
(6) A description of the program, and its implementation, required by § 50.49(a) of this chapter for the environmental qualification of electric equipment important to safety and t The list of electric equipment important to safety that is required by 10 CFR 50.49(d);
100
Severe Accident Treatment Requirements Part 50 - Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities
§ 50.34 Contents of applications; technical information.
(a) * * *
(15) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], applicants for a permit to construct a light-water power reactor under this part shall submit a description and analysis of design features for the prevention and mitigation of severe accidents.
(b) * * *
(13) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], applicants for a license to operate a light-water power reactor under this part shall submit a description and analysis of design features for the prevention and mitigation of severe accidents.
101
Severe Accident Treatment Requirements (contd)
§ 50.59 Changes, tests, and experiments.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) Result in a design basis limit for a fission product barrier as described in the FSAR (as updated) being exceeded or altered; or (viii) Result in a departure from a method of evaluation described in the FSAR (as updated) used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses.;
(ix) For a power reactor licensed after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], result in a substantial increase in the probability of an ex-vessel severe accident such that a particular ex-vessel severe accident previously evaluated and determined to be not credible could become credible; or (x) For a power reactor licensed after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], result in a substantial increase in the consequences to the public of a particular ex-vessel severe accident previously evaluated.
102
Probabilistic Risk Assessment Requirements
§ 50.34 Contents of applications; technical information.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Information relative to materials of construction, general arrangement, and approximate dimensions, sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the final design will conform to the design bases with adequate margin for safety,.
(iv) A description and analysis of the fire protection design features for the plant necessary to comply with General Design Criterion 3 of appendix A to this part.
(4) * * *Analysis and evaluation of ECCS cooling performance and the need for high point vents following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents must be performed, as applicable, in accordance with the requirements of § 50.46 and § 50.46a of this part.
for facilities for which construction permits may be issued after December 28, 1974.
(14) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], applicants for a permit to construct a power reactor under this part shall submit a description of the plant-specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and its results.
(15) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], applicants for a permit to construct a light-water power reactor under this part shall submit a description and analysis of design features for the prevention and mitigation of severe accidents.
(16)On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], applicants for a permit to construct a light-water power reactor under this part shall submit a discussion on proposed technical resolutions of all generic issues identified since July 21, 1999, unresolved safety issues, and medium- and high-priority generic safety issues identified before July 21, 1999, that are relevant to the design. These issues are based upon the applicant's review of publicly available information published up to 6 months before the docket date of the application (for example, the issues listed in NRCs NUREG-0933, "Resolution of Generic Safety Issues,").
103
Probabilistic Risk Assessment Requirements (contd)
(b) * * *
(4) * * *Analysis and evaluation of ECCS cooling performance following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents shall be performed, as applicable, in accordance with the requirements of § 50.46 for facilities for which a license to operate may be issued after December 28, 1974.
(6) * * *
(viii) A description and analysis of the fire protection design features for the plant necessary to comply with § 50.48 and a description of the fire protection program required by § 50.48 of this chapter and its implementation.
(9) Provided the terms of § 50.61(b)(1) apply, a description of protection provided against pressurized thermal shock events, including projected values of the reference temperature for reactor vessel beltline materials as defined in § 50.61 (b)(1) and (b)(2).
(13) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], applicants for a license to operate a light-water power reactor under this part shall submit a description and analysis of design features for the prevention and mitigation of severe accidents.
(14) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], applicants for a license to operate a power reactor under this part shall submit a description of the plant-specific probabilistic risk assessment and its results..
(15) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], applicants for a license to operate a light-water power reactor under this part shall submit a discussion on proposed technical resolutions of all generic issues identified since July 21, 1999, unresolved safety issues, and medium- and high-priority generic safety issues identified before July 21, 1999, that are relevant to the design. These issues are based upon the applicant's review of publicly available information published up to 6 months before the docket date of the application (for example, the issues listed in NRCs NUREG-0933, "Resolution of Generic Safety Issues.").
