ML22060A180
| ML22060A180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/18/2022 |
| From: | Quynh Nguyen Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Nguyen, Q, ACRS | |
| References | |
| NRC-1860 | |
| Download: ML22060A180 (167) | |
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: Friday, February 18, 2022 Work Order No.: NRC-1860 Pages 1-129 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 PRACTICES & POLICIES SUBCOMMITTEE 8 + + + + +
9 FRIDAY 10 FEBRUARY 18, 2022 11 + + + + +
12 The Subcommittee met via Teleconference, 13 at 9:30 a.m. EST, Vicki M. Bier, Chairman, presiding.
14 15 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
16 VICKI M. BIER, Chairman 17 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 18 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR. Member 19 VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 20 GREGORY H. HALNON, Member 21 WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Member 22 JOSE MARCH-LEUBA, Chairman 23 DAVID A. PETTI, Member 24 JOY L. REMPE, Member 25 MATTHEW W. SUNSERI, 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 ACRS CONSULTANT:
2 DENNIS BLEY 3
4 DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
5 QUYNH NGUYEN 6
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
3 1 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 2 Opening Remarks and Objectives 3 By Vicki Bier, ACRS, Brian Smith, NRR . . . 4 4 Staff Proposed Rule Making in Depth Discussion 5 By James O'Driscoll . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 Future Work 7 By James O'Driscoll . . . . . . . . . . . 123 8 Meeting Adjourn 9 By Vicki Bier, ACRS . . . . . . . . . . . 129 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
4 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 9:30 a.m.
3 CHAIRMAN BIER: The meeting will now come 4 to order. This is a meeting of the Regulatory 5 Policies and Practices Subcommittee of the Advisory 6 Committee on Reactor Safeguards. I am Vicki Bier, 7 Chairman of the Subcommittee. Members in attendance 8 today, from what I can see on Teams, in addition to 9 myself, we have, in no particular order, Charles 10 Brown, Dave Petti, Joy Rempe, Greg Halnon, Jose March-11 Leuba, Ron Ballinger, Matt Sunseri, and Vesna 12 Dimitrijevic. Is there anybody online that I missed 13 of the members?
14 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Vicki, this is Walt.
15 I'm on.
16 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, great, glad to have 17 you. Thank you for joining. In addition, I see that 18 Dennis Bley, one of our consultants is on. Are there 19 any other consultants online that I should be 20 introducing?
21 Okay. Mr. Quynh Nguyen is the Designated 22 Federal Officer for this meeting. As posted for the 23 agenda on the ACRS website, the topic for today is the 24 draft proposed 10 CFR 50 and 52 rule making, and 25 related activities.
NEAL 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 We had a previous briefing on this topic 2 on February 1st, and this is mainly to address 3 questions and concerns that the members had after that 4 initial briefing. I really appreciate staff coming 5 back to answer these questions. I know it's a lot of 6 extra preparation, but it will definitely be 7 beneficial to me, as the Subcommittee Chair, in having 8 the answers on hand, and being able to have that 9 information available for letter writing, rather than 10 getting our answers just in the full committee 11 meeting. So I appreciate that.
12 I believe that a phone bridge line has 13 been opened to allow members of the public to listen 14 in on the presentations and committee discussion. And 15 I believe members of the public are also now able to 16 join on Teams directly to view the slides. To my 17 knowledge, we have received no written comments or 18 requests to make oral statements from members of the 19 public regarding today's sessions. There will be an 20 opportunity for public comment towards the end of the 21 morning meeting. And we have set aside time at the 22 conclusion of the prepared presentations and 23 discussion for comments from members of the public 24 attending, or listening to the meetings.
25 A transcript of the meeting is being kept, NEAL 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 and it is requested that the speakers identify 2 themselves and speak with sufficient clarity and 3 volume so that they can be readily heard.
4 Additionally, participants should mute themselves when 5 not speaking.
6 To start off the staff's presentation, I 7 would like to call on Brian Smith of the Office of 8 Nuclear Reactor Regulation for his opening remarks.
9 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Chairman Bier.
10 Larry Burkhart, you have your hand raised, did you 11 need to say something now?
12 MR. BURKHART: I'm sorry, Chairman, I just 13 wanted to make sure, for those folks, members of the 14 public who are tying in via phone, we have just made 15 the decision to share the MS Teams link with members 16 of the public. So, I see we have several who are 17 tying in via phone, so if any of those who do not have 18 the MS Teams link would like it, please send me an 19 email at lawrence.burkhart@nrc.gov. Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN BIER: Thank you, Larry. Okay, 21 Brian, I think you can go ahead with your remarks 22 then.
23 MR. SMITH: Okay. Thank you, Chairman 24 Bier. Good morning to you, and good morning to the 25 members of the Subcommittee. My name is Brian Smith, NEAL 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 and I am the Director of the Division of New and 2 Renewed Licenses in the NRC's Office of Nuclear 3 Reactor Regulation. The purpose of today's meeting is 4 to continue our discussions related to the staff's 5 rulemaking efforts to align Parts 50 and 52 licensing 6 processes, and specifically to address Subcommittee 7 members' follow-up questions that were raised during 8 the February 1st briefing, and to discuss the guidance 9 documents being revised as a result of these proposed 10 rule changes.
11 At our February 1st briefing, the staff 12 described in detail the scope of the rulemaking, 13 focusing on the alignment areas between Parts 50 and 14 52, the proposed changes to the rule language, and the 15 basis for proposing the changes. The staff also 16 summarized the public comments that we received in 17 each alignment area.
18 I would like to reiterate what Rob Taylor 19 stated in his opening remarks on February 1st, which 20 is that the draft proposed rule and the associated 21 draft revised guidance documents are still under NRC 22 management review, and have not yet been reviewed by 23 the NRC's Office of the General Counsel. As such, the 24 content of the draft Federal Register notice should 25 not be interpreted as the NRC's official agency NEAL 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 positions.
2 To conclude my opening remarks, I would 3 like to thank the members for your time today, and to 4 convey that the staff is looking forward to having 5 another productive meeting with the subcommittee 6 members. With that, I turn it back over to you 7 Chairman Bier.
8 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay. So, I think with 9 that, we can go ahead, and introduce the first staff 10 presenter, I don't know who --
11 (Simultaneous speaking.)
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, it's Jim 13 O'Driscoll. So, hi, and I'm ready to go.
14 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, thanks for having 15 you back.
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure.
17 CHAIRMAN BIER: I don't know who is 18 running the slides, but I think --
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That would be me, too.
20 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, great, thank you.
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All righty. So, hi, 22 everybody. My name is Jim O'Driscoll, I'm the lead 23 rulemaking project manager on this effort. I'm in the 24 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards in 25 the Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, 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
9 1 Financial Support. REFS is what we call ourselves.
2 Also joining me today is Omid Tabatabai from the NRC's 3 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of New 4 and Renewed Licenses. We have several other NRC staff 5 on the call as well.
6 There we go. So, today's meeting -- we're 7 on slide three, everybody, if folks are just on the 8 phone. The purpose of today's meeting is to provide 9 the ACRS an update on the staff's efforts since the 10 last ACRS meeting the NRC held on this topic, which 11 took place just this past February 1st. You will soon 12 find the transcript and slides of that meeting on the 13 ACRS public website on the 2022 ACRS meeting schedule, 14 and related documents page.
15 In the meantime, the meeting slides and 16 the preliminary draft proposed rule Federal Register 17 notice that was made available to the ACRS are 18 available in ADAMS under accession number ML22020A000.
19 This follow-up meeting will provide an opportunity to 20 continue a discussion on several topics that we 21 covered in the last meeting. This meeting will also 22 allow the opportunity for us to discuss specific 23 changes in several guidance documents that are 24 necessary to implement the proposed rule.
25 The detail of discussion will be at a high NEAL 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 level; we may not have the specific subject matter 2 expert available on the phone to address your question 3 if it gets too technical. I understand that we will 4 discuss the proposed rule at the upcoming ACRS full 5 committee meeting in the morning of March 2nd. We'll 6 pause for questions and answers as we go on any topic 7 of ACRS interest.
8 Finally, we'll provide you an update of 9 the next steps for the project. We hope this 10 interaction will provide additional detail on the 11 content of the preliminary draft proposed rule, and 12 the associated guidance that is under staff management 13 review, and the status for the rulemaking. We'll 14 respond to the Committee's written comments about the 15 subject that we receive.
16 I'll briefly remind members of the public 17 attending of the ways you can provide comments that 18 are as detailed in the preliminary draft Federal 19 Register notice, that will be later on in the 20 discussion. Also please note that a list of the 21 acronyms used in the slides is at the end of the 22 presentation. I will try to say the full term at 23 least once to help folks follow along. Also note that 24 the list of the ADAMS accession numbers to the 25 documents referenced in the NRC staff presentation 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
11 1 be found at the end of the staff slide presentation.
2 Please be careful not to discuss any safeguard, 3 security related, classified, or proprietary 4 information during this meeting. Although we intend 5 to have an open dialogue, please note that the NRC 6 staff will not be making any regulatory commitments 7 during this meeting.
8 All right, so I'll roll now into the NRC 9 staff's presentation. We are now on slide five. Good 10 morning. As I said, I'm Jim O'Driscoll, the lead 11 rulemaking project manager on this activity. I'm in 12 the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 13 Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial 14 Support. Also joining me today is Omid from the NRC's 15 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of 16 Renewed licenses.
17 And let me move onto the next slide, slide 18 six. We're on slide six. From our last meeting, we 19 noted several items that you wished for more 20 discussion. Several items stood out, and we have a 21 slide, or two on each of these. These are entry 22 conditions for Part 50, Part 52, Part 53, and the 23 newly proposed Part 50 TT, or Part 50 T traditional 24 processes. That is, is there, or will there be, any 25 codified restrictions or conditions for the use 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
12 1 each of these licensing processes, or can any 2 applicant of any design apply for a license using any 3 of these?
4 Another item is the issue of cumulative 5 effects on safety of changes on the design major in 6 construction. There was interest also in further 7 discussion on the physical security implications 8 associated with mobile reactor designs or designs 9 where a manufacturer ships the reactor to the site 10 with fuel in the reactor vessel.
11 An ACRS member wanted further discussion 12 on specifics regarding future licensing reviews of 13 digital instrumentation, and control, I&C, systems, 14 and how the ongoing rulemaking affects these reviews.
15 There is also an interest in specifics 16 associated with the NRC's role in the transfer of 17 design certification information to reactor vendors 18 other than the one which requested the design 19 certification.
20 The Subcommittee also desired further 21 discussion on the concept of essentially complete 22 design, and how the staff plans to carry forth this 23 concept in future licensing.
24 Finally, there was some interest in the 25 concept of credible accident. Specifically, how 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
13 1 should or could be defined as a design goal objective 2 in a PRA.
3 So, I'm going to go ahead and start to 4 discuss each of these. I want to pause here. Any 5 questions?
6 All right, we're on slide seven, so this 7 is entry conditions for licensing processes. So, 8 Member Bley asked a question about this at the last 9 meeting during opening remarks. I believe that the 10 Subcommittee may be satisfied with the answer we gave, 11 but I want to summarize our response and provide the 12 opportunity for any questions. Also I want to 13 emphasize that this issue is out of scope for the Part 14 50/52 rulemaking.
15 The staff would apply any entry conditions 16 under the Part 53 rulemaking to Part 53. Briefly, our 17 key points are if there are currently no entry 18 conditions as to technology for Parts 50 or Part 52 19 processes. Nor are we planning to make entry 20 conditions for these two processes as a part of any 21 rulemaking going on. Although they may remain largely 22 light water reactor-specific, Part 50 and 52 can be 23 used by power reactor license applicants with designs 24 using non-light water reactor technology.
25 And for the Part 50 process, we've already NEAL 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 done this before, back in the '70s. The NRC is 2 developing Part 53 to carry out the provisions of the 3 Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.
4 Among these, the Act directs the NRC to establish a 5 new regulatory framework for America's innovators 6 which seek to develop, license, and deploy advanced 7 nuclear technologies.
8 We're taking an expansive approach to that 9 goal. Currently we believe that the resulting Part 53 10 approaches will support all technologies including 11 even large light water reactors. So, are there any 12 questions on this item before I go on?
13 MEMBER REMPE: So, this is Joy, and this 14 is just a minor correction. Even back on February 1s, 15 Dennis was a consultant, he stepped down from his 16 membership, and he's a consultant. I just wanted to 17 make sure that everyone's aware of it, because it was 18 right at the time we switched, so it's easy to get a 19 little confused on that topic. The other thing I just 20 wanted to -- and I know you're going to talk about 21 mobile reactors later, but I think it's better to 22 bring this up here, rather than there.
23 I saw the response you have, that these 24 changes don't address mobile reactors, and this effort 25 doesn't -- is that going to be in the preamble? 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
15 1 guess I'm kind of thinking about Part 53 also, because 2 we've been told it isn't going to address mobile 3 reactors, and where will that be addressed?
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's a good question.
5 I can speak to what's in the preamble for the Part 50 6 and 52 rulemaking as it stands. And we do have a --
7 we asked a question when we sent out the reg basis for 8 comment, specific request for comment about the role 9 of this rulemaking with respect to advanced reactors 10 in light of the fact that we're doing Part 53. And so 11 we have a discussion in our preamble on the general 12 topic of essentially where the niche is for this 13 rulemaking in the various efforts we're doing.
14 So, we don't -- well I think the way this 15 rule is written, going into it talking about a 16 specific non light water technology in this rulemaking 17 would not be a clear type of thing to do in this 18 rulemaking. Because essentially we've said several 19 times that this rulemaking is more of a lessons 20 learned type of thing on the recent licensing 21 activities, and also to align Parts 50 and 52 where 22 necessary.
23 So, where that discussion would go, I 24 would pass that off to Omid, or to Brian to maybe 25 answer 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
16 1 MR. SMITH: This is Brian Smith. The way 2 I understand Part 53, I know we had asked for -- also 3 we have Boyce Travis, who is here, he was actually 4 working on Part 53, so maybe I should let Boyce 5 address this. But the way I understand it is that as 6 you may recall, Part 53 is kind of being broken up 7 into two parts, one that will be finished in 2025, and 8 the other part that will be finished up in 2027.
9 And I believe the plan is to address the 10 mobile reactor part in the second part, the second 11 phase of the rulemaking. Boyce, do you want to weigh 12 in?
13 MR. TRAVIS: Yeah, so I'm not going to 14 commit the staff -- this is Boyce Travis by the way --
15 certainly I don't know that the staff is committing to 16 addressing that portion by 2027, I will speak to 17 what's being done in Part 53 in the sense that Part 53 18 is going to allow for additional flexibilities in 19 terms of a small reactor that is perhaps manufactured 20 elsewhere, and located at a site. The manufacturing 21 license process would allow for that.
22 A reactor that is -- right now, the 23 division is that the Part 53 rulemaking would not 24 address fueling, and testing a reactor at a 25 manufacturing location, and then shipping it, 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
17 1 refueling, and operating it at a different location.
2 But we believe that could be addressed in the future, 3 either through exemptions, or through the additional 4 rulemaking that Brian discussed.
5 Right now, the vision for what's being 6 referred to as a mobile reactor, and I think there is 7 some confusion on what exactly that term denotes, 8 there are plans for addressing a reactor that can be 9 operated at multiple sites, and given a license to do 10 that is currently not within the scope of the Part 53 11 rulemaking, and could be addressed by a future 12 offshoot of that rulemaking once we have a better idea 13 of what the landscape looks like.
14 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, thank you. I see 15 that there are questions from both Consultant Bley, 16 and Member Petti. Dennis, do you want to go first?
17 DR. BLEY: Sure, thanks Vicki. Jim, 18 thanks, I didn't really recognize my comment under the 19 title entry conditions, but I get it now. And I had 20 told Rob I really appreciated that you had gone this 21 way, because the committee has been pushing for 22 several years in that same direction. But if there 23 are no planned entry conditions, I suppose then, a 24 reactor that's mobile could apply under any of the 25 three, and the issues -- I think Joy will probably NEAL 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 talk more about specific issues later.
2 But there are peculiar issues that come 3 up, that I'm not sure the way the regulation is 4 written, there's something that would trigger action, 5 or the need for an exemption. So, it'll be 6 interesting to see how that works out if it's 7 unspecified now, but thanks.
8 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, Member Petti?
9 MEMBER PETTI: Yeah, mine is sort of 10 follow on to that, and to Joy's, which is there enough 11 in the current regulations to allow a mobile reactor 12 today? I'm thinking of the Part 70 transport 13 regulations when you put those next to either 50, 52, 14 lobbying vision 53, is that sufficient, is anyone 15 looking at that landscape?
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Boyce, I think you have 17 your hand up, go ahead.
18 MR. TRAVIS: I would like to speak if 19 that's okay, this is Boyce Travis speaking again. So, 20 if possible, after I speak, I would like for the 21 members to clarify what they mean by mobile reactor.
22 In the sense that what Member Petti just said with 23 regards to we believe there is a framework in the 24 regulations that can be used to address transport of 25 a reactor that has fuel in it between the various NEAL 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 licensing processes offered in Part 70 for 2 transportation, or 73.
3 But there is not a provision necessarily 4 in the regulations for a reactor that is licensed to 5 operate at multiple sites as it exists right now. A 6 reactor is licensed to operate at a single site. A 7 manufacturing license allows a developer, or a vendor 8 to manufacture a reactor at once site, and move it to 9 a different site where it will have an operating 10 license of some sort to be operated at that site.
11 And so as it stands in the regulations, 12 there is not a provision for a reactor that can 13 operate at multiple locations.
14 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, Vesna, do you have 15 a question, or comment?
16 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes, I actually have 17 -- I notice on this slide, on the first bullet we say 18 the Parts 50, 52 are open to all technologies, and the 19 last bullet says that Part 53 is technology inclusive.
20 Is there some subtle difference there? Because, for 21 me, open to all technologies means technology 22 inclusive.
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, that's a good 24 question. So, it has to do with history. So, 25 basically, Part 50 and 52, as you imagine, was written NEAL 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 with certain technology in mind. Unavoidably, the 2 regulations developed around large light water 3 technology, because that's all we've essentially 4 licensed commercially en masse during the time. So, 5 because of that, we never thought about all 6 technologies all along. And so you can see it in the 7 regulations, where there's a bias towards large light 8 water technology, the accident sequences, all that 9 kind of stuff.
10 What we're trying to do is break away from 11 that in Part 53, and say, hey, look, this needs to be 12 more technology inclusive, because we don't know, the 13 next new reactor may not be large light, so that's 14 sort of the thing. Does that answer your question?
15 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay, I understand 16 your thinking. I just want to say that this doesn't 17 say this, because if it's open to all technologies, so 18 it is open to all technologies, but we are biased 19 towards large light water reactors? That is not 20 really answering my question but --
21 CHAIRMAN BIER: If I can step in, and 22 offer what might clarify it, if I'm correct. In Parts 23 50 and 52 there will be language like for a 24 pressurized water reactor you would need to 25 demonstrate the following, or even large early release NEAL 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 frequency, which is kind of an LWR concept, and might 2 not apply to some other reactor types. So, am I 3 understanding correctly that by saying technology 4 inclusive, we're saying that that type of language 5 would not appear in Part 53, is that correct?
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Boyce, it looks like you 7 want to answer this one, so I'm going to hand it off 8 to you.
9 MR. TRAVIS: Yeah, I will, this is Boyce 10 Travis speaking again. I will say that there are a 11 number efforts in Part 53. The goal is to make sure 12 Part 53 is technology neutral, and does not contain 13 that sort of language. However, there are additional 14 efforts happening, as we've discussed with the 15 committee what's been referred to as Part 53 T, in the 16 committee meeting as Part 5X, or the deterministic, or 17 traditional option.
18 The goal is to make sure that all of Part 19 53 is technology neutral. That deterministic option 20 maybe not technology inclusive, but technology neutral 21 in the sense that there may be entry conditions for 22 regulations that are applicable to light water 23 reactors, and broader regulations that are applicable 24 to all technology types due to the regulatory history, 25 and precedent with certain event sequences I 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
22 1 I'll say.
2 CHAIRMAN BIER: But it sounds like that's 3 mainly focused on Part 53, so we maybe don't need to 4 nail down all those details today.
5 MR. TRAVIS: Yes, that's correct.
6 CHAIRMAN BIER: Additionally, I see 7 questions, or comments from Joy, and from Ron 8 Ballinger. Joy, do you want to go ahead?
9 MEMBER REMPE: Get myself unmuted. I 10 think that my main concern right now is what I see 11 coming in the near term with the agency, where right 12 now -- and I'm sure Travis and others know it more 13 than I do -- the staff is engaging with one potential 14 applicant that wants to haul, or talking about hauling 15 a mobile reactor to their site and installing it. And 16 so this -- Travis is right, that this other one may be 17 a longer term one.
18 But in the near term, if this applicant 19 goes through Part 50, because Part 53 isn't 20 established yet, we need to maybe make sure that we've 21 considered some things, especially with some of the 22 proposed changes to the regulations. And the security 23 topic is one of those topics where those changes about 24 what happens with fuel loading, but there's also some 25 interesting nuances with when a PRA is required.
NEAL 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 CHAIRMAN BIER: If there's no staff 2 response, then I guess Ron, you can go ahead.
3 MEMBER BALLINGER: Thanks. So, what I'm 4 hearing, so I get this clear, a mobile reactor, a 5 company could manufacture a reactor, and then ship it 6 to a site, and the license is for the manufacturer, 7 and there has to be an individual site license. So, 8 if there are multiple customers for this mobile 9 reactor, there are multiple licenses for each site, is 10 that clear? Am I reading this correctly?
11 MR. TRAVIS: This is Boyce Travis again.
12 I would say yes, with some potential nuance in there, 13 in the sense that I believe that -- so, depending on 14 how that is --
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I think you can say 16 unequivocally, yes. My understanding is, from the 17 talking points in our previous discussion with you 18 guys, you guys being DANU, we're not licensing right 19 now, or planning licensing a reactor on wheels that 20 can go to one location, unplug it, and go to another 21 location, and plug it in. What we're trying to -- we 22 understand there is commercial interest in an idea 23 where a core would be pre-loaded with fresh fuel, sent 24 to a fixed site, and installed.
25 And that is different from what 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
24 1 normally do. But those are -- when we talk about 2 mobile reactors, those two concepts seem to be 3 conflated time to time, does that help?
4 MEMBER BALLINGER: A little bit. I'm just 5 curious as to who has the responsibility? So, there's 6 a manufacturer that may manufacture, let's say a dozen 7 of these reactors to be shipped, and operated at a 8 dozen different sites.
9 MR. TRAVIS: And that's the nuance I was 10 trying to get to when I was speaking Member Ballinger.
11 So, a manufacturing license is not necessarily 12 required. I mean you could have a reactor vendor that 13 is producing reactors that are going to be sited. In 14 the example you're referring to, yes, there would be 15 an expectation that the manufacturer would have a 16 manufacturing license to produce those reactors, and 17 then a license holder at the site who would probably 18 be a different entity, but would not be required to be 19 a different entity, would be licensed to operate the 20 reactor at a site.
21 And the license holder at the site is 22 responsible for the reactor, and its operation at that 23 point. But I believe in the same sort of expectation 24 with the design certification, vendor having some 25 level of technical support, it's not denoted that way.
NEAL 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 Ultimately the license, the COL, or OL holder is 2 responsible. But the level of review would be based 3 on some level of standardization from the manufacturer 4 of the reactor that the manufacturing license holds, 5 if that makes sense.
6 MEMBER BALLINGER: Would that also be true 7 for autonomous, and unintended operation at the site?
8 MR. TRAVIS: I'm going to say we've 9 stepped way beyond the bounds of what this maybe is 10 going to cover with that comment.
11 CHAIRMAN BIER: If I can offer a potential 12 clarification, it sounds like the current system could 13 conceivably handle a mobile reactor that could be 14 shipped between two, or three locations that each have 15 their own operating license, but not a kind of county 16 fair type operation where it just goes from place to 17 place under its own license.
18 MR. TRAVIS: This is Boyce Travis again, 19 I mean hypothetically with exemptions, I would say 20 yes, but we haven't explored that. I don't think 21 that's -- yeah, theoretically possible with 22 exemptions, but outside the scope of what we looked at 23 so far.
24 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, Walt?
25 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, I think Boyce NEAL 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 addressed this, but I'll just kind of reinforce what 2 he said. I think we should drop this mobile reactor 3 terminology. There is history with quote unquote 4 trying to develop mobile reactors for defense 5 applications, as well as space, et cetera. But I 6 think the term mobile should be expunged from our 7 vocabulary. What we're talking about is shipping an 8 intact core. That's not a mobile reactor on wheels, 9 as Boyce said.
10 And I would venture to say, I'm not a 11 regulatory, but that the existing 50, 52, and 70 12 series would provide a way in negotiations with the 13 NRC to manufacture such a reactor, ship it, and then 14 install it at a licensee, an operating license site, 15 but these are not mobile reactors.
16 MEMBER BALLINGER: That's a very, very 17 good point.
18 MEMBER KIRCHNER: And there is precedent 19 for doing this, and I'll stop there.
20 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, do we have enough on 21 this topic? I see another hand.
22 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: It's me, I was 23 wondering, do we want to use this slide? We used this 24 slide to discuss the mobile reactors, but Joy also 25 brought up something else, the difference in 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
27 1 do we want to use this slide to discuss the difference 2 between 50, 52, and 53 in the PRA use? I mean because 3 it seems that 53 is going to allow the graded PRA, 4 light PRA, different approaches to that 50, 52 will 5 not.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, this is Jim 7 O'Driscoll. We're really just starting that whole 8 concept of Part 53 T. In fact I'm working making 9 liaison with the group working on that to make sure 10 we're coordinated. So, we're just starting on that, so 11 I'm not sure if we could answer that question.
12 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay.
13 CHAIRMAN BIER: All right, any other 14 questions, or comments on this slide? Okay then, I 15 think we can move on.
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right, thank you.
17 We're on slide eight. So, this is cumulative effects 18 of changes during construction. So, Chairman Rempe 19 asked a question about this at the last meeting during 20 our discussion on the Part 52 change process topic.
21 Other members of the ACRS also raised this issue of 22 cumulative effects in earlier meetings. I want to 23 summarize my response, and provide the opportunity for 24 further discussion on the topic.
25 The rulemaking is not changing 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
28 1 fundamental difference between Part 50, and Part 52 2 processes. Part 52 continues to serve as quote 3 unquote the standardization rule. The foundation of 4 the rule remains the principle of one design, one 5 review. The aim of which is the final resolution of 6 all common safety issues in a standardized design 7 early in the licensing process. The main features 8 remain a design certification that has finality 9 through the Commission, and the atomic licensing and 10 safety board panel hearings.
11 The design certification is codified as a 12 regulation, and the design can be referenced by 13 multiple applicants in the future. The design 14 certification includes those inspections tests, 15 analyses, and acceptance criteria that when met 16 provide assurance that the affected plant, the built 17 plant meets these safety requirements specified in the 18 certification.
19 There is no need for an additional final 20 check because ITAAC exists, ITAAC kind of takes care 21 of that. The process for NRC review of exemptions 22 from the requirements of the design certification 23 rule, and the departures of the plant's final safety 24 analysis from the design standard control document are 25 reviewed such that there is no residual accumulation NEAL 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 of unresolved safety issues.
2 And also the Part 52 process requires 3 ITAAC maintenance. So, ITAAC maintenance is important 4 in light of the sometimes lengthy construction 5 schedules, as we know. This rulemaking, this one 6 we're talking about here, strengthens this idea. The 7 rule includes an item discussed in section three, 8 III.K.7 of the preliminary draft FRN, Federal Register 9 notice that helps ensure that ITAAC are not just met 10 at one point during construction, but must be met, 11 that is ITAAC are met.
12 So, they have to stay met all along. So, 13 we continue to believe that these requirements are 14 sufficient to ensure that Part 52 process does not 15 need an additional step for a final check of the as 16 built design. Is there any questions on that?
17 CHAIRMAN BIER: Yes, I do have a question.
18 So, since I'm kind of new to this, and I realize an 19 explanation of ITAAC may be beyond the scope of a 20 brief answer, but can you either point me to a good 21 reference that would summarize how ITAAC is 22 implemented, or at least I would like to understand is 23 ITAAC purely a licensee responsibility, or what role 24 does the agency have in ensuring that ITAAC continues 25 to be satisfied?
NEAL 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 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, that's a good 2 question, I probably would want to refer to somebody 3 in DNRL. I have a thought, but I'd rather see if 4 somebody would like to answer that's on from DNRL, 5 that feels enthusiastic about that question. I mean 6 I can provide some answer.
7 CHAIRMAN BIER: Yeah, I don't see any 8 hands raised.
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, so ITAAC --
10 MR. NGUYEN: Chairman, I'll switch in, and 11 I'll get you some reference materials.
12 CHAIRMAN BIER: Super, thank you.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, the reference 14 material that comes to mind, is there's a one pager, 15 a primer on our public website on the Part 50 and 52 16 process. It talks a little bit about ITAAC, but I 17 don't think it's going to answer fully your question.
18 But ITAAC is a key thing. It is the process by which, 19 or the element of which we provide assurance that all 20 this stuff that we got approved way back when before 21 construction is actually affected, and it's been 22 tested.
23 So, what we do, is we require that stuff 24 to be completed, and we do inspections. It's 25 basically -- I don't want to go into detail, but 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
31 1 a sample type of process where the NRC inspects that 2 ITAAC to make sure it was actually done. Somebody 3 raised their hand. Chandu, would you like to speak?
4 You're the man.
5 MR. PATEL: Yeah, this is Chandu Patel, 6 I'm a senior project manager in Vogtle group in NRR.
7 Basically, yes, ITAACs are included in the license, 8 and each ITAAC is reviewed by our individual sections.
9 In our branch we have a group who review all the 10 ITAACs. There's roughly about 400 per branch. So, 11 yes, each ITAAC is reviewed in detail, and we make 12 sure they implement as designed.
13 So, if you want a particular reference for 14 Vogtle, there is appendix C, which includes all the 15 ITAACs. I don't know if that helps, but also there 16 are regulations that they are supposed to meet, ITAAC, 17 before they load the fuel.
18 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay. So, I think the 19 part of the answer that really responds to my question 20 is that the agency inspects them on a sampling basis.
21 That if there's 400 ITAAC it may not inspect every 22 single one of them every year, but it double checks on 23 things. Is that a fair summary?
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, I just want to 25 clarify that when you say every year, I want to 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
32 1 sure that you understand, it's part of the licensing 2 process as Chandu said. So, the idea is they're done 3 once, the inspection, the ITAAC are completed once at 4 the end.
5 CHAIRMAN BIER: Got it.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Got it, okay.
7 CHAIRMAN BIER: I think so. I'll learn 8 more later, I think we can move on. But anymore 9 questions, or comments on this? Omid, I see you also 10 have your hand up.
11 MR. TABATABAI: Yes, good morning Chairman 12 Bier, this is Omid Tabatabai with the Office of 13 Nuclear Reactor Regulation. With respect to ITAAC, as 14 you said, there could be a thousand ITAAC, but the NRC 15 inspectors do not inspect every single of them. There 16 is a risk-informed prioritization scheme for ITAAC, 17 and the licensees are required to notify the agency as 18 they complete the ITAAC. And the inspectors inspect 19 the closure of those ITAAC according to the 20 prioritization, and risk information of those ITAACs.
21 So, I just wanted to clarify that.
22 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay. Thank you, this was 23 very helpful to me. Any other members, or consultants 24 that have questions on this slide? Okay, Chandu, your 25 hand is still up, is that just from before? 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
33 1 All right, now I can --
2 MR. PATEL: Sorry, sorry, I should have 3 taken my hand off, this is Chandu Patel.
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thanks for chiming in 5 there Chandu, appreciate it. Okay, so we're on slide 6 nine. This one is physical security of mobile reactors 7 assembled core, so we can talk more about this. So, 8 we're on slide nine, so I think we'll go quickly, 9 because we covered a lot of this stuff. So, this 10 topic was raised by Chairman Rempe as a general 11 comment early in the last meeting.
12 The concern for the ACRS is the impact of 13 physical security changes we are proposing on the rule 14 on the potential licensing of future innovative 15 designs with features including such things as a 16 reactor core that is shipped to the site when fuel is 17 loaded. So, as we discussed, there are two changes 18 that we're proposing with respect to physical security 19 in this rule. So, as we discussed last time we met, 20 these two items, one of the items that we're working 21 on is the protection of category two, and three 22 special nuclear material.
23 We identified the need to close an 24 exception for Part 50 nuclear power reactor licensees 25 to align the security requirements for these 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
34 1 to the security requirements that are already required 2 for Part 52 reactors. The proposed alignment with 3 physical security requirements itself would raise no 4 new considerations that the staff would need to 5 address for the topic of assembled cores in this 6 rulemaking.
7 The second change we're proposing related 8 to physical security is the timing which special 9 nuclear material needs to be protected under existing 10 section 73 67, or 73 55. Again, this change clarifies 11 the existing regulations, and assures that there is no 12 gap in the processes where one could argue that 13 either, or both the regulations don't apply. This 14 proposed change to physical security requirements 15 itself would raise no consideration that the staff 16 would need to address for the topic of assembled 17 cores.
18 So, we've established that the issue of 19 the physical security stuff that we're working on, and 20 the issue of assembled cores is not impacted by what 21 we're doing to the physical security regulations 22 themselves in this rulemaking. But we did bring the 23 issue to our DNRL, Boyce, and others. And one thing, 24 I'll just say it again, one thing they wanted me to 25 clarify is that we currently don't have any near term NEAL 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 applicants considering commercial mobile reactors.
2 That is reactors that could be rapidly 3 moved from one site to another for applications such 4 as disaster relief, or something like that. The 5 concept is currently covered under Department of 6 Defense's Project Pele. Therefore we're not currently 7 addressing mobile reactors in the existing regulatory 8 framework, or in the 10 CFR Part 53 rulemaking. That 9 said, there is commercial interest in portable 10 reactors where the reactor is, as we said before, 11 loaded at the factory with fresh fuel.
12 And then transported to a pre-approved 13 fixed location, and then maybe transported back to the 14 factory, or another location with used fuel. Your 15 particular concern centered on the fact that many of 16 the proposed changes in this rule are triggered by 17 when fuel is loaded into the core. For example, our 18 proposed requirements regarding the PRA updates 19 discussed in section III.B.3 of the preliminary draft 20 FRN, and the site access, and fitness for duty 21 regulations we discussed in III.F.2 of the preliminary 22 draft FRN.
23 So, your question was will these 24 requirements be triggered when fuel is loaded off-site 25 for an assembled core, or when the reactor arrives 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
36 1 site? So, and again, I'll give you the answer I think 2 Boyce gave, but I just want to say it again. While 3 this is a developing regulatory area, so the staff 4 expects, consistent with the draft white paper on 5 micro reactors licensing strategies, which I'll give 6 you the ML number in a minute, that the requirements 7 governing the loading of fuel in a factory before 8 transport to the site would be governed by regulations 9 other than Part 50 or 52.
10 These would entail requirements for 11 material possession, transportation, and associated 12 security requirements. So, that white paper is 13 available in ADAMS under accession number ML21235 A as 14 in apple, 418. Therefore requirements for combined 15 licenses, and operating licenses that are tied to the 16 loading of fuel would be triggered by the arrival of 17 the fueled reactor to the site.
18 The NRC staff will continue to work in 19 this area to finalize the agency's position. It 20 should also be noted that exemptions, as Boyce said, 21 are another regulatory tool available to provide 22 relief from requirements that may not apply to certain 23 technologies. So, another question you asked is if 24 the requirements are triggered by the arrival of the 25 fueled reactor at the site, what protections regarding NEAL 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 fitness for duty, et cetera, are in place before the 2 reactor arrives?
3 And the answer to that question is that 4 before the fuel module arrives on the site, access 5 will be controlled in the same manner as for any other 6 construction site, under a construction permit, COL, 7 or limited work authorization prior to fuel load.
8 There is no apparent need to modify our current 9 regulations in anticipation of the potential for 10 shipped cores. So, are there any questions on this 11 item?
12 DR. BLEY: Yeah, two things, this is 13 Dennis. One, Quynh, would you make sure we get a copy 14 of that white paper? I don't think it's up, but maybe 15 it is. And two, when you began this discussion Jim, 16 you talked about everything that's in place for 17 shipping from the manufacturer to the facility, and 18 return. I suppose somehow these shippable reactors 19 would have to go through some kind of testing similar 20 to what spent fuel casks go through if you're going to 21 ship from where it was used to some facility. Have 22 you guys thought about that?