104
Probabilistic Risk Assessment Requirements (contd)
§ 50.69 Risk-informed categorization and treatment of structures, systems and components for nuclear power reactors (b) * * *
(1) A holder of a license to operate a light water reactor (LWR) nuclear power plant under this part; a holder of a renewed LWR license under part 54 of this chapter; an applicant for a construction permit or operating license under this part; or an applicant for a design approval, a combined license, or manufacturing license under part 52 of this chapter; may voluntarily comply with the requirements in this section as an alternative to compliance with the following requirements for RISC-3 and RISC-4 SSCs::
(1) This section describes alternative requirements for the SSCs of a light-water reactor plant. Holders of an operating license or construction permit under this part, a combined license or manufacturing license under part 52 of this chapter, or a renewed license under part 54 of this chapter may voluntarily comply with the requirements in this section. Compliance with the requirements in this section may be proposed when applying for a standard design certification or approval, manufacturing license, or combined license under part 52 of this chapter and when applying for a construction permit or operating license under this part. For RISC-3 and RISC-4 SSCs, the requirements in this section are an alternative to compliance with the following:
105
Probabilistic Risk Assessment Requirements (contd)
§ 50.71 Maintenance of records, making of reports (h)
(1) No later than the scheduled date for initial loading of fuel, each holder of an operating license for a power reactor under this part or a combined license under subpart C of 10 CFR part 52 of this chapter shall develop a level 1 and a level 2 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA).
(2) Each holder of a combined license licensee required to develop a PRA shall maintain and upgrade the PRA required by paragraph (h)(1) of this sectionto reflect the as-built, as-operated facility. In addition, the licensee mustThe upgraded the PRA mustto cover initiating events and modes of operation contained in NRC-endorsed consensus standards on PRA that are endorsed by the NRC. The upgrade must be completed within five years of NRC endorsement of the standardin effect one year prior to each required upgrade. The PRA must be maintained and upgraded every four years until the permanent cessation of operations under § 50.82(a)(1) or § 52.110(a) of this chapter.
(3) Each holder of a combined license licensee required to develop a PRA shall, no later than the date on which the licensee submits an application for a renewed license, upgrade the PRA required by paragraph (h)(1) of this section to cover all modes and all initiating events.
106
Three Mile Island Requirements (f) Additional TMI-related requirements. In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, each applicant for a light-water-reactor construction permit or manufacturing license whose application was pending as of February 16, 1982, shall meet the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. This regulation applies to the pending applications by Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), Houston Lighting & Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), Puget Sound Power & Light Company (Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2), and Offshore Power Systems (License to Manufacture Floating Nuclear Plants). The number of units that will be specified in the manufacturing license above, if issued, will be that number whose start of manufacture, as defined in the license application, can practically begin within a 10-year period commencing on the date of issuance of the manufacturing license, but in no event will that number be in excess of ten. The manufacturing license will require the plant design to be updated no later than 5 years after its approval. Paragraphs (f)(1)(xii), (2)(ix), and (3)(v) of this section, pertaining to hydrogen control measures, must be met by all applicants covered by this regulation. However, the Commission may decide to impose additional requirements and the issue of whether compliance with these provisions, together with 10 CFR 50.44 and criterion 50 of appendix A to 10 CFR part 50, is sufficient for issuance of that manufacturing license which may be considered in the manufacturing license proceeding. In addition, eEach applicant for a design certification, design approval, combined license, or manufacturing license under part 52 and each applicant for a power reactor construction permit or power reactor operating license under part 50 of this chapter shallmust demonstrate compliance with the technically relevant portions of the requirements in paragraphs (f)(21) andthrough (f)(3) of this section, except for paragraphs (f)(1)(xii), (f)(2)(ix), and (f)(3)(v).