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Let's see, is there a 24 hand up from DANU?
25 MR. SMITH: Hey Jim, this is Brian Smith.
NEAL 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 I'll just chime in real quick, and then Boyce can go.
2 It was mentioned earlier, Project Pele, and their 3 mobile reactor that they're developing now. We have 4 been looking into these issues, along with the 5 transportation staff, and NMSS. So, we have been 6 evaluating the needs as compared to our regulations.
7 The fresh core would be shipped as fresh 8 fuel, and wouldn't necessarily need all the testing 9 requirements as a package would need for spent fuel.
10 So, we have been looking at that. Boyce, do you want 11 to chime in now?
12 MR. TRAVIS: Yeah, everything you just 13 said was accurate. With regards to the shipping it 14 back, I think that is still in the nascent stages, but 15 I would expect there to be a similar level of review, 16 and safety expectation to something like a spent fuel 17 storage cask, or similar depending on the 18 transportation method. But what that would look like, 19 and how we'd go about that is still very much up in 20 the air.
21 DR. BLEY: Okay, thanks.
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, is there any other 23 questions on this one? Joy, you have your hand 24 raised?
25 MEMBER REMPE: Sure, Dave told me earlier NEAL 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 I sounded like I was talking from a tunnel, am I 2 hearable okay now?
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I hear you fine.
4 MEMBER REMPE: Okay. But anyway, I 5 appreciate this clarification, and again, I'm thinking 6 about how others will be notified of this thing about 7 okay, now all the requirements for a loaded core are 8 going to be implemented when the module loaded with 9 fuel, as Walt has tried to clarify for us, arrives on 10 site. And it's not just security requirements, it's 11 also, as we both have mentioned now, about a PRA.
12 Because now you need to have a level two 13 PRA if I read the guidance, and what's been changed 14 with this rulemaking effort, and I'm just wondering if 15 everybody understands. Because again, I know we 16 talked about the graded PRA approach, and Vesna 17 brought that up earlier, and that was one of the 18 reasons I was really glad you released all the 19 guidance, because it's a little easier to discuss all 20 this when we can see what's in, and what's not in all 21 the reg guides that we're going to be talking about in 22 the SRPs later today.
23 But I just am thinking about what's been 24 done with the changes, and if it's well thought 25 through, and I'll just leave it at 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
40 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right, I'll move on.
2 So, this one is about digital I&C, we're on slide ten.
3 So, the issue with digital instrumentation, and 4 control licensing reviews came up at the last meeting 5 during our discussion on the Part 52 change process 6 topic. So, Member Brown described an experience last 7 year when the staff, and the ACRS worked with the 8 industry to obtain some additional flexibility in the 9 use of 10 CFR 50.59 change process for the application 10 to digital instrumentation and control.
11 This work resulted in a consensus on an 12 industry standard, NEI 9607 Appendix D titled 13 Supplemental Guidance for Application of 10 CFR 59 to 14 Digital modifications. The main objective of that 15 guidance is to provide all stakeholders a common 16 framework, and understanding of how to apply 10 CFR 17 50.59 process to activities involving digital 18 modifications.
19 So, that new guidance superseded the 10 20 CFR 50.59 related guidance contained in NEI0101/EPRI 21 technical report, or TR-102348, which was titled 22 Guideline on Licensing Digital Upgrades. And it also 23 incorporates the 10 CFR 50.59 related guidance 24 contained in regulatory issue summary, RIS 2002 22 25 supplement 1, which is titled Clarification 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
41 1 Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance on 2 Designing Digital Upgrades in Instrumentation and 3 Control Systems.
4 So, Member Brown's question was does this 5 work get affected, or carried forward with the changes 6 the staff is proposing in this rule to the 10 CFR 7 50.59 process? Will it be applicable to the Part 52 8 process, and other licensing processes? So, looking 9 at the transcript, it looks like I wasn't clear in my 10 answer, so I'm going to try, and clarify it now, so 11 good luck.
12 I went back to the staff's, and NRR's 13 Division of Engineering for clarity. The answer is 14 simply that there are no changes being proposed in 15 this rule, to 10 CFR 50.59 change process, or any 16 other change processes that would undo the consensus 17 we obtained in NEI 9607 Appendix D. So, to be clear, 18 the proposed rule does not contain any changes that 19 would constitute back fitting in this technical area.
20 Current licensees can continue to perform 21 digital upgrades, and modernize their I&C systems 22 using existing applicable regulations, and related 23 guidance documents. So, current licensees can 24 continue to perform screening, and evaluation of 25 digital upgrades in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 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
42 1 using NEI 9607 Appendix D guidance as endorsed by the 2 current revision, and proposed revision of Reg Guide 3 1.187.
4 Current licensees can continue to use the 5 interim staff guidance. Digital I&C-ISG-06 Rev 2 to 6 inform preparation of license amendment requests for 7 digital upgrades. The changes to Reg Guide 1.187 from 8 the proposed 10 CFR Part 50, 52 alignment rulemaking, 9 which we'll talk about later in this meeting, I hope, 10 do not impact the endorsement of NEI 9607 Appendix D 11 Rev 1, supplemental guidance for application of 10 CFR 12 50.59 to digital modifications.
13 Therefore future licensees can perform 14 digital upgrades using the current guidance. The 15 proposed 10 CFR Part 50, 52 alignment rulemaking does 16 not have any impact on the 10 CFR 50 55A paragraph H 17 rule that incorporates by reference IEEE standard 603 18 1991. So, the staff will review planned I&C system 19 designs submitted under the aligned Part 50 and 52 20 using current applicable review guidance documents.
21 That is NuScale design specific review 22 standard that's in the example of that, and I can tell 23 you what that ML number is. I'll say it, it's 24 ML17102A698. Also the design review guide for non-LWR 25 designs, and modernized, which I'll give you that one, NEAL 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 that one is ML21011A104. And then also for non-light 2 water reactor designs, the modern standard review plan 3 SRP Chapter Seven, which has yet to be written. Any 4 questions on that?
5 MEMBER BROWN: Yes.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
7 MEMBER BROWN: You blew right through 8 that. I understand your reading, where you say there's 9 no changes to 10 CFR 50 55A, one of my questions, I've 10 just been going back, and reading the transcript from 11 the last meeting again, for the third, or fourth time, 12 and the issue I was bringing up is you said you're not 13 carrying forth anything in the 50.59 area up to 52 14 changes.
15 If you read through your transcript, you 16 all considered it wasn't applicable, or didn't have 17 any effect, or something like that. And my point 18 being was we made a lot of very critical decisions on 19 how we make I&C changes, and yet those critical issues 20 don't seem to be in 52 in the same way. You did not 21 make any changes relative to Part 50.59 -- I've 22 forgotten what the numbers, the alphabet soup is.
23 C1 through VIII, those were the critical 24 elements we worked on with 1.187. So, it seems to me 25 now you're making these changes, and yet all 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
44 1 stuff we did is not covered under Part 52, you did not 2 consider it necessary to change part 52 to make sure 3 these changes could be implemented for a Part 52 4 licensee. And I didn't understand why we were going 5 to now go backwards in time, a Back to the Future-type 6 flux capacitor approach to doing business in terms of 7 making I&C changes.
8 So, that was my third question of the 9 multiple ones we just ran through. So, I still don't 10 understand why Part 52 licensees are not going to be 11 able to -- if they have plants, make changes without 12 getting tied up in all the quagmire that we have had 13 to deal with for Part 50 licensees.
14 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, so that, I'm not 15 quite sure I have the full understanding of this 16 topic. And we do have folks from DEX on the line, but 17 just to clarify, the gist of the point we're trying to 18 make here is that all that work, my understanding is 19 it has been put into guidance. And that's NRC 20 guidance, and that guidance should be used as the 21 recommended path forward to addressing one of these 22 upgrades, or making changes.
23 And of course it's not a regulation, 24 guidance can be -- you can depart from it if somebody 25 chose it, but then you get back into your quagmire NEAL 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 situation. But what my understanding was is that if 2 you followed these revised NEI guides, et cetera, 3 there shouldn't be any issues as far as us being able 4 to efficiently review a digital I&C upgrade.
5 MEMBER BROWN: It's just not clear to me, 6 that's all. 50.59 is Part 50 licensees, Part 52 is 7 licensed under Part 52, and there apparently are not 8 equivalent words there. Don't ask me, I've lost the 9 bubble on connections between 52, and 50, what was 10 carried over, if anything. That happened way before 11 my time. So, I couldn't find anything in Part 52 that 12 was equivalent. So, that's my lack of understanding 13 that we're clear.
14 It was a big battle, there were a lot of 15 compromises made. The staff, and NEI, and the 16 industry agreed on a suitable approach, it was 17 documented in Appendix D, And the Reg Guide 1.187 was 18 written without clarifications on it. So, I'm still 19 puzzled, and don't understand why, if we're really 20 clear, that's all.
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Can I ask a follow up 22 question? So, I think the question, the relationship 23 between 50.59, and what we call the 50.59 like 24 process, and how different they are. Is that really 25 the issue, or the question? Because those 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
46 1 processes are very similar, in fact we're doing things 2 in this rulemaking that even make them more the same.
3 So, I'm struggling with what criterion in 50.59 that 4 exist, that needs to exist in the 50.59 like process.
5 I don't know --
6 DR. BLEY: This is Dennis, may I interrupt 7 a second? Charles, I can't quite remember the 8 details, but I think the issue you're hanging up on, 9 and let me try this, and see if I'm right, is when 10 they reached that compromise, and supported the 11 industry document, there was language in there that it 12 applied to operating facilities, and not new 13 licensees. So, I don't think it was in the rule, I 14 think it was in the guidance. Is that correct, or do 15 you remember?
16 If not the people from the staff, and I&C 17 here, I don't see anybody quickly looking, they might 18 be able to clarify that for us. It might just be the 19 guidance, and then the question is if they wrote it in 20 just for operating plants, does that lock it into 21 people who were operating at the time they did the 22 guidance?
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, this is Jim 24 O'Driscoll. Dinesh, can I ask you, you were specific 25 to that review, you have your hand up, please 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
47 1 ahead.
2 MR. TANEJA: Good morning, this is Dinesh 3 Taneja from Division of Engineering. So, I think when 4 we set operating reactors, regardless of whether those 5 are licensed as a combined license, or as Part 50 6 operating license, once it's operating, that guidance 7 would apply to evaluate any changes to the I&C 8 systems. So, the 50.59 like process for the 52 9 combined license plant, the distinction was that there 10 are changes being made, you have a combined license, 11 and during construction you're making changes.
12 You are not fueled yet, you are not 13 operating yet. So, there is a process that has to 14 control how you make changes. So, we have an example 15 of Vogtle, Vogtle has made a number of changes using 16 that 50.59 like process, and there are some changes 17 they were able to make without coming to the NRC for 18 prior approval, and some they submitted to ours, and 19 I'm talking strictly about the I&C related changes.
20 So, that distinction, but once Vogtle 21 starts operation, then this guidance is applicable, 22 it's basically an operating reactor. That's our 23 thought process.
24 MEMBER BROWN: Well, I'm looking now at 25 the changes to Part 52, and they added an item number NEAL 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 nine, and number ten. For a power reactor licensed 2 after effective date, and for a power reactor licensed 3 after another effective date of final rule. And they 4 added a new set of categories, result in a substantial 5 increase in the probability of an ex-vessel severe 6 accident such that a particular ex-vessel severe 7 accident previously evaluated, and determined to be 8 not credible could become credible.
9 And my concern was now we make a change 10 from analog to digital I&C after a Part 542 like 11 Vogtle is operating, they're a Part 52 plant, aren't 12 they?
13 MR. TANEJA: Correct.
14 MEMBER BROWN: Okay, I thought I 15 remembered that. And now they get out, and now all of 16 a sudden these two new things pop in --
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sorry to cut you off 18 Member Brown, I can explain that real quick. So we 19 added -- you're right, those are new provisions we're 20 adding to Part 50.59, and the reason why we're adding 21 those, and they have an applicability date moving 22 forward at the final rule, is because we expect that 23 newly built Part 50 plants that are licensed after 24 this rule goes final need to evaluate severe accidents 25 when they do their 50.59 process.
NEAL 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 Those two criterion are exactly the same 2 as what's in all the D, C appendicesSection VIII, I 3 think it isSection VIII, where we describe the change 4 process. So, the 50.59 process, if you want to know 5 where that lives, it's written in every design 6 certification in one of the sections. Off the top of 7 my head, it's identical amongst all of those -- all 8 the designs we've approved.
9 So, what we had to do, is we saw that if 10 we're going to demand -- not demand, we're going to 11 require PRA for a future Part 50 licensee, and make 12 that part of their licensing basis, and they need to 13 consider severe accidents, which is our item 1A in 14 this rule, then they need to be able to have a control 15 process for changes for that, and that's why the 16 criterion needs to be added. Does that help?
17 MEMBER BROWN: No, I'm not sure. It just 18 seems like we've changed the wording. When we did 19 50.59, and this was a while ago, we did this over two 20 years ago. And it was 50.59C2, and I believe it was 21 items seven, and eight, or six, and seven where they 22 talked about a design basis limit, or a malfunction of 23 NSSC with a different result, and how you interpret 24 those different results that you have to submit an 25 LAR.
NEAL 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 And that was so vague that that was 2 creating problems, and licensees of the operating 3 plants had been reluctant to go forward with a lot of 4 upgrades to their systems, to modernize them, and make 5 them perform better. And now we've added, and we 6 clarified what that meant via the Appendix D, and the 7 language that NRC signed off on when we finally came 8 through with the final conclusions on it, in terms of 9 the examples, and stuff in Appendix D.
10 So, now we put two other things in there 11 that seem to widen this out to cover everything no 12 matter what, and my concern is that we've lost the 13 bubble again in terms of backing people into the 14 corner to upgrade their systems regardless of what 15 they started with in the beginning.
16 MR. TANEJA: Member Brown, Dinesh again.
17 So, my understanding is that this 50 52 alignment 18 rulemaking as our proposed revision to our Reg Guide 19 1.187.
20 MEMBER BROWN: Well, they decided not to 21 make any changes to 1.187, they said no changes were 22 going to be made.
23 MR. TANEJA: Right, so that guidance that 24 we endorsed continues to be effective, right? Because 25 specifically, the Appendix D that we endorsed 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
51 1 revision two of the Reg Guide 1.187 will continue to 2 move forward was is. It's not going to be impacted.
3 MEMBER BROWN: But does the new nine, and 4 ten impact the clarifications, and resolutions that 5 you guys came through with in the Part 50 when we --
6 you're implementing Reg Guide 1.187, I've forgotten 7 what the new rev is, rev two, I just don't remember 8 the number, whatever the new revision was we were 9 dealing with. So, now does this change that? Because 10 they are so general, and so expansive that I'm worried 11 that the compromises -- I don't want to call them 12 compromises -- the agreement you all reached with NEI 13 effectively submarined those.
14 MR. TANEJA: So, I think there are two 15 things. One thing is that the 50 52 alignment does 16 not have any back provisions. So, the effective date 17 would be before these future licensees that would have 18 the necessary licensing basis in place that are not 19 there right now for the operating reactor. So, those 20 don't have to be evaluated. But for moving forward, 21 these would be the licensing basis.
22 So, they would have to assess any impact 23 to those license basis as a result of a change that 24 they are going to make to the facility.
25 MEMBER BROWN: Does -- go ahead, 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
52 1 sorry.
2 MR. TANEJA: But when it comes to making 3 changes to the I&C assessment, I don't know whether 4 I&C changes would be all risk-informed moving forward, 5 or how that is, but right now what we are envisioning 6 is that Appendix D is not impacted by this proposed 7 rulemaking.
8 MEMBER BROWN: Well, I think that's kind 9 of optimistic, the plants start operating, and now 10 there's two new items in C which are extremely 11 expansive. Has industry agreed with these words in 12 the new Part 52? Do they agree that this doesn't 13 affect the Part 50.59 changes that we made two years 14 ago?
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: We haven't got a 16 statement, or a response from industry specifically on 17 that topic, on whether what we're doing with 50.59 18 undoes things we've agreed to in digital I&C reviews.
19 But I would try to emphasize that these provisions 20 that you're saying are expansive, they already exist 21 in our licensing. These aren't new reactor licensing.
22 They already exist in the 50.59 like processes that 23 the Vogtle has to comply with.
24 So, they're already there, but what we're 25 trying to say is if you come in with a brand 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
53 1 design, a brand new sheet of paper, and you choose to 2 design it, license it under Part 50, guess what? That 3 license, once approved, is going to be granted after 4 the final date of this final rule. They will be 5 subject to those two new provisions, that they have to 6 evaluate severe accidents when they're making changes.
7 MEMBER BROWN: So, they are impacted.
8 Whatever was done on 1.187 rev one, or two, whatever 9 the appropriate number is, and the Appendix D, they 10 are impacted then after these dates, for the Part 50?
11 MR. O'DRISCOLL: When we say no changes --
12 MEMBER BROWN: That's a disaster.
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, when we say no 14 changes to 1.187, we're saying no changes to 1.187 15 relates to this digital I&C stuff. But as you can see 16 in the markup of 1.187, you can see where those 17 changes were made in the preliminary draft reg guide 18 that we gave you guys.
19 MEMBER BROWN: For these changes?
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah.
21 MEMBER BROWN: You all decided not to make 22 any changes, according to your slide you said you 23 weren't going to change 1.187.
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, for this issue.
25 MEMBER BROWN: Yeah.
NEAL 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 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right.
2 MEMBER BROWN: So whatever's in place when 3 you do this, stays in place. Whatever revision, 4 whatever Appendix D, which was covered in rev, I wish 5 I could remember the rev, whatever the latest revision 6 is. Now when they go forward in these plants, they've 7 got these two more expansive conditions under Item C 8 that could impact what was done for sections seven, 9 and eight, or six, and seven, or whatever they were 10 for the clarifications that we made before.
11 And you're saying they're someplace else, 12 but boy that's not obvious where they are. The 13 present 50.59C has eight specific conditions, and 14 those were the ones that were worked out with this 15 agreement on how we issued, or how the staff agreed 16 with Appendix D. And I just -- I'm very, very 17 concerned that as this plant goes forward, now there's 18 a whole new set of conditions, which force them, if 19 they want to make a major upgrade, like they go from 20 analog to digital in the old days, now they go from 21 one digital concept to another digital concept.