107
Three Mile Island Requirements (contd)
(1) [Reserved]
(2) To satisfy the following requirements, the application shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the required actions will be satisfactorily completed by the operating license stage. To satisfy the following requirements, the application shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the requirement has been met. The information must be of the type customarily required to satisfy §10 CFR 50.35(a)(2) or to address unresolved generic safety issues.
(i) [Reserved] Provide simulator capability that correctly models the control room and includes the capability to simulate small-break LOCA's. (Applicable to construction permit applicants only) (I.A.4.2.)
(ii) Establish a program, to begin during construction and follow into operation, for integrating and expanding current efforts to improvedeveloping and maintaining plant procedures. The scope of the program shall include emergency procedures, reliability analyses, human factors engineering, crisis management, and operator training. , and coordination with INPO and other industry efforts. (Applicable to construction permit applicants only) (I.C.9)
(iii) Provide, for Commission review, a control room design that reflects state-of-the-art human factor principles prior to committing to fabrication or revision of fabricated control room panels and layouts. (I.D.1)
(iv) Provide a plant safety parameter display console system that will display for displaying to operators a minimum set of parameters defining the safety status of the plant, capable of displaying a full range of important plant parameters and data trends on demand, and capable of indicating when process limits are being approached or exceeded. (I.D.2) 108
Three Mile Island Requirements (contd)
(v) Provide for automatic indication of the bypassed and operable status of safety systems. (I.D.3)
(vi) [Reserved]Provide the capability of high point venting of noncondensible gases from the reactor coolant system, and other systems that may be required to maintain adequate core cooling. Systems to achieve this capability shall be capable of being operated from the control room and their operation shall not lead to an unacceptable increase in the probability of loss-of-coolant accident or an unacceptable challenge to containment integrity. (II.B.1)
(vii) Perform radiation and shielding design reviews of spaces around systems that may, as a result of an accident, contain accident source term11 radioactive materials, and design as necessary to permit adequate access to important areas and to protect safety equipment from the radiation environment. (II.B.2)
(viii) Provide a capability to promptly obtain and analyze samples from the reactor coolant system and containment that may contain accident source term11 radioactive materials without radiation exposures to any individual exceeding 5 rems to the whole body or 50 rems to the extremities. Materials to be analyzed and quantified include certain radionuclides that are indicators of the degree of core damage (e.g., noble gases, radioiodines and cesiums, and nonvolatile isotopes),
hydrogen in the containment atmosphere, dissolved gases, chloride, and boron concentrations. (II.B.3)
(ix) [Reserved]
109
Three Mile Island Requirements (contd) auxiliary feedwater system flow indication in the control room. (Applicable to PWR's only)
(II.E.1.2)
(xiii) Provide pressurizer heater power supply and associated motive and control power interfaces sufficient to establish and maintain natural circulation in hot standby conditions with only onsite power available. (Applicable to PWR's only) (II.E.3.1)
(xiv) Provide containment isolation systems that: (II.E.4.2)
(A) Ensure all non-essential systems are isolated automatically by the containment isolation system, (B) For each non-essential penetration (except instrument lines) have two isolation barriers in series, (C) Do not result in reopening of the containment isolation valves on resetting of the isolation signal, (D) Utilize a containment set point pressure for initiating containment isolation as low as is compatible with normal operation, (E) Include automatic closing on a high radiation signal for all systems that provide a path to the environs.
110
Three Mile Island Requirements (contd)
(xv) Provide a capability for containment purging/venting designed to minimize the purging time consistent with ALARA principles for occupational exposure. Provide and demonstrate high assurance that the purge system will reliably isolate under accident conditions. (II.E.4.4)
(xvi) [Reserved]Establish a design criterion for the allowable number of actuation cycles of the emergency core cooling system and reactor protection system consistent with the expected occurrence rates of severe overcooling events (considering both anticipated transients and accidents). (Applicable to B&W designs only). (II.E.5.1)
(xvii) Provide instrumentation to measure, record and readout in the control room:
(A) containment pressure, (B) containment water level, (C) containment hydrogen concentration, (D) containment radiation intensity (high level), and (E) noble gas effluents at all potential, accident release points. Provide for continuous sampling of radioactive iodines and particulates in gaseous effluents from all potential accident release points, and for onsite capability to analyze and measure these samples. (II.F.1)
(xviii) Provide instruments that provide in the control room an unambiguous indication of inadequate core cooling, such as primary coolant saturation meters in PWR's, and a suitable combination of signals from indicators of coolant level in the reactor vessel and in-core thermocouples in PWR's and BWR's. (II.F.2) 111
Three Mile Island Requirements (contd)
(xix) Provide instrumentation adequate for monitoring plant conditions following an accident that includes core damage. (II.F.3)
(xx) Provide power supplies for pressurizer relief valves, block valves, and level indicators such that: (A) Level indicators are powered from vital buses; (B) motive and control power connections to the emergency power sources are through devices qualified in accordance with requirements applicable to systems important to safety and (C) electric power is provided from emergency power sources. (Applicable to PWR's only). (II.G.1)
(xxi) Design auxiliary heat removal systems such that necessary automatic and manual actions can be taken to ensure proper functioning when the main feedwater system is not operable. (Applicable to BWR's only). (II.K.1.22)
(xxii) [Reserved]
(xxiii) [Reserved]
(xxiv) [Reserved]
(xxv) [Reserved]
(xxvi) Provide for leakage control and detection in the design of systems outside containment that contain (or might contain) accident source term11 radioactive materials following an accident. Applicants shall submit a leakage control program, including an initial test program, a schedule for re-testing these systems, and the actions to be taken for minimizing leakage from such systems. The goal is to minimize potential exposures to workers and public, and to provide reasonable assurance that excessive leakage will not prevent the use of systems needed in an emergency. (III.D.1.1) 112
Three Mile Island Requirements (contd)
(xxvii) Provide for monitoring of in plant radiation and airborne radioactivity as appropriate for a broad range of routine and accident conditions. (III.D.3.3)
(xxviii) Evaluate potential pathways for radioactivity and radiation that may lead to control room habitability problems under accident conditions resulting in an accident source term11 release, and make necessary design provisions to preclude such problems.
(III.D.3.4)
(3) * * *
(h) [RESERVED] Conformance with the Standard Review Plan (SRP).
113
Emergency Planning Appendix E, Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities I. Introduction * * *
- IV. Content of Emergency Plans F. Training
- 2. * * *
(a) * * *
(i) For an operating license issued under this part, this exercise must be conducted within 2 years before the issuance of the first operating license for full power (one authorizing operation above 5 percent of rated thermal power) of the first reactor and shall include participation by each State and local government within the plume exposure pathway EPZ and each state within the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ. If the full participation exercise is conducted more than 1 year prior to issuance of an operating licensee for full power, an exercise which tests the licensee's onsite emergency plans must be conducted within 1one year before issuance of an operating license for full power. This exercise need not have State or local government participation.
(ii) For a combined license issued under part 52 of this chapter, this exercise must be conducted within two 2 years beforeof the scheduled date for initial loading of fuel. If the first full participation exercise is conducted more than 1one year before the scheduled date for initial loading of fuel, an exercise which tests the licensee's onsite emergency plans must be conducted within one1 year before the scheduled date for initial loading of fuel. This exercise need not have State or local government participation. If FEMA identifies one or more deficiencies in the state of offsite emergency preparedness as the result of the first full participation exercise, or if the Commission finds that the state of emergency preparedness does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, the provisions of § 50.54(gg) apply. 114
Emergency Planning (contd)
(iii) For a combined license issued under part 52 of this chapter, if the applicantlicensee currently has an operating reactor at the site, an exercise, either full or partial participation, shall be conducted for each subsequent reactor constructed on the site.