22 They're impacted, and they're back to 23 square one again as technology improves. There's no 24 relief here, it just seems like we've put another 5000 25 pound stone on the backs of the licensees in order 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
55 1 keep these plants modern.
2 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, all I can say is that 3 for sure, that was not our intent. And certainly if 4 it's a nuance we missed on this, then obviously we're 5 going to look at this. We have PRA folks working on 6 this rule, we have DEX folks working on this rule.
7 We're pretty confident, or we are very confident that 8 what we're proposing should not impose an undue 9 regulatory hurdle for future plants.
10 In fact we're trying to help things out in 11 fact. If that is the case, then we need to address it 12 for sure.
13 DR. BLEY: A little clarification, the 14 eight criteria Charlie is talking about were not 15 changed. The big problem at the time was one of those 16 was interpreted quite differently by the staff, and by 17 industry. And eventually in the guidance they came to 18 an agreement on how to deal with that. And I'm not 19 sure, I guess from what Charlie is raising, it's 20 possible there could be a disagreement over what the 21 new language means. That would be the place this 22 would become troublesome.
23 MEMBER BROWN: Yeah, that's the point I'm 24 trying to make. Maybe I phrased it wrong, but we've 25 got two new things, and those two new items they put NEAL 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 in are very expansive, and literally I can't express 2 how overwhelmingly expansive they are. And that now 3 all that work is subsumed when you throw these two 4 items in. It makes me difficult to be able to write 5 a letter on this when we finish our full committee 6 meeting that says we agree with this particular 7 changes. That's all -- let me finish -- until we know 8 whether industry is not going to balk at this.
9 DR. BLEY: Well, the problem doesn't exist 10 a priori, it's after there's something to evaluate, 11 and the staff reads the words different --
12 MEMBER BROWN: I understand that.
13 DR. BLEY: Charlie, exactly where in the 14 rule are these two criteria you're talking about?
15 MEMBER BROWN: They added two new items 16 after items I through VIII. It's in -- they added IX 17 and X.
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right, so specifically 19 these items are discussed in section 3A of the 20 preliminary draft FRN on severe accidents. And we 21 added those to address what we're doing with severe 22 accident requirements, which is one of the alignment 23 items that is in this rulemaking.
24 MEMBER BROWN: It used to be C2 V through 25 VIII. Now, there's a new IX, and a new X, and 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
57 1 are very expansive. It's on page -- I don't even know 2 what page it is right now, I can't read it.
3 MEMBER REMPE: While you're looking for 4 that Charlie maybe you ought to let Chandu, and Mike 5 Waters have a chance.
6 MEMBER BROWN: Joy, hold on please.
7 They're on page 265 of the FRN material we were given 8 for the February 1st review. Well, actually 264 it 9 starts on, they changed an and to an or, which was 10 irrelevant, up in the other text. But the page 265 of 11 the FRN, at least I've downloaded that we've had since 12 that meeting.
13 CHAIRMAN BIER: So, I would like to give 14 Chandu, and Michael Waters a chance to comment.
15 MR. PATEL: Yeah, this is Chandu Patel, 16 I'm a senior project manager in NRR. At least I can 17 clarify a little bit. As far as Part 52 plants are 18 concerned regarding 50.59 process for I&C, there is no 19 change. My understanding -- I think we might have 20 Malcolm Patterson online, and he's the one responsible 21 for adding those items, but basically they are trying 22 to make Part 52, and Part 50 consistent as far as the 23 CVRX issues are concerned.
24 So, as far as Part 52 are concerned, 25 there's no changes. I hope that is clear.
NEAL 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 MEMBER BROWN: Nope.
2 MR. PATEL: So, that was the intent of all 3 these things, they want to make --
4 MEMBER BROWN: They weren't in 50.59 5 before, they may have been listed somewhere else in 6 part -- the overall, general -- but here, 50 has a 7 very definitive process for making changes, and what 8 constitutes changes that require an LAR. And now two 9 major, big bullets have been popped into that 50.59 10 context that you added as part of this change.
11 MR. PATEL: Okay, so, I suspect that if 12 you look at any Part 52 branch changes in Appendix 13 Roman numeral eight, there are Part 50.59-like type of 14 process. There are things there to consider for Part 15 52, and my understanding is these criteria were not 16 there for in Part 50 plants. Okay, 50.59 process, so 17 they apparently make it consistent. I guess Malcolm 18 is not there, but Jim you --
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I agree 100 percent with 20 what you're saying there.
21 MR. PATEL: So that's what it is 22 basically. Part 52 plants are not -- I can tell you 23 with 100 percent guarantee, that Part 52 plants are 24 not affected by this 50.59 process.
25 MR. PATTERSON: This is Malcolm Patterson.
NEAL 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 I agree with what Chandu has said. I don't think I 2 have anything to add. These two tests were added to 3 Part 50 to align it with Part 52. It's already in 4 Part 52, I don't know what more to say about it.
5 Aligning the two --
6 MEMBER REMPE: So, to make it real clear 7 -- excuse me for interrupting, but to make it real 8 clear for all the members, send Quynh an email 9 afterwards, and just show us the section where it is 10 in 52, and that might help, right?
11 MEMBER BROWN: Well, Joy, they're 12 translating these back. They're saying these are in 13 Part 52, and therefore they're moving them somewhere, 14 don't know where --
15 MEMBER REMPE: That's what I'm saying, 16 just show us the somewhere, and that will end some of 17 this argument, right?
18 MEMBER BROWN: Let me finish, no. Because 19 they are taking them out of Part 52, and moving them 20 back into Part 50 that now get covered under 50.59, 21 and these were two items that are very expansive.
22 DR. BLEY: We are leaving them in Part 52, 23 and adding them to Part 59, and we do not see them as 24 a large burden for a new reactor under Part 50 because 25 that reactor will have addressed severe accidents 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
60 1 its application.
2 MEMBER BROWN: What about current plants?
3 DR. BLEY: It does not apply.
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: They're not effected.
5 So, let me try to explain. There is an applicability 6 date that is in the language that says reactors 7 licensed after X date, which is like let's say 2024.
8 So, if you're an older plant, those would not even 9 apply, it's like they don't even exist for you. They 10 only exist for the new -- if somebody decides to come 11 in tomorrow, and decides to do their license under 12 Part 50, guess what? You're now on the hook for 13 severe accidents. But the folks that already have a 14 license, already are doing changes, this completely 15 does not affect them.
16 MEMBER BROWN: I got that point.
17 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, so if I can 18 interrupt briefly Charlie, it seems like we have two 19 things going on. One is do we understand what staff 20 is doing, and the second is do we agree with it?
21 MEMBER BROWN: Yes.
22 CHAIRMAN BIER: And we don't need to 23 discuss the do we agree with it right now during this 24 meeting, as long as we can get, as Joy mentioned, the 25 documentation of exactly what changes are being 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
61 1 where, and that kind of information so that we can 2 write an informed letter later. Michael Waters, you 3 had your hand up for a while, do you still want to 4 speak?
5 MR. WATERS: Yes, this is Mike Waters, 6 chief of Instrumentation and Control Branch. I just 7 wanted to maybe help confirm what Charlie was saying.
8 It is correct that we did update Reg Guide 1.187 to 9 endorse NEI 9607 Appendix D. And the reason for doing 10 that was the struggle of industry, and the challenge 11 of digital upgrades to address permanently common 12 caused failure, and you're correct, how do we address 13 criteria six, a malfunction different result.
14 So, I just want to offer Charlie that it 15 sounds like your question is really more of a 50.59 16 question, because we endorse NEI 9607, and the 17 licensee has to address -- the licensee addresses 18 those eight criteria, and we've endorsed NEI 9607 as 19 a way to address those eight criteria.
20 MEMBER BROWN: With Appendix D.
21 MR. WATERS: With Appendix D. Appendix D 22 actually complements it, right? And if there's no 23 guidance for a new criterion nine, and ten, then the 24 person would go to 9607. If there's no criterion for 25 nine, and ten, I think that may be your question. 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
62 1 me, it's more of a question of what's our future 2 guidance look like for addressing criterion nine, and 3 ten. I really don't see it as a digital question, but 4 that could be one thing that could be effected.
5 So, it sounds like we need to circle back 6 to you with exactly what we're doing with the 7 additional criterion nine, and ten, and our future 8 guidance of do we need future guidance to endorse how 9 to address these two criterion.
10 MEMBER BROWN: One of my concerns, yeah --
11 I'm just worried, okay? It's been like a lachrymose 12 industry for 20 years without any substantial 13 incorporation of upgraded digital I&C systems. And 14 I'm just deathly afraid. I see the effective dates, 15 but somehow when we get to the full committee meeting, 16 I hope somebody can come in, and explain exactly why 17 this is not going to impact, number one, operating 18 plants today.
19 I understand the effective dates part.
20 And number two, a new plant executed under, or 21 licensed under Part 50, if somebody comes in, and 22 wants to do it under Part 50, because that's always a 23 possibility, that these are out of the bounds of the 24 digital I&C for a specific reason.
25 MR. WATERS: So, I agree. I suspect 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
63 1 future plant is going to be significantly digital, and 2 the issue of going from analog to digital will be less 3 --
4 MEMBER BROWN: Absolutely, I understand.
5 MR. WATERS: Especially with interest in 6 these new failure modes associated with digital. I 7 would hope that those failure modes would be addressed 8 as part of the licensing basis for a future plant.
9 MEMBER BROWN: I would think so, but if 10 somebody comes in who has to modify an upgraded 11 digital system --
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: It doesn't apply then, it 13 wouldn't apply.
14 MEMBER BROWN: If it's after this 15 effective date --
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: No, I'm sorry Member 17 Brown, it is for only those plants that have received 18 their license after that date. So, let's say you're 19 either --
20 MEMBER BROWN: You can stop, I've got 21 that, what if somebody builds a new plant under Part 22 50?
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, then I think the 24 other -- it goes back to Mr. Waters' point is that 25 you're digital, you're digital from the get go, if NEAL 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 you're brand new.
2 MEMBER BROWN: Unless they make a change 3 to the digital system, or somebody decides well does 4 that effect severe accidents, or not? How does it get 5 worked into that thought process?
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, okay.
7 MEMBER BROWN: And I think that's what 8 Mike was addressing.
9 CHAIRMAN BIER: Chandu, you had your hand 10 up for a minute, do you still want to make a comment, 11 or?
12 MR. PATEL: Okay, just a minute, this is 13 Chandu Patel. As far as Part 52 plants are concerned, 14 I can give you reference, just like any Appendix, 15 Section VIII.B.c, that's where the serious accident is 16 issued, and that's not going to change.
17 MEMBER BROWN: Where was that --
18 (Simultaneous speaking.)
19 MR. PATEL: It's Appendix D Section VIII 20 B like boy, capital B, and then small c. That's where 21 the serious accident issues are discussed, and that is 22 not going to change for Part 52 plants.
23 CHAIRMAN BIER: Dennis, you have a 24 question, or a comment.
25 DR. BLEY: Two, just comments, a couple 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
65 1 them. One is Quynh, when you distribute this material 2 to the committee, if you could also include the 3 committee's two letters on this issue, that would 4 probably be helpful for anybody who wasn't here for 5 both of them. And two, Mike Waters, maybe this is 6 aimed at you. If the staff has had any discussions, 7 open meetings with, being particular, NEI, or other 8 stakeholders on how these two new criteria would be 9 interpreted, and can tell us about that at the full 10 committee meeting, that would probably be very 11 helpful, that's all.
12 MEMBER BROWN: Thank you Dennis, that's 13 what I was hoping we would get at the full committee 14 meeting also, explain that to us.
15 MR. WATERS: Sure, we'll be happy to 16 circle back with James. I do not know of any 17 discussion on my side of the area with industry, and 18 digital I&C for criteria nine, and ten. Again, I 19 think we should be able to give a little bit clearer 20 response on how criteria nine, and ten will be 21 applied. And it's not done just digital questions, or 22 any change in the future plan.
23 MEMBER BROWN: Yes.
24 CHAIRMAN BIER: Thank you.
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thanks Mike.
NEAL 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 CHAIRMAN BIER: So, I think there is only 2 one more slide on digital I&C, and maybe after that we 3 should take a short break.
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, so this is the 5 slide with all that answer. Okay, so for I&C system 6 designs in future applications submitted for design 7 certifications, or standard design approvals, the 8 staff will continue to ask for the level of detail 9 necessary to make a reasonable assurance of safety 10 finding. That is the changes we are making to the 11 definition of essentially complete are not intended to 12 affect these reviews.
13 The use of design acceptance criteria, or 14 DAC, which was brought up at the last meeting, I 15 brought it up for I&C designs, is not needed. For 16 example NuScale, and APR 1400 reactor designs have 17 been certified without the use of I&C DAC, so that's 18 not changing. Any further questions? And then we can 19 go to break.
20 MEMBER BROWN: I just want to thank you 21 all for being as patient with me as you have been.
22 I'm just -- if we had industry input into this to 23 start out with, then I probably would have walked 24 away, but I didn't, but we'll cover that later 25 hopefully. So, thank you very much.
NEAL 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 CHAIRMAN BIER: Dennis, you still have 2 your hand up, is that just an accident, or? Okay, 3 Joy?
4 MEMBER REMPE: Okay, so we can do this 5 after lunch, I'll let the staff decide. But this is 6 the only place where I saw anything about standard 7 design approval changes, and at the last meeting 8 Consultant Bley brought up a question about SDAs, and 9 a paragraph needed in Section 52.93 on exemptions, and 10 variances, and I didn't see any additional discussion 11 in this whole presentation about his point. And 12 perhaps that means staff agrees with it, or did staff 13 have any response, and we should just go with what we 14 heard before?
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: I thought that one was 16 resolved Chairman Rempe.
17 MEMBER REMPE: Well, I looked at the 18 transcript, and I thought you said -- again, there 19 were a lot of issues we brought up, so I could be 20 wrong, but I thought you said well, that might be a 21 good point about needing that paragraph for SDAs, and 22 we'll get back to you is how I remember it. But I'm 23 getting old, and maybe I've forgotten.
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
25 MEMBER REMPE: I see Amy's hand up.
NEAL 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: Amy's hand is up, Amy 2 would you like to chime in on this?
3 PARTICIPANT: Certainly Dr. Rempe, I was 4 not on the previous meeting, so please correct me if 5 I'm getting the question wrong here. But as I 6 understand it, you're asking does there need to be 7 basically a change process for SDAs that would be 8 exemptions? And the SDA does not involve a 9 rulemaking, so are you talking about a future 10 applicant taking changes from the standard design 11 approval?
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, so Amy, we are 13 proposing in this rulemaking, because of the fact that 14 we are eliminating the SDA durations, just like we're 15 eliminating DC durations, that we needed to establish 16 regulations, or a regulatory pathway for an SDA holder 17 to make generic changes, and for someone who is 18 referencing an SDA to make a specific change to an SDA 19 in an application.
20 So, what we did is we're actually 21 proposing a brand new process for the first time in 22 this rulemaking on that.
23 PARTICIPANT: Okay, but however the SDA 24 does not involve a rulemaking, so if the ACRS question 25 was should there be a process for exemptions, 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
69 1 would not need to be exemptions if someone were to 2 take a departure from the SDA when they reference it.
3 I think they would simply provide alternate 4 information for staff review in their combined license 5 application.
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's right.
7 PARTICIPANT: Does that answer your 8 question Dr. Rempe?
9 MEMBER REMPE: Let me think about it, but 10 I know that Dennis had wanted, or suggested that 11 perhaps if something had not been thought of, that the 12 rules under Part 52 would apply. Consultant Bley is 13 on the line --
14 DR. BLEY: Yeah, I'm here.
15 MEMBER REMPE: Do you want to elaborate 16 more on your point? I'm afraid I'll misquote it.
17 DR. BLEY: Certainly. Jim walked us 18 through the addition that allows specific changes that 19 were raised by people, and built that into the new 20 rule. And I wondered if there was a way to add 21 something generic to Part 52 that would allow one to 22 use the processes established for design certs for 23 combined licenses under an SDA in general. And Amy, 24 you said it's not a rule.
25 But I thought when I read it, it is 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
70 1 rule, or it's another -- I have to go back, and look 2 at Part 52. But right there it says there will be an 3 Appendix for the SDA.
4 PARTICIPANT: So, a standard design 5 approval in, and of itself does not culminate in a 6 rulemaking unless the applicant seeks a design 7 certification.
8 DR. BLEY: Okay, but a COL under that 9 would?
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right, and they would be 11 governed by the FSAR. So, I think at the last meeting 12 we brought this up, and I think you're talking about 13 the 50.59 like process that exists for changes in the 14 DC realm. And we agreed, and I thought we explained 15 that that process wouldn't be appropriate for an SDA 16 holder for a number of reasons.
17 The biggest reason is that if you have a 18 change process like a 50.59 process where you can make 19 changes without prior NRC approval if you meet certain 20 criteria, then that assumes that that person that is 21 doing that evaluation, that SDA holder has got all the 22 things they need to have to have good records, et 23 cetera. They need to have a good QA program, have it 24 all acceptable, and all this.
25 And that's a lot of stuff to ask for folks NEAL 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 that are desiring an SDA. What we understand is that 2 folks that desire to go the SDA path, and not get an 3 SDA in rulemaking is an entity that doesn't want to 4 necessarily have the obligations of all the record 5 keeping, et cetera that's required to keep a DC in 6 good health. Does that make sense?
7 PARTICIPANT: Yeah, ultimately it would 8 all be referenced in the combined license, and would 9 be governed under the change process that would be for 10 combined licenses, the change process for an FSAR as 11 if it was a custom COL.
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: We use the term subsumed, 13 so the SDA is basically subsumed into the FSAR.
14 DR. BLEY: It's the FSAR, yeah I think you 15 did go through this for us Jim. If you're doing a 16 combined license under a design cert, you either 17 accept each element in the DCD as is, or you provide 18 an exception to them. You don't need to do that if 19 you're using an SDA because you're writing the full 20 thing, the full FSAR, and you can't accept things by 21 reference, you have to include everything.
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right, and the whole 23 enchilada is subject to ASLB, and Commission hearing.