The exercise for each subsequent reactor is not required if, in its application for a combined license, the licensee includes an analysis that shows that an exercise for the new reactor would not demonstrate any new features (e.g., emergency response organization, facilities, procedures) or capabilities beyond those in the emergency plan for the existing reactor(s). This exercise may be incorporated in the exercise requirements of Sections IV.F.2.b. and c. in this appendix. If FEMA identifies one or more deficiencies in the state of offsite emergency preparedness as the result of this exercise for the new reactor, or if the Commission finds that the state of emergency preparedness does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, the provisions of § 50.54(gg) apply.
115
Emergency Planning (contd)
(j) * * *
(iii) For each site, an 8-calendar-year exercise cycle shall begin in the calendar year of the completion of the first subsequent exercise conducted to meet the requirements in paragraphs 2.b and c of this section. In each 8-calendar-year exercise cycle, nuclear power reactor licensees shall vary the content of scenarios during exercises conducted under paragraph 2 of this section to provide the opportunity for the ERO to demonstrate proficiency in the key skills necessary to respond to the following scenario elements:
(1) Hostile action directed at the plant site; (2) No radiological release or an unplanned minimal radiological release that does not require public protective actions; (3) An initial classification of, or rapid escalation to, a Site Area Emergency or General Emergency; (4) Implementation of strategies, procedures, and guidance under § 50.155(b)(2);
and (5) Integration of offsite resources with onsite response. 116
Emergency Planning (contd)
(iv) The licensee shall maintain a record of exercises conducted during each 8-year exercise cycle that documents the content of scenarios used to comply with the requirements of section IV.F.2.j of this appendix.
(v) [Reserved]Each licensee shall conduct a hostile action exercise for each of its sites no later than December 31, 2015.
(vi) [Reserved]The first 8-year exercise cycle for a site will begin in the calendar year in which the first hostile action exercise is conducted. For a site licensed under 10 CFR part 52, the first 8-year exercise cycle begins in the calendar year of the initial exercise required by section IV.F.2.a of this appendix 117
Emergency Planning (contd)
The exercises conducted under paragraph 2 of this section by nuclear power reactor licensees must provide the opportunity for the ERO to demonstrate proficiency in the key skills necessary to implement the principal functional areas of emergency response identified in paragraph 2.b of this section. Each exercise must provide the opportunity for the ERO to demonstrate key skills specific to emergency response duties in the control room, TSC, OSC, EOF, and joint information center. For each site, an 8-calendar-year exercise cycle shall begin in the calendar year of the completion of the first subsequent exercise conducted to meet the requirements in paragraph 2.b and c of this section. Additionally, iIn each 8-calendar-year exercise cycle, nuclear power reactor licensees shall vary the content of scenarios during exercises conducted under paragraph 2 of this section to provide the opportunity for the ERO to demonstrate proficiency in the key skills necessary to respond to the following scenario elements: hostile action directed at the plant site, no radiological release or an unplanned minimal radiological release that does not require public protective actions, an initial classification of or rapid escalation to a Site Area Emergency or General Emergency, implementation of strategies, procedures, and guidance under § 50.155(b)(2), and integration of offsite resources with onsite response. The licensee shall maintain a record of exercises conducted during each 8-year exercise cycle that documents the content of scenarios used to comply with the requirements of this paragraph. Each licensee shall conduct a hostile action exercise for each of its sites no later than December 31, 2015. The first 8-year exercise cycle for a site will begin in the calendar year in which the first hostile action exercise is conducted.
For a site licensed under 10 CFR part 52, the first 8-year exercise cycle begins in the calendar year of the initial exercise required by section IV.F.2.a of this appendix.
118
Operators Licenses Part 55Operators Licenses
§ 55.4 Definitions.
Plant-referenced simulator means a simulator modeling the systems of the reference plant with which the operator interfaces or, for a plant that is being constructed, will interface, in the control room, including operating consoles, and which permits use of the reference plant's procedures.
Reference plant means the specific nuclear power plant from which a simulation facility's control room configuration, system control arrangement, and design data are derived. The reference plant may or may not be actually constructed.