24 The SDA does not have the same level of finality as a 25 DC, so that's why you can go this way. I mean 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
72 1 going to be looked at by the Commission, but under the 2 auspices of a one off license. A COL that references 3 an SDA just sucked into their FSAR, and we do that 4 application.
5 CHAIRMAN BIER: Dennis Galvin, I see a 6 hand.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Dennis, yes, he was the 8 author of this, so Dennis, please go ahead.
9 MR. GALVIN: So, let's just clarify, 10 because I think there's some staff here who weren't 11 here last time. So, we are proposing a change 12 amendment process for SDA holders, and we are also 13 proposing a change process for COLs to take 14 departures, or changes from SDAs. So, we are putting 15 that into the rule. Right now the rule is silent on 16 that, I guess theoretically they could do that, but 17 we're making it explicit, and we're providing a 18 process.
19 In the end, the SDA will be subsumed into 20 the COL. So, we are saying in the end, the rule would 21 require them to justify any departures from the SDA.
22 DR. BLEY: I think this is where I get 23 confused. If the FSAR stands on its own, then we 24 don't need this provision. If you don't have finality 25 on the SDA, making some kind of big deal here about NEAL 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 departures from it seems unnecessary because it hasn't 2 been fully approved yet. And if you do it for this, 3 that's where my question had come up, you probably 4 ought to have something more general to allow other 5 deviations to be covered.
6 But I guess where I am right now following 7 this long discussion, is adding this new part doesn't 8 make any sense to me if you've got to review the whole 9 FSAR.
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right, so maybe I can 11 help with that one. So, there is a value in having an 12 SDA, it does provide a level of finality. A staff 13 review is done -- I'm sorry, go ahead Dennis.
14 MR. GALVIN: So, they do have finality 15 with regard to the staff, and the ACRS with regard to 16 an SDA. So, anything that's in the SDA that's 17 unchanged, and incorporated into the COL is sort of 18 off limits for the staff review, and ACRS review, 19 because you've already approved it. So, they need to 20 be a justification if they depart from what the staff 21 reviewed, and the ACRS reviewed.
22 And so whatever they depart from, or 23 change, would then be subject to staff, and ACRS 24 review. Of course the finality with the rulemaking 25 extends into ASLB for design certification, ASLB, 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
74 1 the Commission, but that's not the case, because the 2 SDA doesn't go to them. So, I think there is 3 finality, and it does impact the committee.
4 DR. BLEY: Yeah, I guess we're also, this 5 is also, at least for me, this is all a little vague.
6 Because the only SDA that came through ACRS was for a 7 plant that already had a design cert, so it was pretty 8 easy. So, we haven't seen one where we actually, all 9 they come for is an SDA, and the whole review process 10 is exercised, so this helps me a bit. I guess I see 11 what you're doing.
12 I think the other side of what I was 13 concerned about is kind of covered in the fact that 14 either they accept things from the SDA directly, and 15 I guess from what you said, we might see an FSAR with 16 sections that's accepted by reference, or some such 17 thing like we did for COLs on design certs. But any 18 other issues can be resolved within the FSAR itself, 19 that will have to be reviewed. So, you don't need 20 something like I was suggesting, more general. Thank 21 you very much.
22 MR. GALVIN: Just to be clear, also once 23 the COL is approved, the SDA is subsumed. The 24 proposal states the SDA is subsumed into the Col, so 25 it's treated as a COL now, as if there was no 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
75 1 So, all the requirements for the change process will 2 apply to the whole COL. There's no special 3 requirements like there is for design cert.
4 DR. BLEY: Okay, and if a second COL from 5 another applicant comes in, they're kind of stuck with 6 this whole process, or can they refer to the first one 7 as we do under design certs?
8 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sure, I mean that's 9 already in the regs. There's various things you can 10 reference in the Part 52 process, another COL is one 11 of them.
12 DR. BLEY: Okay, fair enough.
13 MR. GALVIN: But not finality Jim, there's 14 no finality. It would be a design cert, or a re-15 approach for the second COL.
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, which you can 17 reference, yeah. Does that help? Or maybe I added 18 more confusion there.
19 DR. BLEY: Well, the two of you, you're 20 adding different things. So, Amy, you say there's no 21 finality. If somebody else had got a COL, and I'm 22 coming in with another operating license referring to 23 this SDA, I can refer to their license for --
24 MR. GALVIN: You can basically copy what 25 they have done, and the staff, unless something 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
76 1 changed, should rely on its previous findings.
2 However, you don't have finality if you're referencing 3 another COL.
4 DR. BLEY: Okay, so the staff can ask 5 anything about that is what that means? If I come in 6 with a second one, refer to the first one, copy their 7 stuff, you still get a chance to say well, maybe there 8 is a problem here, and ask things in the review, is 9 what that's saying?
10 MR. GALVIN: From a legal perspective, 11 there is no back fit protection for a combined license 12 referencing an SDA that's referencing another COL.
13 DR. BLEY: Okay, I think I get it, thank 14 you.
15 MEMBER REMPE: Thank you for the 16 discussion on all this, it helps, because we are going 17 to be seeing some of these things coming down the 18 pipe.
19 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, any last questions, 20 or comments? In that case we are now on break, and we 21 will resume at 11:30 Eastern.
22 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 23 off the record at 11:17 a.m. and resumed at 11:30 24 a.m.)
25 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, it looks like it 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
77 1 now 11:30 Eastern. So, if staff is back, I think we 2 can move on, and start with slide 12 of the 3 presentation.
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right, welcome back 5 everybody. I'm continuing our discussion of topics 6 from the last ACRS meeting we had back on the first.
7 We're on slide 12. So, this is the issue of transfer 8 of design certification information to other vendors.
9 So, this issue came up during the last meeting during 10 our discussion that proposed changes to the 11 requirements for reporting emergency core cooling 12 system analysis model errors.
13 Chairman Rempe noted that the situation 14 where a design, once certified, and sponsored by one 15 vendor is referenced by a combined license by another 16 vendor who is not involved in the original 17 certification. The chairman noted that in these 18 situations, there is no straight forward process for 19 transfer of detailed design, and analysis information 20 of the ECCS, or any other system, including records of 21 found errors, and analyses.
22 There would be some possibility of a 23 previously discovered error to be carried forward by 24 a new vendor, because the new vendor did not have the 25 records. So, the staff responded back on 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
78 1 that nothing in this proposed rule affects this 2 situation. We're not relieving the vendor's 3 responsibility to document changes, and maintain a 4 complete internal record.
5 The regulations you see on the slide are 6 examples of requirements for design vendors to 7 evaluate errors, make reports, and maintain, or 8 control documents related to quality. The NRC also 9 has experience reviewing applications that reference 10 a design supplied by a vendor other than the one that 11 obtained the original design certification. The south 12 Texas COL proceeding is an example of that.
13 Under 52 73A, the NRC required, and reviewed an 14 alternate vendor report that evaluated in depth the 15 qualification of the proposed alternate vendor. In 16 general, the staff expects that if a design changes 17 hands, necessary records would be transferred as well.
18 However, the staff review will evaluate this. The 19 staff acknowledges that there is much more information 20 that must be used by the staff to reach its safety 21 finding than the information that ends up in the rule.
22 The staff retains the right to obtain any 23 design information it deems necessary to make a safety 24 finding. Chairman Rempe also asked a question related 25 about the current practice of small advanced reactor NEAL 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 vendors using DOE developed codes, and what that means 2 for the staff's need to obtain that information to 3 review the design. So, the DOE code development work 4 is public, but not all of the information in it, or 5 used to verify, or validate V&V, the codes, due to 6 things like expert control, et cetera, is public.
7 The NRC has access to this information 8 through various channels. Is there any questions on 9 this before I go on?
10 MEMBER REMPE: So, this is Joy, and you 11 have a lot of good information in your comments, and 12 I'm not sure I digested all of it, or understand it 13 all, but could you just give me a little idea more of 14 what happened with the STPCOL review? You mentioned 15 that the staff ensured that some documents were 16 transferred, and can you tell me how the staff did 17 that, and what requirements allowed them to do this?
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, I think that's a good 19 answer for somebody in DNRL if there's a staff member 20 on the call that remembers exactly what they did. But 21 basically I can just say that we reviewed that like 22 any other COL application, and we expect to have the 23 information needed for us to make a safety finding.
24 And when it's not present in the application, based on 25 an RAI that's quality written, and is backed up with NEAL 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 the regulatory need, we send those out.
2 And then the applicant is on the hook, 3 more or less, to provide that information to staff so 4 the staff can make its finding. Kevin, you have 5 raised your hand, take it over.
6 MR. ROACH: Yeah, Jim hi, this is Kevin 7 Roach, attorney with NRC OGC. I just wanted to add a 8 little bit more to what you were saying about the 9 STPCOL review. The Commission addressed the alternate 10 vendor review in the mandatory hearing decision that 11 was issued in 2016. So, in 52 73A, there's a 12 requirement that if there's going to be a vendor who 13 was not the original design certification vendor, the 14 NRC can require an alternate vendor report basically.
15 So, in the alternate vendor report that --
16 Nina was the party in the south Texas proceeding. In 17 the report they submitted, they went through all of 18 the steps that they went through to ensure that 19 Toshiba had access to documents, that it was capable 20 of reproducing any calculations it was missing, and 21 the staff did audits, and inspections of this.
22 And so I would commend to you the 23 mandatory hearing decision for 2016, and give you the 24 citation for that. It's a CLI16-02, and then SCR also 25 goes through the steps of the alternate vendor NEAL 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 qualification review. And I guess the bottom line is 2 the NRC has experience in this area, and this process 3 is the model I think that it would follow in the 4 situation that you were asking about.
5 MEMBER REMPE: Okay, this helps. Again, 6 it's just a concern I've had, because a lot of times 7 when we see some of the new design developers coming 8 in, and when the details aren't there, they often will 9 say but we'll still be around, and I've often brought 10 this up. But knowing that you expect them to 11 reproduce the calculations, sometimes they take credit 12 for procedures that we don't yet have, because it's 13 not yet required. It's just going to be an 14 interesting situation as we go forward, so thanks.
15 CHAIRMAN BIER: Anything else on this 16 slide? Okay, thank you for the clarification.
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right, we're on slide 18 13, which is definition of essentially complete 19 design. So, there was some discussion on aspects of 20 what a quote essentially complete design, end quote, 21 would mean. And these came up during our discussion 22 on the design scope, and standardization technical 23 area. The first question was from Chairman Rempe, 24 where we asked if we considered adding a definition 25 for an essentially complete conceptual design from 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
82 1 Part 50 construction permit process.
2 And how the staff should address carve 3 outs where portions of the design are not provided for 4 review. Chairman Rempe asked if carve outs counters 5 the definition of essentially complete design. So, 6 Member Sunseri, and Member Bley recommended that the 7 proposed definition, essentially complete design, 8 still leaves much to interpretation, and the scope of 9 the information that meets the definition is 10 unavoidably a function of the staff review of what is 11 initially provided to them.
12 Member Kirchner commented that there seems 13 to be a break point in Part 52, where the term 14 essentially complete design seems to apply only to 15 evolutionary light water reactor designs, and not 16 designs with advanced inherit passive safety features.
17 So, we brought all this stuff back to staff, and 18 here's what you get. The staff disagrees that we 19 should apply the concept of essentially complete 20 design in any form to the Part 50 process.
21 As I said earlier, the objective of this 22 rulemaking is not to make the Part 50, and t2 23 processes the same, but to make it such that 24 equivalent designs reviewed under each process yield 25 similar outcomes with regards to safety, security, 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
83 1 environmental protection. Part 50 affords a more 2 relaxed requirement for design information, maturity, 3 and changes during construction at the construction 4 permit stage at the cost of finality.
5 The staff acknowledges that in the 6 preliminary draft propose rule, FRN, when 7 characterizing a construction permit application, we 8 use the phrase quote essentially complete conceptual 9 design. This language is not as precise as it should 10 be. Therefore the staff plans to modify the 11 preliminary draft FRN to use the phrase quote 12 preliminary design when describing construction permit 13 applications, and accurately align with the language 14 that is used in Part 50 right now.
15 Regarding construction permits, the level 16 of detail must be sufficient for the staff to make its 17 findings to 10 CFR 50 34A, and 50 35. These 18 regulations for issuing a construction permit have not 19 been substantially modified since 1970. These 20 regulations recognize that at construction permit 21 stage, the design is preliminary, and subject to 22 future changes unlike for a design certification COL, 23 or an operating license where final design information 24 is required, and all safety issues must be resolved.
25 Guidance for meeting 50 34A, and 50 35 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
84 1 contained in NUREG 0800 standard review plan, and Reg 2 Guide 1.70. And the staff is currently developing a 3 construction permit interim staff guidance to 4 supplement the SRP, and the reg guide. With regard to 5 Member Kirchner's comment that there seems to be a 6 technology break point built into Part 52 with respect 7 to the requirement to submit essentially complete 8 design for review, the staff looked into this, and 9 notes that it is a good observation, however this was 10 not the intent of the original Part 52 rulemaking.
11 Part 52 41, which is titled Scope of the 12 Subpart has a paragraph B1, and B2. So, B1 says any 13 person may seek a standard design certification for an 14 essentially complete nuclear reactor -- sorry, nuclear 15 power plant design -- which is an evolutionary change 16 from light water reactor designs of plants which have 17 been licensed in commercial operation since before 18 April 18th, 1989.
19 And Paragraph two says any person may also 20 seek a standard design certification for a nuclear 21 power plant design which differs significantly from 22 the light water reactor designs described in paragraph 23 B1 of this section, or uses simplified, inherent 24 passive, or other innovative means to accomplish its 25 safety functions. So, we believe that this apparent NEAL 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 distinction in technology in this regulation was not 2 intended as it's written.
3 Specifically, we believe that the phrase 4 in B1, quote, which is an evolutionary change from the 5 light water reactor designs is not meant to qualify 6 what part 52 applicants must submit designs that are 7 essentially complete. So, why? So, the reason why is 8 because if you look at 52 47, which is contents of 9 applications, the purpose which is to describe the 10 information needed for Part 52 license applications 11 specifically does not make a distinction between these 12 two classes of designs.
13 So, these are divided in paragraph C1 for 14 evolutionary designs. Paragraph C2 for designs that 15 differ significantly for light water reactor design 16 described in paragraph C1, or uses simplified, 17 inherent, passive, or other innovative means to 18 accomplish its safety functions, or paragraph C3 for 19 modular nuclear reactor designs. Of note is that the 20 paragraph C1, and C2 both specifically require an 21 essentially complete design.
22 So, therefore the staff plans to remove 23 the term essentially complete from 10 CFR 52 41 B1.
24 It's not in the rule right now, but we're going to 25 make this change. And ensure essentially complete 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
86 1 used consistently within 10 CFR 52 47 C1, C2, and C3.
2 So, finally, even though the staff is proposing to 3 define essentially complete as part of this 4 rulemaking, in doing so, it does not intend to change 5 the scope, or level of detail required for a design 6 certification application, or the findings that the 7 staff are required to make.
8 The staff encourages all applicants to 9 engage early in pre-application if they need 10 additional clarifications regarding scope, or level of 11 detail of their particular application. So, are there 12 any questions on this item?
13 DR. BLEY: Yeah, Dennis Bley, and Jim, you 14 may have covered it, you were going really fast, and 15 I was taking notes, so I might have missed it. I 16 appreciated the comments the staff made at our last 17 meeting, that essentially complete design changes with 18 each phase of design licensing, and you explain that's 19 why you were putting in the definition to clarify it.
20 And I didn't think that definition made that point 21 clear, which I think would help people, and I wondered 22 if you'd thought about that, if that might be a good 23 addition to the definition.
24 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Omid, do you want to 25 reply to that one?
NEAL 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 MR. TABATABAI: Yes, good morning Dr.
2 Bley. We actually thought about what you mentioned 3 last time, but again, if there are specific 4 recommendations, or suggestions that you have in mind 5 that you can provide, that would help the staff look 6 at it, and consider adding it to the proposed 7 definition for essentially complete design. What we 8 have used, in order to come up with the proposed 9 definition is using the SECY paper that the staff 10 proposed.
11 I forgot the number, based on the 12 experience from Vogtle construction, and issues that 13 the licensees brought up, and the difficulty that the 14 staff had to go through to review minor license 15 amendments for minor issues, and things like that.
16 And we wanted to provide a definition with a solid 17 basis as to why the essentially complete design, what 18 we envision as the staff to mean.
19 And we used some input from -- Malcolm is 20 also on the line, and he can elaborate on that. We 21 wanted to make sure that the definition would include 22 safety significance, importance of safety significance 23 in the definition to make sure that we are clear in 24 the definition, what we mean by essentially complete 25 design.
NEAL 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 DR. BLEY: Yeah, Omid, and I think it was 2 Malcolm who I'm paraphrasing, who made this point, 3 that I thought was right on target. And the 4 committee, and its consultants shouldn't be rewriting 5 the rule for you, and giving you new words. But I 6 liked the concept, and it's a real concept that the 7 meaning has to change with each phase of design, and 8 licensing.
9 And the definition you have is accurate, 10 but leaves many things to the eye of the beholder.
11 So, I thought this idea that was expressed by the 12 staff was worth including. So, I see Malcolm's ready 13 to say something, he may correct me here, okay.
14 CHAIRMAN BIER: Yeah, Malcolm?
15 MR. O'DRISCOLL: You're on mute Malcolm.
16 MR. PATTERSON: There's so many ones off 17 these days. I appreciate your observation, it wasn't 18 clear to me how to change the wording quickly, so I 19 didn't try to do it before this meeting. The 20 observation is not being ignored.
21 DR. BLEY: For me it seems pretty easy, 22 but that's because I don't have to write it, and have 23 everybody look at it.
24 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, Joy?
25 MEMBER REMPE: Sure, I'm glad Dennis 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
89 1 it first, because I was trying to follow what you were 2 saying also James, and I'm not as familiar with some 3 of the terms. But on item two, I think that is the 4 response back to my comment about a definition might 5 also be thought of for an essentially complete 6 conceptual design because of what we've seen with a 7 prior construction permit.
8 And I think what your response is back to 9 me is that the staff is going to get rid of that term, 10 conceptual design, and go to preliminary design, is 11 that what I think I heard you say?