119
Operators Licenses (contd)
§ 55.45 Operating tests.
(a) * * *
(b) Implementation - Administration. (1) The operating test will be administered in a plant walkthrough and in either - A a simulation facility that the Commission has approved for use after application has been made by the facility licensee under § 55.46(b);, (2) A a plant-referenced simulator (§ 55.46(c)), (3) T or the plant, if approved for use in the administration of the operating test by the Commission under § 55.46(b).
(2) If a facility is under construction, suitable alternatives may be used in lieu of the plant walkthrough portion of the operating test.
[52 FR 9460, Mar. 25, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 43421, Oct. 27, 1988; 62 FR 59276, Nov. 3, 1997; 66 FR 52667, Oct. 17, 2001]
§ 55.46 Simulation facilities.
(a) * * *
(c) Plant-referenced simulators.
(1) * * *
(2) * * *:
(i) The plant-referenced simulator utilizes models relating to nuclear and thermal-hydraulic characteristics that either replicate the most recent core load in the nuclear power reference plant for which a license is being sought; and, or, prior to initial fuel load, replicate the intended initial core load for the nuclear power reference plant for which a license is being sought; and, 120
Operators Licenses (contd)
§ 55.47 Waiver of examination and test requirements.
(a) * * *
(1) Has had extensive actual operating experience at a comparable facility, as determined by the Commission, within two years before the date of application; (2) Hhas discharged his or her responsibilities competently and safely and is capable of continuing to do so; and (3) Hhas learned the operating procedures for and is qualified to operate competently and safely the facility designated in the application.
(2) The Commission may accept as proof of the applicant's past performance a certification of an authorized representative of the facility licensee or of a holder of an authorization by which the applicant was previously employed. The certification must contain a description of the applicant's operating experience, including an approximate number of hours the applicant operated the controls of the facility, the duties performed, and the extent of the applicant's responsibility.
(3) The Commission may accept as proof of the applicant's current qualifications a certification of an authorized representative of the facility licensee or of a holder of an authorization where the applicant's services will be utilized.
(b) On application, the Commission may waive any or all of the requirements for a written examination and operating test for a licensee who applies for a license to operate one or more subsequent units at a multiunit site, licensed collectively or individually, if it finds that the -
(1) Subsequent unit(s) is/are approved to be, or was/were constructed to, the same standard design or modular design, as defined in § 52.1 of this chapter, as the unit(s) on which the applicant is already licensed, or the subsequent unit(s) is/are otherwise essentially identical to the unit(s) on which the applicant is already licensed, and (2) The applicant has been sufficiently trained on the differences between the units.
121
Operators Licenses (contd)
§ 55.31 How to apply.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(4) (i) Provide evidence that the applicant has successfully completed the facility licensee's requirements to be licensed as an operator or senior operator and of the facility licensee's need for an operator or a senior operator to perform assigned duties. An authorized representative of the facility licensee shall certify this evidence on Form NRC-398. This certification must include details of the applicant's qualifications, and details on courses of instruction administered by the facility licensee, and describe the nature of the training received at the facility, and the startup and shutdown experience received. In lieu of these details, the Commission may accept certification that the applicant has successfully completed a Commission-approved training program that is based on a systems approach to training and that uses a simulation facility acceptable to the Commission under § 55.45(b) of this part; (ii) If the NRC Form 398 is submitted before the facility licensee is required to have the requalification program described in § 55.59 in effect as described under § 50.54(i-1) of this chapter, describe how the applicants knowledge, skills, and abilities will be maintained sufficient to safely perform the functions of an operator or senior operator after the applicant passes the written examination described in §§ 55.41 and 55.43 and the operating test described in §55.45, and prior to participation as a licensed operator in the requalification program. In lieu of this description, the Commission will accept a statement that the applicant will participate in a Commission-approved continuing training program developed by using a systems approach to training within 3 months of receiving notice that the applicant has passed the written examination and operating test;
- * * *
- 122
Status of ITAAC Completion
§ 52.97 Issuance of combined licenses.