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Right, so when we read 13 the transcript, and sort of like the staff said this, 14 and I'm like where did we say that? And we found that 15 we did say that in the preliminary draft proposed rule 16 in one of our responses to a public comment. And we'd 17 like to change the phrase, because what we would like 18 to do is kind of fence off the whole concept of 19 essentially complete to Part 52. But that being said, 20 I think we're taking about the same thing here.
21 This whole idea of graded -- what it means 22 to be essentially complete changes, I think that's 23 something that if we were to get that right, would 24 ultimately address your concern, because what 25 essentially is complete changes, which mean what 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
90 1 would want at an early phase, rather than later. Does 2 that make sense?
3 MEMBER REMPE: I think so. So, okay 4 you're going to get rid of conceptual design, which is 5 always, I remember when I worked, many years ago for 6 a vendor, we used to laugh about what is a pre-7 conceptual design, and we had some interesting ideas 8 about what it meant. But anyway, yeah, I think 9 preliminary is better. But I think it also evolves 10 with the same point Dennis is raising, as what's 11 needed at that time in the regulation.
12 And I think also heard you say that a lot 13 of this is going to be dealt with with the CP interim 14 staff guidance, and other guidance that will be 15 changed, like in NUREG 0800 in Reg Guide 1.7. And I 16 have another question after that, but I just want to 17 make sure I understood what you said, because I'm 18 slow.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, so there's -- we're 20 working on an ISG for future Part 50.
21 MEMBER REMPE: Right, we reviewed that.
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, so I'm not sure if 23 Carolyn Laron (phonetic) -- but I'm not sure quite 24 what phase we are in that, but we are talking. I know 25 Karen, and I are communicating.
NEAL 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 MEMBER REMPE: So, again, this is a good 2 time to -- I'm not sure what all sections you're 3 changing in the SRP, but I know we discussed, and I 4 get what we're doing here, but this is a good time to 5 again bring up the fact you've got a lot of 6 rulemakings with a lot of changes to the guidance, and 7 my understanding from last time is that although you, 8 and your organization are tracking all these changes.
9 And again, maybe it's Section 19 in NUREG 10 0800 that you're changing, different rulemaking 11 activities are going to require different changes, and 12 it'll all go up to the Commissioners, and they're 13 going to have to try, and make decisions on a bunch of 14 different changes to guidance for different rulemaking 15 activities, and keep it straight, and hopefully not 16 make a comment on one change that counters what's 17 needed for another change.
18 It's going to be a complicated thing, and 19 I understand why the staff is doing what they're 20 doing, but that is what I heard last time, right?
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, and I think you're 22 accurate there in your recollection, and description 23 of it. I mean essentially we have to provide for the 24 public's review, for the Commission's review, if it's 25 needed to understand the rule, a preliminary draft reg NEAL 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 guide. And obviously the point of departure of that 2 is what's actually out there right now, if it's a 3 revised reg guide, as opposed to a new reg guide.
4 So, you're right, you could have multiple 5 activities, multiple projects that need to change that 6 reg guide. And again, this has happened before, 7 because this is our process, it has not changed, and 8 these things have to be deconflicted, and that's why 9 you have a Division of Rulemaking, and all that good 10 stuff, for us to fix that.
11 MEMBER REMPE: Now there's like what, at 12 least four, five different rulemakings that are 13 changing various reg guides at the same time, and I'm 14 just wondering, do you know which reg guide, or SRP 15 chapter is having the most impacts? Is there one reg 16 guide that I could site that has four different 17 rulemakings affecting it? That's what I'm kind of 18 wondering.
19 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's information that 20 I don't have, but we could -- I think there's ways to 21 figure it out. There's only a finite number of rules 22 that are going on in finite areas of subject matter, 23 and they may, or may not have declared what guidance 24 is affected. So, it really depends on the phase of 25 rulemaking. If you have a proposed rulemaking plan, NEAL 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 for example, or even a reg base, is they'll just say 2 guidance is affected, they may not know.
3 But then when you get into this phase, 4 when you're actually writing the rule, and sitting 5 down, things really start to crystalize. And so, it 6 would really only be useful information comparing 7 draft propose, and draft final rules, and what's in 8 them right now, as far as cross cutting. And we have 9 a decision of research that deals with this too. I'm 10 not going to speak for them.
11 But they have a set of PMs, project 12 managers, that work on -- they're assigned to a reg 13 guide, and their job is also to deconflict all the 14 various activities going on with that reg guide.
15 MEMBER REMPE: Okay, thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN BIER: Amy, you have your hand up 17 to respond, is that correct?
18 PARTICIPANT: Yeah, just briefly, I want 19 to make sure we're not conflating several concepts.
20 Essentially complete is always intended to refer to 21 the scope of the design, that it would include all 22 systems, structures, and components that are pertinent 23 to safety, and that level of -- that scope should not 24 vary between a design cert, or a COL, or even a 25 construction permit.
NEAL 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 The only place that it varies is the 2 standard design approval, which does allow for 3 approval of major portions of a design, rather than an 4 essentially complete design. Then you have the 5 concepts of preliminary, and final design information, 6 and that speaks to the level of finality of the 7 design, and whether it is subject to change as in 8 preliminary design information at a construction 9 permit stage is subject to change during construction.
10 And then you have the concept of level of 11 detail, and the level of detail always needs to be 12 appropriate to whatever findings the staff is needing 13 to make. So, at the design cert, or COL stage you 14 need to have enough final design information to make 15 final safety conclusions on the entire design. And 16 the level of detail within that varies between 17 systems, structures, and components depending on the 18 safety significance, the uniqueness, and the 19 complexity of the topic.
20 So, it's very difficult to establish sort 21 of a standard guidance for what the appropriate level 22 of detail is across the board, and that's why it's 23 handled in individual guidance documents. And with 24 regards to all the different guidance documents, and 25 the concern Dr. Rempe has about them changing, I'm not NEAL 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 aware that this particular issue we're discussing now, 2 that there's any intent on changing the concepts of 3 finality, level of detail, or scope.
4 I believe this is clarifying words, and 5 not actually changing the practice of what we're doing 6 there.
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's correct.
8 CHAIRMAN BIER: That was extremely helpful 9 Amy.
10 PARTICIPANT: Okay, thank you.
11 CHAIRMAN BIER: Walt, you had your hand up 12 a moment ago?
13 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, but I took it down, 14 thank you Vicki.
15 CHAIRMAN BIER: All right, any other 16 questions, or comments on this slide? Okay, then we 17 can move on.
18 MR. O'DRISCOLL: All right, we're on slide 19 14 for folks on the phone. Okay, so there was some 20 discussion during the Part 50 and 52 change process 21 discussion regarding proposed addition of the 22 provisions, and we're going back to what we talked 23 about earlier today in 50.59, to add 50.59 C2 nine, 24 and ten.
25 So, the paragraphs would require licensees NEAL 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 of power plants that are licensed under Part 50 after 2 the effective date of the final rule to seek an 3 amendment to the operating license if a proposed 4 change, test, or experiment would significantly 5 increase the probability, or consequence of an ex-6 vessel severe accident. Chairman Rempe asked, well 7 how would one know if a postulated accident is 8 credible? That is, is there such a thing as a cut-off 9 accident frequency below which such accidents need not 10 be considered?
11 So, at the meeting, the staff stated that 12 what would be credible versus incredible is not 13 defined. And such a definition is the prerogative of 14 the Commission to determine. We clarified at this 15 last meeting that the new provisions would only 16 require analysis on previously identified ex-vessel 17 severe accidents, not newly defined ones. The staff 18 agreed that the proposed changes don't resolve the 19 ambiguity of the terms substantial, and credible.
20 But they do align the Part 50 change 21 process to the current requirements of Part 52 in 22 regards to the impact of changes, tests, and 23 experiments on the probability, and consequences of a 24 severe accident. So, I believe that there was 25 agreement that the staff's ACRS discussion of 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
97 1 concept of a cut-off frequency will continue, but 2 would not be carried forward in this rulemaking.
3 There are some additional points the staff 4 would like to make on this topic. So, the staff 5 recognizes the term credible is used in slightly 6 different contexts in various NRC regulations, and 7 guidance documents, but is not defined. However, the 8 staff is taking several actions to ensure that the 9 expectations are clear, and predictable for defining 10 accident sequences, including appropriate controls to 11 prevent, and mitigate potential accident consequences, 12 and taking probabilistic considerations into account 13 as appropriate.
14 In most cases, the term credible is used 15 to ensure that requirements are not imposed to protect 16 against non-physical, or obviously very unlikely 17 events, or phenomenon. The definition of the term, 18 and possible demarcations of what may, or may not be 19 deemed credible can differ based on how a specific 20 design, and licensing methodology incorporates the 21 concept.
22 As such, developing generic definitions of 23 credible may not present the most technology inclusive 24 approach, and could unintentionally limit the ability 25 of applicants to propose reasonable alternatives --
NEAL 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 excuse me, reasonable alternative methods for 2 determining credible for their designs. The current 3 regulations under 10 CFR Part 50, and Part 52 provide 4 regulatory framework that if met ensure that there is 5 adequate protection of public health, and safety, 6 including appropriate defense, and depth.
7 The SRP provides guidance to establishing 8 the plant transient in accidents for LWRs that should 9 be analyzed to represent a sufficiently broad spectrum 10 of transients, and accidents, or initiating events.
11 As required by NEIMO, the Nuclear Energy Innovation 12 and Modernization Act, the NRC is developing a 13 technology inclusive, risk-informed, and performance 14 based regulatory framework, which is Part 53, for any 15 new reactor applicant.
16 As Part of this rulemaking activity, the 17 NRC staff is developing flexible options for selecting 18 licensing basis events. One approach for licensing 19 basis event selection is described at NEI 1804, which 20 is revision one, titled Risk-informed Performance 21 Based Technology Inclusive Guidance for non-Light 22 Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development. So, that 23 was issued in August 2019, and the ADAMS number for 24 that is ML19241A472.
25 The NRC endorsed that in Regulatory Guide NEAL 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 1.233, which is titled guidance for a technology 2 inclusive, risk-informed, and performance based 3 methodology to inform the licensing basis, and content 4 of applications for license certifications and 5 approvals for non-light water reactors, which was 6 issued in June of 2020. And that reg guide is 7 ML20091L698.
8 So, this approach uses probabilistic PRA 9 in an enhanced role for the selection of licensing 10 basis events. By following this approach, an 11 applicant can establish the event sequences for which 12 its proposed design must include prevention, and 13 mitigation measures for. While the embedded 14 methodology considers frequency, engineering judgment 15 remains an important part of the process.
16 The methodology does not address credible, 17 but instead includes determination of what sequences 18 are specifically considered in the design, and 19 programmatic controls, and those that contribute to 20 the residual risk associated with the facility.
21 Without using insights from a full scope PRA in a 22 holistic fashion, it is more difficult, and can even 23 be more subjective to define what constitutes credible 24 for a given plan.
25 So in response to stakeholder feedback 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
100 1 Part 53 rulemaking, and to afford applicants 2 additional flexibility in defining, and evaluating 3 licensing basis events without using PRA in an 4 enhanced role, the staff is also developing two 5 additional approaches. One of these approaches uses 6 PRA in a traditional role that is intended to better 7 align NRC requirements with the IAEA, which is the 8 International Atomic Energy Agency, specific safety 9 requirement number SSR2/1 titled Safety of Nuclear 10 Power Plant Design.
11 This traditional approach includes 12 defining design rules, and allowing the use of 13 stylized events to establish a design basis for the 14 associated structures, systems, and components. While 15 not meant to include physically impossible events, and 16 phenomenon, the traditional approach introduces 17 intentional conservatisms to account for 18 uncertainties, or limitations in testing, and analysis 19 data in the term credible accidents that the applicant 20 is required to analyze, and address in design.
21 The other option under development would 22 provide an alternative approach to selecting licensing 23 basis events by establishing a maximum credible, or 24 hypothetical accident. All three approaches would 25 provide acceptable means of identifying the spectrum NEAL 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 of credible events to support the safety case. The 2 staff continues to encourage prospective new reactor 3 license applicants to engage the NRC staff as early as 4 practical to discuss topics such as licensing basis 5 event selection, and what approach they propose to 6 identify credible accident scenarios for their design.
7 Okay, so with that, what questions do you have?
8 DR. BLEY: This is Dennis Bley, not so 9 much a question, if you'll forgive me, a little speech 10 here. I've been arguing strongly against the phrase 11 credible, or incredible for over 40 years. I kind of 12 understand why lawyers and many commissioners like 13 keeping the prerogative to define it themselves. On 14 the other hand, naive, or not so naive optimism has, 15 in a number of cases over our history, led to us 16 observing things that are incredible, or defined as 17 incredible happening.
18 The definition that one member of the 19 staff talked about at our last meeting, that they're 20 physically impossible, is certainly a reasonable 21 definition of incredible, one that doesn't allow much 22 flexibility, and has been used in one of the end 23 processes. I'd much rather people have to prove why 24 what they want to call incredible is extremely 25 unlikely. So, I'll leave it at 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
102 1 I think the rule is going to go the way 2 you're going, but I'd like to get rid of this language 3 everywhere.
4 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, Dave?
5 MEMBER PETTI: Okay, so I just wanted 6 clarity on two things. I understand why you don't 7 want to define credible, but have you checked that 8 it's being used consistently, or at least not 9 inconsistently across all the regulations? And then 10 it sounds like you said a maximum hypothetical 11 accident, and a maximum credible accident are the same 12 things, is that true?
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, I'll ask Boyce, do 14 you want to respond?
15 MR. TRAVIS: Yeah, I think that there was 16 -- conflating the two is incorrect Dave. A maximum 17 hypothetical accident, and a maximum credible accident 18 are different concepts, and there are certainly some 19 subtleties associated with those differences that are 20 beyond the scope of the discussion we're having here, 21 and we're still in the early stages of exploring that 22 in the rulemaking that's going on. So, those two 23 things are different, and we're treating them 24 differently.
25 MEMBER PETTI: Okay, and what about 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
103 1 do you know if it's being used consistently, the term 2 credible? Or at least not inconsistently?
3 MR. TRAVIS: I am not the right person to 4 speak to that. I would like to say yes, but someone 5 with a broader rule knowledge, given the supplies in 6 NMSS areas, NRR, et cetera would have to speak up 7 here.
8 DR. BLEY: Dave, I'd like to weigh in just 9 a little on that. One is it hasn't been used 10 consistently over the last 30 years. It's been used 11 differently in different situations. Maximum 12 hypothetical, and maximum credible historically go 13 back in my memory as maximum hypothetical was I can 14 dream up anything, and credible was added in to kind 15 of reign in that position.
16 And later people tried to be more precise 17 by looking at how likely things were. But it would be 18 nice if we're going to use that language anywhere, 19 that it gets well defined.
20 CHAIRMAN BIER: Greg, you have a quick 21 question, or comment? Greg Halnon. Greg, I think you 22 might be on mute. Or maybe, he may have stepped away 23 for a minute.
24 MEMBER HALNON: No, is that better?
25 CHAIRMAN BIER: That's much better, 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
104 1 you.
2 MEMBER HALNON: I'm sorry, I had to change 3 microphones, I apologize. I've been a little 4 confused, because I thought yesterday we heard that 5 DG1389 was being revised to define an MHA, and that 6 was going to be essentially the same thing as MCA, 7 maximum credible accident. So, I guess I need to go 8 back, and look at the transcripts from yesterday, 9 maybe I heard wrong.
10 I also know that we're reviewing another 11 applicant under Part 50 that looks like ten to the 12 minus six is being used as a cut-off point as a 13 probability. So, I'm not sure I agree with that, as 14 it's not consistent, and I'm not sure that I 15 understand the full breadth of the different uses even 16 within the staff. So, maybe someone can address that, 17 or maybe we can talk about that at another time.
18 CHAIRMAN BIER: Just to add on Greg, from 19 yesterday's briefing, I heard two different versions 20 from different staff. One saying more, or less what 21 Dennis said, that the MHA is kind of can you even 22 imagine it? And another staff person saying no, 23 really they are both about the same. So, even within 24 one briefing, we heard some inconsistent definitions.
25 But Walt?
NEAL 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 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes, I thought Vicki 2 that yesterday, well it was Michelle Hart, if anyone 3 checks the transcript, it was Michelle. I thought she 4 did a good job at least based on past usage, making a 5 distinction between an MHA, and an MCA, or a credible 6 accident. Credible accidents, if I recall her words, 7 were more physics based. The maximum hypothetical 8 accident was to account for the unknowns, and such.
9 And just said, despite the physics, just 10 assume that the core is on the floor so to speak, that 11 you've had substantial melt, and use that to deal with 12 the uncertainties, and put margins into the scenarios 13 such that you could ensure adequate protection, and 14 such. So, I thought that if we go back, and look at 15 the transcript from yesterday, I thought that Michelle 16 Hart did a very good job trying to make a distinction, 17 at least in terms of historical usage of the 18 terminology.
19 CHAIRMAN BIER: Thank you. Any additional 20 questions, or comments? I see some hands up, but I 21 think they're left over probably.
22 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay, I'll move on. So, 23 we're about to go into guidance, and I'm looking at 24 the time, and I just wanted to ask, I think we might 25 want to maybe pass it back to you guys to see if NEAL 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 there's a rethink here in what we want to cover in the 2 next few minutes.
3 CHAIRMAN BIER: Yeah, I thought about 4 this, and I think we don't need to have the individual 5 slides briefed. Maybe we can just go one by one to 6 see if members, or consultants have questions, or 7 comments on a specific slide. So, there may be some 8 documents that everybody says yeah, we saw that, we 9 don't need to discuss it. Is that agreeable?
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's a great plan, 11 yeah.
12 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay. So, I guess you can 13 move onto your next slide, and anybody want to discuss 14 details on Reg Guide 1.206? Okay, hearing none, 15 1.187, next slide. Joy, I thought you had some 16 questions that related to the issue of severe 17 accidents here?
18 MEMBER REMPE: I didn't in my notes, so 19 maybe they got addressed in the prior things. I had 20 something on the next one, and that's why I unmuted, 21 sorry if I confused you because of that.
22 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay.
23 DR. BLEY: Vicki, going through these 24 quickly makes sense, but this is up to you folks on 25 the committee, if you intend to include something NEAL 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 about the guidance in the letter, you probably need 2 more detail than we're buzzing through here, otherwise 3 I think it's a good brief.