(a)
(1) * * *
(2) The Commission may also find, at the time it issues the combined license, that certain acceptance criteria in one or more of the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) in a referenced early site permit or standard design certification have been are met. This finding will finally resolve that those acceptance criteria have been met, those acceptance criteria will be are deemed to be excluded from the combined license, and findings under §52.103(g) with respect to those acceptance criteria are unnecessary.
123
Reporting Requirements
§ 50.71 Maintenance of records, making of reports (i) Each licensee shall notify the Commission as specified in § 50.4 or § 52.3 of this chapter, of successfully completing power ascension testing or startup testing, as applicable, within 30 calendar days of completing the testing.
124
Conditions of License
§ 50.54 Conditions of licenses.
The following paragraphs of this section, with the exception of paragraphs (r) and (gg), and the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a, are conditions in every nuclear power reactor operating license issued under this part. The following paragraphs with the exception of paragraph (r), (s), and (u) of this section are conditions in every combined license issued under part 52 of this chapter, provided, however, that paragraphs (i) introductory text, (i)(1), (j), (k), (l),
(m), (n), (q)(2), (w), (x), (y), (z), and (hh) of this section are only applicable after the Commission makes the finding under § 52.103(g) of this chapter. The following paragraphs of this section, with the exception of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4), (m)(2) and (3), (o), (q)(6), (r), (s)(1), (u), (w)(1) through (4), (z), (bb), (ff), (gg)(1) and (2), and (jj) are conditions in every non-power production or utilization facility operating license issued under this part.
(j) Apparatus and mechanisms other than controls, the operation of which may affect the reactivity or power level of a reactor utilization facility shall be manipulated only with the knowledge and consent of an operator or senior operator licensed pursuant to part 55 of this chapter present at the controls.
(k) An operator or senior operator licensed pursuant to part 55 of this chapter shall be present at the controls at all times during the operation of the utilization facility.
125
Conditions of License (contd)
(m)
(1) A senior operator licensed pursuant to part 55 of this chapter shall be present at the utilization facility or readily available on call at all times during its operation, and shall be present at the utilization facility during initial start-up and approach to power, recovery from an unplanned or unscheduled shut-down or significant reduction in power, and refueling, or as otherwise prescribed in the utilization facility license.
(n) The licensee shall not, except as authorized pursuant to a construction permit, make any alteration in the production or utilization facility constituting a change from the technical specifications previously incorporated in a license or construction permit pursuant to § 50.36 of this part.
126
Conditions of License (contd)
(q) * * *
(6) * * *
(s)* * *
(2)* * *
(ii) If after April 1, 1981, the NRC finds that the state of emergency preparedness does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency (including findings based on requirements of appendix E, section IV.D.3) and if the deficiencies (including deficiencies based on requirements of appendix E, section IV.D.3) are not corrected within four months of that finding, the Commission will determine whether the reactor production or utilization facility shall be shut down until such deficiencies are remedied or whether other enforcement action is appropriate. In determining whether a shutdown or other enforcement action is appropriate, the Commission shall take into account, among other factors, whether the licensee can demonstrate to the Commission's satisfaction that the deficiencies in the plan are not significant for the plant in question, or that adequate interim compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons for continued operation.
(z) Each licensee with a utilization facility nuclear power reactor licensed pursuant to sections 103 or 104b. of the Act shall immediately notify the NRC Operations Center of the occurrence of any event specified in § 50.72 of this part.
127
Conditions of License (contd)
(ee)
(1) Each license issued under this part authorizing the possession of byproduct and special nuclear material produced in the operation of the licensed reactor production or utilization facility includes, whether stated in the license or not, the authorization to receive back that same material, in the same or altered form or combined with byproduct or special nuclear material produced in the operation of another reactor of the same licensee located at that site, from a licensee of the Commission or an Agreement State, or from a non-licensed entity authorized to possess the material.