4 CHAIRMAN BIER: That sounds fine. For 5 sure we would need to refer to these things if we plan 6 to discuss them. So, all right, 1.200 I guess is the 7 next slide. So, Joy, if you want to start, and then 8 I have something also.
9 MEMBER REMPE: Okay, well I actually also, 10 maybe it's you, or maybe Vesna, but I thought that she 11 would be wanting to speak up on this. But mine's 12 pretty short, and I've already brought it up today.
13 Again, I believe this is -- at least my notes indicate 14 this is one example of a reg guide that talks about 15 what is needed with respect to a PRA, like a level two 16 for at the time of fuel loading.
17 And again, it was more than just security 18 things that are being changed, and I just wanted to 19 mention that.
20 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, Vesna, or anybody 21 else have anything --
22 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yeah, I checked this 23 actually Joy, and basically it was they say as 24 designed, as to be built, as to be operated. So, 25 there is not really a real concern, it's not used NEAL 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. However, I have a couple of questions. One of 2 my questions is are you planning, that is the NUREG 3 1.247, or something, I don't remember, but it's a 4 draft guide, which is the PRA results for non-light 5 water reactors. Are you planning to look through 6 this guide?
7 MR. O'DRISCOLL: That's a DANU question, 8 that seems like a Part 53 scope of area. Is your 9 question do we plan to work together, to make sure the 10 reg guide works for both rules? Or is it do we plan 11 --
12 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yeah, that's exactly 13 my question, because you said that we discussed from 14 the beginning, that it's open to non-light water 15 reactors.
16 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, and the answer is 17 yes. I think Marty is raising his hand, Marty please 18 go ahead.
19 MR. STUTZKE: Yes, this is Marty Stutzke 20 from NRR DANU, and the intent of Reg Guide 1.247 is to 21 address its use for Part 50, 52, and 53 as well. I'll 22 also note that Reg Guide 1.247 is expected to be 23 issued for trial use in late March, or early April of 24 this year.
25 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: All right. I 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
109 1 another question, which I wasn't sure should I ask in 2 1.206, or here. That one of the changes you're making 3 is of when applicability of this 50.69, right? Of 10 4 CFR 50.69?
5 MR. STUTZKE: Yes.
6 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: All right. Most of 7 the changes in your period related reg guides are 8 related to the scope, is it applicable for this 9 license, if they should collab, manufacturing license, 10 so they're all scope related. The only actual change 11 which will require some more details is that related 12 to 50.69, so where is that change?
13 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, we did talk about 14 this at length with whether, or not we needed to make 15 changes to Reg Guide 1.201 with regards to 50.69, and 16 I do have some language on that. So, the guidance 17 that's related to 50.69 that's out there now is a 18 trial guide, it's not a final reg guide. So, can I 19 just hold my thunder until I get to that slide, and 20 maybe just read my notes on that, would that work?
21 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes, but also what 22 I'm wondering what's happening, I want to define how 23 the period, how it should be presented, did you 24 consider changing that to include the 50.69 25 requirements?
NEAL 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 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, I don't want to 2 speak for Malcolm, but 50.69 is an optional 3 regulation. In other words, you don't have to have 4 50.69. So, it's up to an applicant to consider if 5 they want to use that in their application, or not.
6 And Reg Guide 1.206 is really what is the requirements 7 for an applicant -- we want to focus on what actually 8 the staff needs to see to make a safety finding with 9 respect to a license.
10 So, again, I don't want to speak for 11 Malcolm here, but I don't imagine that 50.69 would be 12 impacting Reg Guide 1.206 as far as what's needed.
13 Malcolm, please go ahead.
14 MR. PATTERSON: I think you're exactly 15 right, Reg Guide 1.201 addresses what's necessary to 16 use 50.69. We're not trying to address it in Reg 17 Guide 1.200.
18 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Okay, but the Reg 19 Guide 1.200. in the C-13. I think defines that 20 acceptability of the PRA for risk-informed 21 applications, and summary refers to the -- that will 22 be addressed in separate guidance for the risk-23 informed applications, 1174, 1175, the reg guides 24 which are related to specific risk-informed 25 applications. However, the reg guide which is missing NEAL 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 in the numbering which was for graded QA was replaced 2 by 10 CFR 50.69.
3 So, that's what I was thinking, that some 4 -- okay, maybe this is voluntary changes that -- well, 5 all risk-informed applications are voluntary. So, I 6 was thinking since it's not in the reg guide, which is 7 guidance for the graded QA, which is replaced with 10 8 CFR 50.69, that that should maybe be addressed. I 9 mean I didn't really have time to think in detail 10 about that, but I was checking your guides for this.
11 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, I think that we will 12 be touching on Reg Guide 1.201 later in this 13 presentation. I think that's where it belongs. I 14 mean I think that reg guide addresses the concern. It 15 may need revision to do it well.
16 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, Jim, if you wanted 17 to check your notes on 1.206, that's actually in the 18 past, not in the future, we've already blown past that 19 slide. So, I don't know if you want to go back to 20 that, or --
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well, I can talk about --
22 I have a backup slide on 1.201 if we want to jump to 23 that.
24 CHAIRMAN BIER: Up to you, however you 25 want to address the question is fine.
NEAL 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 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, let's talk about 2 this, just give me a second. All right, so this is 3 slide 36, I'm jumping for those folks on the phone.
4 So, let me just kind of go through this. So, 10 CFR 5 50.69 was issued in 2004 after years of discussion.
6 The Nuclear Energy Institute instituted industry 7 guidelines revision zero of NEI 00-04, and published 8 that in 2005. The next year NRC issued regulatory 9 guide 1.201 for trial use. For many years it just was 10 there, nobody used it.
11 The first license amendment request to 12 implement the voluntary regulation was not submitted 13 until Vogtle one, and two in 2014. In 2015, the staff 14 prepared a summary of issues related to Reg Guide 15 1.201, issues to be addressed in the next revision.
16 From the middle of 2017 through the end of 2021, we 17 have received nearly 30 licensed amendment requests to 18 use 50.69, and granted about 20 of them.
19 We are not waiting for the industry to 20 revise their guidance, but until the staff has 21 experience with the implementation of the rule, it 22 seems prudent to defer putting Reg Guide 1.201 into 23 its final form. It's not clear how the rule can be 24 used by a plant that has not yet been built, but 25 applicants for a construction permit, design approval, NEAL 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 combined license, or manufacturing license are already 2 allowed to use 50.69.
3 This won't change when DC applicants, and 4 COL holders are also allowed to risk inform their SSC 5 categorization. The rule requires a PRA that has been 6 peer reviewed against standards that the NRC has 7 endorsed. In some ways, this is a higher standard 8 than that which is required for a combined license 9 holder to load fuel. The staff is working to update 10 the summary of issues, but believes that the alignment 11 rulemaking, this rulemaking, is independent of the 12 technical issues of risk informing categorization of 13 structures, systems, and components. So, any 14 questions?
15 CHAIRMAN BIER: Vesna, was that helpful?
16 Or other people who have questions on this?
17 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yeah, it's helpful, 18 I have to think about this.
19 CHAIRMAN BIER: If we can go back to the 20 slide that we were at on 1.200?
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Sorry, 1.200?
22 CHAIRMAN BIER: Yeah, it's a little bit 23 further down than where you are. There we go. I had 24 one minor comment, I don't think it requires a 25 response, just an observation that the draft reg guide NEAL 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 does include language that might not be applicable to 2 all reactors, such as large early release frequency.
3 If you have a micro reactor with a tiny source, there 4 may not really be such a thing as a large release.
5 So, that's just an observation.
6 Any other questions, or comments on this 7 document? Okay, so I think we can move on to 4.7 is 8 next.
9 MEMBER REMPE: So, this is Joy, and it's 10 a minor comment. It may be again, if the staff isn't 11 getting confused, I get confused about all the 12 changes, but in fact I think I made this comment when 13 we looked at Reg Guide 4.7. But again, I see the IAEA 14 standard for volcanic hazards being mentioned, and yet 15 the staff has -- and maybe it's that that reg guide 16 hasn't been finalized, but the staff is doing work on 17 a reg guide related to volcanic hazards, and why 18 wasn't it included? This is irrelevant with respect 19 to this alignment issue, but I just was curious.
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: If there's anybody on the 21 line from the NRC staff that would like to comment on 22 that?
23 MEMBER REMPE: It's not a terribly 24 important comment, but I just was curious.
25 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Well we're here.
NEAL 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 MEMBER REMPE: It's just something to 2 think about, and maybe it's a timing issue, and you 3 can get back to Quynh on it, and say yeah, it's a 4 timing issue, that other reg guide's not done yet.
5 But it's not particular to this rulemaking, but I 6 thought it was already a done deal, and I was curious.
7 CHAIRMAN BIER: One other point that I 8 had, and I don't know who would be the most 9 knowledgeable to address this, it looks like under the 10 population subheading within this reg guide, I forget 11 what the subsection number is, the requirements for 12 remote siting, or low population areas seem to have 13 been relaxed somewhat, and I just want to understand, 14 is there a specific reason for that? Is that because 15 it's too hard to anticipate future population, or what 16 the thinking is?
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, it looks like 18 Jonathan Fiske from staff is not in the call, but that 19 change does relate to an item in our rule, and 20 responds to -- has to deal with specific impediments 21 to emergency plans. So, that's where that item comes 22 from.
23 CHAIRMAN BIER: All right, I guess I can 24 look into it a little more on my own, or maybe that's 25 something that you want to address in 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
116 1 very briefly, up to you. Anything else on 4.7? Sorry, 2 I cut you off.
3 MR. O'DRISCOLL: No, I'm good.
4 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, SRP 19. So, I have 5 one, or two observations, anybody else have anything 6 on this one that they want to raise?
7 MEMBER REMPE: I do. Again, maybe 8 sometimes this is a thing where the staff had no 9 additional comments, but during our meeting, I 10 mentioned the commissioners, the reference in this 11 chapter about the commissioner's expectation of a 12 reduction in risk in new applications in the operating 13 fleet. And I thought the staff responded back saying 14 yeah, some changes should probably be made to that 15 original version.
16 And I didn't see any changes in the 17 version that has been released, and I just was curious 18 where the staff is on that. Are they just going to 19 let it go, or are they going to make some changes?
20 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, Malcolm, are you on 21 the line, do you want to respond to this one?
22 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, we did not try to fix 23 that problem in this revision. Sorry, this is Malcolm 24 Patterson.
25 MEMBER REMPE: So again, I'm thinking NEAL 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 about where we're going in the future, and we might 2 say that we understand that some things will be 3 changed in the future, and as staff makes those final 4 changes, they might consider, and give you a bulleted 5 list of items, and I don't think I'm hearing any push 6 back on that, that we agree, that yeah, that probably 7 could be better worded.
8 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, I have a couple of 9 items. One is again, there is some language in here 10 that is specific to PWR, and BWR, and I understand why 11 it's there. I wouldn't push to take it out, but I 12 think this just points out some of the issues 13 regarding designs for which we have less experience.
14 Where maybe 20 years from now, there will be specific 15 wording about issues that show up on a specific 16 design, and we just don't know about them yet to put 17 them in here.
18 So, that's just a future uncertainty I 19 guess. The other thing, with regard to ITAAC, which 20 I now understand better, and where somebody said that 21 ITAAC would be subject to a risk-informed 22 prioritization for which of the many zillions of items 23 are going to get checked, and would the adequacy of 24 the PRA typically be considered a high risk priority 25 item, or not necessarily?
NEAL 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 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Malcolm, do you know, is 2 PRA related ITAAC high on the list, do you know off 3 hand?
4 MR. PATTERSON: Malcolm Patterson here.
5 The reason 50.69 did not allow DC applicants, and COL 6 holders to use that rule was because of concerns 7 related to the effect of using PRA at a point where it 8 could interfere with ITAAC. That's as close as I can 9 think of the two ideas coming into conflict. That's 10 all I have to contribute, sorry.
11 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, thank you. Any 12 other questions, comments, or responses on SRP 19?
13 Okay, moving on, next slide is 19.1. Anybody with --
14 MEMBER REMPE: So, this is another 15 example, and I actually went back, and looked at the 16 reg guide, where there are statements again about 17 prior to fuel loading, or at the time of fuel loading 18 again, that would -- things that may need to be 19 changed. There's several places I found this, and I 20 did searches, and so I'm just mentioning that.
21 CHAIRMAN BIER: Thank you. Anything else 22 needed for clarification, or discussion on 19.1? Okay, 23 13.3 I guess.
24 MEMBER HALNON: I think the only question 25 here was relative to the 50.160 rule that's up to 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
119 1 Commission, and whether, or not there was a 2 synchronization with what you're expecting in your 3 changes, and use of 50.160. I think that was really 4 the question, or at least the yearning question. So, 5 is there a synchronization there? I guess for 6 example, if a site came in with, or a design came in 7 with an EPZ within the site boundary, that in 50.160 8 at this point excludes a FEMA review. Would this FEMA 9 review still be done at the siting portion?
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, I believe what we're 11 doing, and again, Jonathan Fiske is not on the line, 12 but what we're doing here is not to conflict with 13 what's going on in that place. So, it comes back to 14 significant impediments to emergency plan, population 15 studies, and those related changes. And I believe we 16 have what we're doing in that other realm in mind, for 17 these changes to be harmonized together.
18 MEMBER HALNON: Yeah, that was my sense, 19 is that this review for the siting would be 20 independent of the emergency planning plan review, 21 which is downstream, and I think that's what the 22 change was supposed to clarify, is that correct?
23 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, so I'm going to have 24 to get back to you on that one. I can't give you a 25 definite answer until --
NEAL 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 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, that's the way I 2 read it, so if it's not that, then we can get back to 3 this in the full committee, but if that's the way it 4 is then we're good then.
5 MR. FISKE: Jim?
6 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Hey Jon, how's it going?
7 MR. FISKE: Yeah, hey, I'm incredibly 8 apologetic that I wasn't here. I've been actually 9 dealing with some personal issues where I'm 10 intermittently working, and I was on to check for 11 emails, and --
12 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Thanks for joining us.
13 So, real quick, we just had a couple of questions 14 about SRP 13.3, and Reg Guide 4.7, and can we just do 15 a re-ask here for Jon?
16 CHAIRMAN BIER: Greg, do you want to frame 17 yours again? Yeah.
18 MEMBER HALNON: Yeah, on 13.3, I was just 19 clarifying, making sure that the FEMA review for the 20 significant impediments, that's independent of the 21 FEMA review for the E plan and off-site plan reviews, 22 is that correct?
23 MR. FISKE: That is correct. The changes 24 that we're proposing in the guidance are more just to 25 define the considerations for siting. Because we'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
121 1 kind of trying to be forward looking for SMRs that 2 potentially have a site boundary EPZ coming online, 3 and stuff. And the way the current regs, and guidance 4 are written is we just discuss a siting analysis for 5 the site in the vicinity without really defining the 6 term vicinity specifically.
7 But because all the previous reactors that 8 we've licensed have a ten mile EPZ, that's kind of 9 just assumed where the siting analysis would be 10 conducted. The FEMA review at that stage, if someone 11 comes in for an ESP, and they're just looking for the 12 site, if the licensee were to identify significant 13 impediments, and then propose mitigative plans, we 14 would consult with FEMA on whether those plans are 15 reasonable, and effective.
16 And still eventually, when they go for 17 their full emergency plan approval, there'd be a full 18 consultation with FEMA for all the off site impacts, 19 and obligations. So, this isn't changing anything 20 about FEMA review per se, it's just providing 21 additional guidance for people who are doing siting.
22 MEMBER HALNON: Okay, and that's the way 23 I read it as well, thank you for clarifying.
24 CHAIRMAN BIER: Great. And Jim, if you 25 wanted to go back to slide 19 on Reg Guide 4.7 now NEAL 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 that we have Jon with us? There we go. Do you have 2 in your notes which point you had wanted him to 3 address Jim? Was that on the remote population siting?
4 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, I think a member of 5 the ACRS just mentioned about there was some changes 6 to the population studies I believe.
7 CHAIRMAN BIER: That was me, so let me 8 just re-ask my question now that Jon is here. It 9 looks Jon, like the little short paragraph, or section 10 on population in 4.7 has been kind of weakened to no 11 longer require sort of remote siting in a non-12 populated area. Is that too generalized to the kind 13 of situation where there's no anticipated consequences 14 beyond the site boundary? And if so, do we need to 15 keep a remote siting requirement for plants that have 16 a larger EPZ?
17 MR. FISKE: Honestly, I'm not comfortable 18 really speaking to this. I didn't work directly on 19 this item, or draft the new guidance.
20 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, that's fine. I see 21 Amy has her hand up.
22 MS. CUBBAGE: Yes, are you speaking to the 23 population density issue?
24 CHAIRMAN BIER: Yes. Yes.
25 MS. CUBBAGE: Before the Commission, NEAL 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 there's a SECY paper -- I don't have the number.
2 There's a SECY paper before the Commission 3 contemplating changes to the population density 4 requirements. Should the Commission approve the 5 staff's recommendation, then there would be a change 6 to Reg Guide 4.7 to implement that, but that's nothing 7 to do with the current rulemaking.
8 CHAIRMAN BIER: It doesn't have to do with 9 the alignment issue?
10 PARTICIPANT: Exactly.
11 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, perfect, thank you.
12 So, I guess we are back on wherever we were at slide 13 22, which is kind of the last document slide. Any 14 further questions, or comments on this? Okay, so in 15 that case, Jim, I think you can go to quickly 16 summarize your future directions.
17 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Great, okay, so this 18 shouldn't take long. So, I just want to recap, and do 19 the next steps. So, we've completed our presentation, 20 and we've hopefully answered your questions. So, 21 we're on slide 24 briefly recapping. The staff will 22 complete the concurrence on the proposed rule, which 23 right now it's actually just completed office level 24 concurrence. After concurrence we will submit the 25 proposed rule to the Commission for vote.
NEAL 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 The staff will hold additional stakeholder 2 meetings during the proposed rule phase. The staff 3 will consider your feedback from this meeting, and I 4 think we got the major comments, so I don't think I 5 need to go through them, because I didn't write them 6 down, but we have it.
7 CHAIRMAN BIER: It'll be in the 8 transcript.
9 MR. O'DRISCOLL: It'll be in the 10 transcript. And then here's the rulemaking schedule.
11 So, slide 25, we're planning to submit the proposed 12 rule to the Commission by May. We expect the final 13 rule to be issued in the fourth quarter of calendar 14 year 2024, and that's really it. There's my contact 15 information, and also Omid's contact information if 16 you need to get a hold of us. And then again, if you 17 need to look -- this is for members of the public.
18 If the public wants to look at this rule, 19 you can look at regulations.gov, you look up docket ID 20 NRC-2009-0196, and then it'll come up with a lot of 21 the public meetings we had, and the reg basis, all 22 that good stuff is there, and that's all I have.
23 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay. So, Quynh, I guess 24 at this point is the appropriate time to open up for 25 any public comments or statements.
NEAL 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 MR. NGUYEN: Yes.
2 CHAIRMAN BIER: And I guess people on 3 Teams can raise their hand, and anybody who is on the 4 phone has to press star six I believe to unmute, is 5 that correct?
6 MR. NGUYEN: Correct.
7 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay. We'll wait a 8 minute, or so to see if anybody is trying to unmute.
9 Okay, hearing no public comments, anybody on the 10 committee, or consultants have last comments they want 11 to share, questions they want to make sure are 12 addressed in full committee, any summaries?
13 MEMBER REMPE: Vicki, this is Joy. I just 14 wanted to thank the staff again for not only 15 accommodating an earlier meeting, but also working to 16 get these reg guides, and the guidance documents 17 released, because it really helps to understand the 18 whole package, and for the patience, and understanding 19 in addressing our questions.
20 CHAIRMAN BIER: I agree with that. Quynh, 21 you have any comments or advice?
22 MR. NGUYEN: Yes, I guess the first thing 23 is since the full committee will be 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> with 24 discussion, if there's any points of emphasis that 25 you'd like Jim, and the staff to know. And I also NEAL 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 have a clarifying point thanks to Chandu. In regard 2 to an earlier statement about the severe accident, 3 it's Appendix D Section VIII.B.5.C, I just want that 4 on the transcript.
5 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, and will you also, 6 or have you sent that out by email, so we don't have 7 to write it down?
8 MR. NGUYEN: I will.
9 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, thank you. Omid?
10 MR. TABATABAI: Yes, thank you Chairman 11 Bier. I just wanted to get back to a question that Dr.
12 Rempe asked earlier during the presentation, we didn't 13 have the answer for that. I checked with the staff, 14 the question was related to what chapters of the SRP 15 the staff's construction permit ISG would impact? So, 16 I asked that question from our contact who is the lead 17 for ISG, and their response is that chapters 2, 3, 7, 18 8, 11, 13, and 15 basically are referenced in the ISG.
19 But the important point that she wanted me 20 to convey is that the ISG supplements, and clarifies 21 the guidance in the NUREG 0800, or the SRP. So, 22 that's -- I just wanted to make sure I pass the 23 information on to you. Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, thank you for --
25 MEMBER REMPE: You can speak faster than NEAL 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 I can type. Chapters 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, and 13?
2 MR. TABATABAI: And 15.
3 MEMBER REMPE: And 15, thank you.
4 MR. TABATABAI: You're welcome.
5 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay, and Quynh, we will 6 definitely get back to you with regard to areas of 7 emphasis. And I know this is all coming up pretty 8 quickly, is there a time line by which you need that?
9 MR. NGUYEN: I'll defer that to Jim.
10 MR. O'DRISCOLL: So, we'd like to be 11 prepared for the meeting on the first. So, obviously, 12 right now we're trying to work on the rule, but if you 13 can give us a little bit of time -- we don't have to 14 worry about releasing anymore documents, so I think 15 that was the biggest issue last time. So, I think --
16 CHAIRMAN BIER: Okay. My guess is, given 17 it's already Friday and I think Monday is a holiday 18 for some people, my guess is that getting you input by 19 Monday would be difficult, but maybe by Tuesday, or 20 Wednesday next week, is that fine?
21 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Yeah, that's great.
22 CHAIRMAN BIER: And again, hopefully it's 23 not new preparation, but just of the existing 24 materials, what would we want you to emphasize during 25 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
128 1 MR. O'DRISCOLL: Okay.
2 CHAIRMAN BIER: All right, any last 3 comments, or questions, concerns? Joy, you have your 4 hand.
5 MEMBER REMPE: So, I'm helping out as my 6 role as chair, and the fact that you're a new member, 7 and maybe I'm over stepping my bounds, and tell me 8 don't do that Joy. But anyway, I think it would be 9 helpful for you to ask the members who were present 10 today to send you their thoughts about what should be 11 in the draft letter, so that it'll make the letter 12 writing go easier in full committee.
13 CHAIRMAN BIER: Sure.
14 MEMBER REMPE: And those kinds of things, 15 because that's something that we often do, and I think 16 this will make the process smoother.
17 CHAIRMAN BIER: Well, and also in addition 18 to that, I will send an email requesting this, but in 19 addition to that, I would also say of course any 20 topics that you would like emphasized in the full 21 committee briefing. So, Scott?
22 MR. MOORE: Yes, just in closing, I'd like 23 to thank all of the ACRS staff, and second Chairman 24 Rempe's comments for all of the work that the staff 25 put in this week. So, 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
129 1 CHAIRMAN BIER: And NRC staff, in addition 2 to ACRS staff, I realize it takes a lot of patience to 3 go through all these detailed questions. Okay, with 4 that, if there are no further questions or comments, 5 I think we are adjourned. Thank you all.
6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 7 off the record at 12:48 p.m.)
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. ML22046A035 ACRS Subcommittee Briefing:
Content of Proposed Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Incorporate Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing February 18, 2022 1
OPENING REMARKS Vicki Bier - Subcommittee Chairman Brian Smith - Director, Division of New and Renewed Licenses, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2
Todays Meeting
- Provide an update on the effort since the last ACRS meeting on this rulemaking (meeting slides and materials: ADAMS Accession No. ML22020A000)
- Address in more depth ACRS members questions and comments provided during the last meeting
- Discuss specifics of proposed changes to guidance documents that support the draft proposed rule
- Provide an update on next steps and the rulemaking schedule
- Receive ACRS members perspectives 3
NRC STAFF PRESENTATION 4
NRC Staff Presenters Jim ODriscoll, NMSS Rulemaking Project Manager Omid Tabatabai, NRR Senior Project Manager 5
Topics for Further Discussion
- Entry conditions for part 50/52/53/53-T
- Cumulative effects of changes on the design when the plant is built
- Physical security of mobile reactors/assembled reactor cores shipped to a facility
- Flexibility for changes related to digital I&C
- Transfer of DC information to other vendors (NRCs role)
- Definition of essentially complete design
- Cutoff accident frequency for credible accidents 6
Entry Conditions for Licensing Processes
- There are no planned entry conditions for Part 50 or Part 52 (open to all technology)
- Part 53 will meet the provisions of NEIMA and provide risk-informed licensing pathways to applicants
- In addition, Part 53 will be technology inclusive 7
Cumulative Effects of Changes During Construction
- Part 50 and Part 52 remain distinct processes
- Part 52 is based on:
- Essentially complete nuclear plant design
- Final design information
- Resolution of all safety issues
- Finality for resolutions in subsequent proceedings 8
Physical Security of Mobile Reactors/
Assembled Reactor Cores
- The proposed changes in this rule do not affect this issue
- Mobile reactors are not being considered in rulemaking
- Requirements would be triggered by arrival of the fueled reactor
- Before arrival, access is controlled as it is currently for reactor construction sites 9
Review of Changes Related to Digital I&C
- Endorsement of NEI-96-07 Appendix D unaffected
- RG 1.187 unaffected
- Current interim staff guidance unaffected
- No changes to 10 CFR 50.55a(h) in this rulemaking 10
Review of Changes Related to Digital I&C (contd)
- Staff will ask for the level of detail necessary to meet a safety finding
- Design acceptance criteria is not needed
- Proposed change process for standard design approvals would use current methods 11
Transfer of DC Information to Other Vendors
- The proposed rule does not affect the responsibilities of vendors in this area
- Existing regulations and reviews ensure design errors are evaluated and reported, vendor qualifications are considered
- E.g., 10 CFR 50.46(a)(3)(i) through (iii),
Appendix B to Part 50, Part 21
- E.g., STP COL review considered alternate vendor qualifications 12
Definition of Essentially Complete Design
- Essentially complete is a unique term to Part 52 DCs
- CP level of detail must be sufficient to make 10 CFR 50.34(a) and 50.35 findings
- RG 1.70
- CP Interim Staff Guidance
- No intentional distinction between evolutionary and differs significantly designs within 10 CFR 52.41 13
Cutoff Accident Frequency for Credible Accidents
- A discrete cutoff accident frequency for credible accidents is not defined
- The changes to 10 CFR 50.59(c) would align the Part 50 change process with Part 52, with regard to consideration of severe accidents
- This rulemaking does not further define credible or what is substantial 14
Proposed Updates to Guidance Documents
- RG 1.206 (Applications)
- RG 1.187 (Changes, Tests, and Experiments)
- RG 4.7 (Site Suitability Criteria)
- SRP 13.3 (Emergency Planning) 15
RG 1.206 (Applications)
Purpose:
Unchangedprovide guidance on the format and content of applications for Part 52 nuclear power plants
- Rulemaking items driving changes:
- PRA
- Design scope and standardization
- Contents of applications
- Physical security
- Change process 16
RG 1.187 (Changes, Tests, and Experiments)
Purpose:
Unchangedprovide an acceptable method for use in complying with regulations related to changes, tests, and experiments
- Rulemaking item driving changes:
- Severe accident treatment requirements; new criteria 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(ix) and (x).
- Guidance applies to future Part 50 licensees 17
RG 1.200 (Acceptability of PRA Results)
Purpose:
Unchangedprovide an acceptable method to determine if a PRA is adequate to support an application
- Rulemaking item driving changes:
- Use of PRA in design
- Expands applicability to Part 50
- Guidance applies to future Part 50 applicants 18
RG 4.7 (Site Suitability Criteria)
Purpose:
Describe the major site characteristics related to public health and safety and environmental issues that NRC considers in determining the suitability of sites for light-water-cooled nuclear power stations
- Rulemaking item driving changes:
- Significant impediments to development of emergency plans
- Changes address siting criteria for ESP reviews conducted under 10 CFR 52.17(b)(1) 19
SRP 19.0 (PRA and Severe Accident Evaluation)
Purpose:
- Guides NRC staff review of PRA for a DC, ML, COL, CP, and OL application
- Guide staff in deterministic evaluation of severe accident design features
- Rulemaking items driving changes:
- Severe accident treatment requirements
- Use of PRA in design
- Guidance applies to future new reactor licensing reviews under Part 50 20
SRP 19.1 (Technical Adequacy of PRA Results)
Purpose:
Guides NRC staff review of the technical adequacy of PRA used to support a DC, ML, COL, CP, and OL application
- Rulemaking items driving changes:
- Severe accident treatment requirements
- Use of PRA in design
- Guidance applies to future new reactor licensing reviews under Part 50 21
SRP 13.3 (Emergency Planning)
Purpose:
Guides NRC staff review of the applicants emergency planning, as described in the safety analysis report associated with the CP, OL, or COL application
- Rulemaking items driving changes:
- Significant impediments to development of emergency plans
- Three Mile Island requirements
- Changes provide additional guidance on conducting a siting analysis and update references 22
Questions 23
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 24
Rulemaking Schedule Submit proposed Issue final rule to the rule Commission May 2022 October 2024 25
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 26
How to Stay Informed and Involved
- Search regulations.gov on the docket ID NRC-2009-0196
- Press the Subscribe button to receive alerts about updates to the docket 27
SUPPORTING INFORMATION 28
Abbreviations ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor LAR License Amendment Request Safeguards LWR Light-Water Reactor ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and ML Manufacturing License Management System NEI Nuclear Energy Institute AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended NEIMA Nuclear Energy Innovation and CFR Code of Federal Regulations Modernization Act COL Combined License NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and CP Construction Permit Safeguards DAC Design Acceptance Criteria NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission DC Design Certification NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DG Draft Regulatory Guide OL Operating License ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment EP Emergency Planning RG Regulatory Guide ESP Early Site Permit SDA Standard Design Approval FFD Fitness For Duty SECY Office of the Secretary FRN Federal Register Notice SRP Standard Review Plan FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report SSC Structure, System, and Component I&C Instrumentation and Controls STP South Texas Project ISG Interim Staff Guidance TMI Three Mile Island ITAAC Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria 29
References ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 3, Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear ML011340122 Power Plants: LWR Edition, dated November 1978 SECY-90-241, Level of Detail Required for Design Certification Under Part 52, dated July 11, 1990 ML003707877 IEEE Std. 603-1991, Standard Criteria for Safety Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, dated https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
December 31, 1991 document/159411 NEI 01-01/EPRI TR-102348, Revision 1, Guideline on Licensing Digital Upgrades, dated March 2002 ML020860169 NEI 00-04, Revision 0, 10 CFR 50.69 SSC Categorization Guideline, dated July 2005 ML052910035 Regulatory Guide 1.201, Revision 1, Guidelines for Categorizing Structures, Systems, and Components ML061090627 in Nuclear Power Plants According to Their Safety Significance, dated May 2006 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power ML063410307 Plants: LWR Edition, Chapter 13.3, Revision 3, Emergency Planning, dated March 2007 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power ML12193A107 Plants: LWR Edition, Chapter 19.1, Revision 3, Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities, dated September 2012 Regulatory Guide 4.7, Revision 3, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations, dated ML12188A053 March 2014 NEI 96-07, Appendix C, Revision 0 - Corrected, Guideline for Implementation of Change Processes for ML14091A739 New Nuclear Power Plants Licensed Under 10 CFR Part 52, dated March 2014 Results of Periodic Review of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.201, dated April 23, 2015 ML15091A788 30
References (contd)
ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation Interim Staff Guidance COL-ISG-025, Changes During Construction Under 10 CFR Part 52, dated July ML15058A377 2015 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power ML15089A068 Plants: LWR Edition, Chapter 19.0, Revision 3, Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Severe Accident Evaluation for New Reactors, dated December 2015 International Atomic Energy Agency, Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR 2/1, Revision 1, Safety of https://www.iaea.org/
Nuclear Power Plants: Design, dated February 2016 publications/8771/
safety-of-nuclear-power-plants-design NRC Letter to NEI Related to the Public Meeting of March 28, 2018, Regarding Avoiding Delays in ML18123A245 Issuance of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Combined Licenses, dated May 9, 2018 Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2002-22, Supplement 1, Clarification on Endorsement of Nuclear Energy ML18143B633 Institute Guidance in Designing Digital Upgrades in Instrumentation and Control Systems, dated May 31, 2018 Regulatory Guide 1.206, Revision 1, Applications for Nuclear Power Plants, dated October 2018 ML18131A181 DI&C-ISG-06, Revision 2, Licensing Process, dated December 2, 2018 ML18269A259 NEI 18-04, Revision 1, Risk-Informed Performance-Based Technology Inclusive Guidance for Non Light ML19241A472 Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development, dated August 2019 NEI Letter to the NRC, Part 50/52 Lessons Learned Rulemaking, dated March 9, 2020 ML20108F543 NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Revision 1, Supplemental Guidance for Application of 10 CFR 50.59 to Digital ML20135H168 Modifications, dated May 2020 31
References (contd)
ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation Public Meeting to Discuss the Status of Rulemaking to Align Licensing Processes and Apply Lessons ML20141L609 Learned from New Reactor Licensing [NRC-2009-0196; RIN 3150-AI66] held April 29, 2020, dated May 26, 2020 Regulatory Guide 1.233, Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based ML20091L698 Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light Water Reactors, dated June 2020 NRC Letter to NEI, Part 50/52 Lessons-Learned Rulemaking: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ML20156A308 Transparency and Stakeholder Engagement, dated September 8, 2020 Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 3, An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of ML20238B871 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities, dated December 2020 Regulatory Guide 1.237, Revision 0, Guidance for Changes During Construction for New Nuclear Power ML20349A335 Plants Being Constructed Under a Combined License Referencing a Certified Design Under 10 CFR Part 52, dated February 2021 Design Review Guide (DRG): Instrumentation and Controls for Non-Light-Water Reactor (Non-LWR) ML21011A140 Reviews, dated February 26, 2021 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power https://www.nrc.gov/reading Plants: LWR Edition, last reviewed/updated March 9, 2021 -rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr08 00/index.html NEI, Industry Comments on the Regulatory Basis for Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons ML21144A164 Learned from New Reactor Licensing (Docket ID: NRC-2009-0196), dated May 14, 2021 32
References (contd)
ADAMS Accession Document Title Number/FR Citation Regulatory Guide 1.187, Revision 3, Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and ML21109A002 Experiments, dated June 2021 NUREG-1021, Revision 12, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, dated ML21256A276 September 2021 Draft Interim Staff Guidance; Request for Comment, Safety Review of Light-Water Power-Reactor 86 FR 71101 Construction Permit Applications, dated December 14, 2021 Draft FRN to Support ACRS Subcommittee Meeting - 10 CFR Part 50/52 Rulemaking to Align Licensing ML22020A002 Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing, dated January 27, 2022 ACRS Subcommittee Public Meeting - NRC Presentation for 10 CFR Part 50/52 Rulemaking to Align ML22020A001 Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing, dated February 1, 2022 Draft Guidance Documents to Support ACRS Subcommittee Meeting Regarding Part 50/52 Proposed ML22040A074 Rulemaking, dated February 15, 2022 33
Changes to Tier 1 Information Without Prior NRC Approval
- Industry desires more flexibility
- Additional process changes are not recommended due to experience with only one referenced DC
- Limited by the Atomic Energy Act 34
Operators Licensing NUREG-1021 Changes
- Permit the use of suitable alternatives in lieu of the plant walkthrough portion of the operating test while the facility is under construction
- Permit waivers for examination and test requirements for multiple unit sites of the same design
- Require actions that would ensure that an operator license applicants knowledge, skills, and abilities are maintained when there would be a significant amount of time between when the applicant successfully passes the licensing exam and completes the remaining requirements to be licensed
- Amend the definitions of plant-referenced simulator and reference plant to clarify that these terms are also applicable to simulators that model nuclear power plants that are under construction 35
Status of RG 1.201 Development of regulation and guidance:
- 10 CFR 50.69 issued in 2004
- NEI 00-04 issued in final form in 2005
- RG 1.201 issued for trial use in 2006
- First application in 2014
- Summary of issues in 2015 Many changes are needed to address use of the rule before construction 36