128
Discontinuing Priority Ranking Model for GIs 129
Discontinuing Priority Ranking Model for GIs (contd) 130
References ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation Transcript of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguard 683rd Full Committee Meeting - March ML21075A211 4, 2021, Pages 1-288 (Open)
Summary of March 2, 2021 Category 3 Public Meeting to Discuss the Alignment of Licensing ML21076A098 Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing Rulemaking, dated March 19, 2021 86 FR 7513 - Regulatory Basis-Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned From New 86 FR 7513 Reactor Licensing 04/29/2020 - Public Meeting to Discuss the Status of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and ML20141L609 Apply Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing [NRC-2009-0196; RIN 3150-AI66]
85 FR 9328 - Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2020 85 FR 9328 2/14/20 - Letter to Petitioner M. Lorton on Behalf of Algignis, Inc.; Results of PRM Sufficiency ML20008D640 Review; Petition for Rulemaking for 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants (Pkg) 11/18/2019 - 84 FR 63565 - Miscellaneous Corrections 84 FR 63565 11/21/2019 - Category 3 Public Meeting Summary RE: Regulatory Basis: Rulemaking to Align ML19344C768 Licensing Processes and Apply Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing (NRC-2009-0196)
Transcript of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Regulatory Policies & Practices-Part ML19294A009 50 52 Meeting - September 20, 2019 131
References (contd)
ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation SECY-19-0084, Status of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New ML19161A169 Reactor Licensing (RIN 3150-AI66)
SECY-19-0034, Improving Design Certification Content ML19080A034 Summary of January 15, 2019 Public Meeting to Discuss the Proposed Rulemaking to Align the ML19023A046 Regulations in Parts 50 and 52 to Address Updates to the Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned for Future New Reactor Applications SECY-15-0002, Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies, Rules and Guidance for Future New ML13277A420 Reactor Applications SRM-SECY-15-002, Staff Requirements-SECY-15-002-Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies, ML15266A023 Rules and Guidance for Future New Reactor Applications Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants 60 FR 32138 SECY-89-013, Design Requirements Related to the Evolutionary Advanced Light Water Reactors, ML003707947 dated January 19, 1989 SECY-90-016, Evolutionary Light Water Reactor (LWR) Certification Issues and Their Relationship to ML003707849 Current Regulatory Requirements, dated January 12, 1990 SECY-93-087, Policy, Technical, and Licensing Issues Pertaining to Evolutionary and Advanced Light- ML003708021 Water Reactor (ALWR) Designs, dated April 2, 1993 Bipartisan Policy Center Report Recommendations on the New Reactor Licensing Process ML13059A240 132
References (contd)
ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for https://www.nrc.gov/rea Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, with updates through 2007 ding-rm/doccollections/
nuregs/staff/sr0800/
Regulatory Guide 1.174, Revision 3, An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in ML17317A256 Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis, dated 2018 Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 2, An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy ML090410014 of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities, dated 2009 Regulatory Guide 1.201, Revision 0, Guidelines for Categorizing Structures, Systems, and ML061090627 Components in Nuclear Power Plants According to Their Safety Significance, dated 2006 Regulatory Guide 1.189 Revision 3, Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants. dated 2018 ML17340A875 Regulatory Guide 1.206, Revision 1, Applications for Nuclear Power Plants. dated 2018 ML18131A181 Regulatory Guide 5.84, Revision 0, Fitness-for-Duty for New Nuclear Power Plant ML15083A412 Construction Sites, dated July 2015 Draft Regulatory Guide 5040, Urine Specimen Collection and Test Result Review Under 10 84 FR 48750 CFR Part 26, Fitness-for-Duty Programs, dated September 16, 2019 NRC Management Directive 8.4, Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, ML18093B087 and Information Requests. DT-19-15, dated 2019.
NRC NUREG-1409, Revision 1, Backfitting Guidelines., Draft Report for Comment, dated ML18109A498 2020 133